Over on the thread The folly of blaming the Eastern U.S. heat wave on global warming there is a lively discussion going on between people that think the Eastern US heatwave hype by media and a few activist scientists is just bunk -vs- the defenders of the faith that insist it is a signature of global warming climate change climate disruption. Generally, these defenders are people that only look forward using model projections and pronouncements made by the IPCC, rather than look back at historical data and the propensity for nature to create such extremes, such as the nearly identical weather pattern that led to the 2010 Russian heatwave in which “climate change” was found blameless in a peer reviewed paper by NOAA.

In that thread there’s a comment by Gail Combs in response to the defenders of the faith (typically hit and run anonymous cowards) that I though worthy of elevating to a full post.

Gail Combs says:

July 8, 2012 at 5:47 am

Mr. B. says: July 7, 2012 at 6:48 pm

The IPCC and the National Academy of Science believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. Over 95% of Scientist worldwide believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. If you don’t want to believe it you don’t have to. But I for one am more willing to listen to the conclusions of people who have devoted their education, time, study and energy to this issue than to some guy with a blog……

____________________________________

As a scientist, I KNOW other scientists will lie through their teeth when it comes to money or their career. I have had plenty of direct experience of outright lying and falsification of data. I have also been fired more than once for refusing to falsify data upon direct order from my superior.

My personal experience with the “Honesty” and “Integrity” of scientists is that it is rare, most will go along with the herd or with higher authority rather than stick their neck out.

In my entire career I found only one other person willing to stand up for what was right instead of going along with what was easiest. She was also fired for her honesty. Most people are followers not leaders. I have read somewhere only one in two hundred is actually a leader and to control a group all that is needed is to identify and break that leader. That is what saying there is a “Consensus” and the labeling and denigrating of those who don’t go with the flow is all about. That practice alone should make people wonder about “The Science” Real science is about the quest for truth and facts not following “Authority” not being a member of the “A” list.

Here is the current state of “Honesty” in Science:

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data …..Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis. A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others. Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

More articles about the lack of honesty in science.

A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform

ScienceDaily: US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds

A few individual cases:

In a July 26 letter to Cetero, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration describes the falsification as “extensive,” calling into question all bioanalytical data collected by Cetero’s Houston bioanalytical laboratory from April 1, 2005 to June 15, 2010. The FDA said Cetero manipulated test samples so the tests would yield desired results….

UConn officials said their internal review found 145 instances over seven years in which Dr. Dipak Das fabricated and falsified data, and the U.S. Office of Research Integrity has launched an independent investigation of his work.

The inquiry found that Stapel, former professor of cognitive social psychology and dean of Tilburg’s school of social and behavioural sciences, fabricated data published in at least 30 scientific publications, inflicting “serious harm” on the reputation and career opportunities of young scientists entrusted to him. Some 35 co-authors are implicated in the publications, dating from 2000 to 2006

The United States Attorney’s Office..announced that a felony Information has been filed …. During the time period alleged in the Information, Grimes resided in Boalsburg, Pennsylvania, and was a Professor of Material Science and Engineering at The Pennsylvania State University.

LISTINGS:

Retraction Watch

.naturalnews.com:Scientific fraud news, articles and information

Many here at WUWT have a degree in science, engineering or the maths. That is why we smell something very fishy with the IPCC and “The Science”

This is what Forty citizen auditors found when they looked at “the United Nations’ Nobel-winning climate bible.. the gold standard.”

…Contrary to statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the celebrated 2007 report does not rely solely on research published in reputable scientific journals. It also cites press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, working papers, student theses, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called “grey literature.” We’ve been told this report is the gold standard. We’ve been told it’s 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have not come within a mile of a scientific journal. Based on the grading system used in US schools, 21 chapters in the IPCC report receive an F (they cite peer-reviewed sources less than 60% of the time), 4 chapters get a D, and 6 get a C. There are also 5 Bs and 8 As…. http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/04/14/climate-bible-gets-21-fs-on-report-card/

Sorry, the more we dig, and look at the data we can get our hands on (as any true scientist is required to do) the more it stinks. “The Team” knows this and that is why the data was not released upon simple requests, Freedom of Information Acts and when push finally came to shove the data was “Lost”

Phil Jones: The Dog Ate My Homework

From the “A goat ate my homework” excuse book: NIWA reveals NZ original climate data missing

Lonnie and Ellen, A Serial Non-Archiving Couple

Eduardo Zorita, Scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research, specialist in Paleoclimatology, Review Editor of Climate Research and IPCC co-author, calls for barring Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and Stefan Rahmstorf from further IPCC participation

If you want more on the supposed “Integrity” of those you seem to believe in see: WUWT Climategate links