Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.
More bogus science
"Further study is needed..." those words, perhaps the most frequently occurring in academic writing are code for "give us more money." But in recent years some in the academic community have turned to another clarion call to feed their bank accounts: The predict disasters of biblical proportion unless the rest of us go along with what they want to be done. Some, not content to garner more grants, have seen the disaster methodology as a way to make more money, typically through high priced speaking engagements and consulting on the spending of tons of government money.
Such appears to be a large part of the "global warming" disaster that has been in the headlines in recent years. Now, we learn even more about the fraud that the leaders in the global warming community were perpetuating on the rest of us. A second batch of emails from the East Anglia Climate Research Center has been released and it shows it was even worse than originally thought.
Click here to read more about that story. What's clear to us is that the global warming "science" is more of a fraud than anything else.
But there exists another major weakness in much of the academic research. It is not so much fraud but rather sloppy and bogus research design and bogus interpretation of data.
We reported last week on a "study" used by the State's public health director to justify banning smoking in restaurants and bars. In that case one of the highest paid, and supposedly best educated, state employees confused coincidence with causation. But unfortunately, that happens all the time.
Then right here in Beaufort County we were treated to yet another sample of bogus "research." At a public hearing on building a wind mill farm in Beaufort County several speakers threw out a bunch of numbers to show, they said, the tremendous impact of "tourism" on Beaufort County's economy. The problem with those numbers is that they are simply
bogus. They do not even pass the rudimentary academic test of replication and verification by peer review. In fact, if you dig into the N. C. Department of Commerce's methodology for computing spending and economic impact of tourism you find that they will not disclose how they derive their numbers. They hold secret both their methodology and raw data. They contract with a private third party to generate the numbers to be released to the public (and you have to know that third party knows what they numbers need to be). But if you contact the contractor they refuse to disclose either their raw data or the methodology they apply to the data to come up with the numbers. "It's a proprietary formula..." they tell us.
And yet another example in the bogus application of "science" was seen in the delay in the building of the U. S. 17 By-pass. They threw dozens of people out of work because the State said the pile driving would disturb spawning fish in the Tar River. Never mind that they have no (yep, absolutely NO) scientific data to support this conclusion.
Now we're treated to yet another example of bogus science.
It seems that recently scientists issued a warning that the caribou in Canada were disappearing, and as some concluded because of global warming.
That was akin to the now disgraced science that polar bears were dying because of global warming. Turns out the guy who postulated the polar bear hypothesis has been fired and is now being investigated.
The caribou story is essentially the same. Some scientist(s) observed that a breeding ground in Canada where thousands of caribou once had their caves was virtually deserted.
But even though they had no data they concluded it was being caused by global warming and issued the alert to impose tough government sanctions (like stopping the bridge building) on development. Now, it turns out, the caribou had simply chosen another breeding ground. They've since been "found."
Interestingly, the natives in the area tried to tell these really smart people that the caribou had simply moved and they would eventually return. That's been going on for ages. But the global warming alarmists wanted no part of that knowledge so now they end up with egg on their face.
Click here to read more on that story.
And remember all this the next time some scientist predicts a disaster, particularly if it is related to burning fossil fuels or global warming. Be skeptical....as any good scientist would be.
