The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science
rogerpielkejr.substack.com
The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science
1–10 of 141 posts
Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science
#2Maybe off the wall, but my first thought is certificate revocation. Could there be (or is there already) a semi-centralized database of research that should no longer be cited? With maybe a dependency graph of research that maybe needs to be revisited?
Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science
#3The graph shows emissions trajectories projected by the most commonly used climate scenarios (called SSP5-8.5 and RCP8.5, with labels on the right vertical axis), along with other scenario trajectories. Actual emissions to date (dark purple curve) and those of near-term energy outlooks (labeled as EIA, BP and ExxonMobil) all can be found at the very low end of the scenario range, and far below the most commonly used scenarios.
RCP 8.5 was intended as the highest-emissions scenario, not the most likely scenario.
"RCP 8.5—A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions (2011)"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y
This paper summarizes the main characteristics of the RCP8.5 scenario. The RCP8.5 combines assumptions about high population and relatively slow income growth with modest rates of technological change and energy intensity improvements, leading in the long term to high energy demand and GHG emissions in absence of climate change policies. Compared to the total set of Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), RCP8.5 thus corresponds to the pathway with the highest greenhouse gas emissions.
Even 10 years ago, when this paper was published, it was apparent that technology and energy intensity were improving more than the RCP 8.5 scenario posited. I don't know if RCP 8.5 has since been misused as a most common scenario, but the original post quoted above doesn't quantify that either.
Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science
#4Maybe off the wall, but my first thought is certificate revocation. Could there be (or is there already) a semi-centralized database of research that should no longer be cited? With maybe a dependency graph of research that maybe needs to be revisited?
I've thinking how to make this idea work, but the more I think about it the less I think it's viable.
First, you would be centralizing the ability to "cancel" papers. One bad member of the board could wreak havok. Simultaneously, people in charge of the database would be constantly bombarded by pleas (not all of them honest) to revoke this and that researcher's paper. So it would be bad for both sides.
You could get away with something like Retraction Watch, but you'll always be behind - you could keep track of which papers were retracted (which is already a lot of work), but not every paper that needs to be revised is retracted.
I guess figuring out a perfect system for deciding which ideas are right is hard.
Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science
#5It's been a long time since i've read anything so well written that was so devoid of any pertinent points. I'm only reading that page, but the only thing i've come away with is that breast cancer research is flawed, somehow, by what seems to be the most egregious lack of anything that approaches professional standards on the part of researchers.
Oh, and a graph with different lines drawn on it with a large space between some of them.
Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science
#6Maybe off the wall, but my first thought is certificate revocation. Could there be (or is there already) a semi-centralized database of research that should no longer be cited? With maybe a dependency graph of research that maybe needs to be revisited?
Science's decentralized nature is a strength, not a weakness. Do you really think such a database would be immune to coercion from, say, Monsanto or Chevron?
Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science
#7Maybe off the wall, but my first thought is certificate revocation. Could there be (or is there already) a semi-centralized database of research that should no longer be cited? With maybe a dependency graph of research that maybe needs to be revisited?
Maybe instead of a centralized repository, individuals could be given the ability to create their own partial sets of recommendations that could be aggregated by a user. Instead of trying to globally solve trust and designation of expertise, you explicitly define the group of people whom you designate experts and whose assessments you trust.
Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science
#8Global warming?
Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science
#9Maybe off the wall, but my first thought is certificate revocation. Could there be (or is there already) a semi-centralized database of research that should no longer be cited? With maybe a dependency graph of research that maybe needs to be revisited?
WOT signed endorsements. Back when I had time I drafted a P2P application to share papers and execute peer review via GPG based digital signatures. Signed metadata - at least that was the plan - allowed communities to endorse, retract, flag spam in a distributed opt-in manner.
It's rotting on GitHub, never managed to drum up enough interest...
Re: The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science
#10This reminds me of a talk I watched about research into human pheromones.
The speaker talked about how literature and studies on pheromones all lead back to 1 or 2 old studies that were basically considered bunk, but researchers kept citing it, and other researchers would also cite the other studies that linked back to the original low-quality studies. His point was that the whole field of research into human pheromones needs to blow away all the literature up to this point and start over because the whole thing is so tainted, and few are willing to actually make sense of what's true or false with what currently exists because so much of it is self-referential.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least that there are other areas of science that border on needing to start from scratch.
EDIT: I believe it may have been this talk, but I don't have time to scan the whole thing just yet. It looks like he begins talking about the problematic research after ~17 minutes. It's still worth watching none the less: