Hockey Stick Science: Does New Study On Quack Science Suggest Michael Mann Has Harmed Climate Science?

The climate science community literally went off the rails with the new 'hockey stick' science introduced by Michael Mann - from utilization of questionable statistical techniques to the ugly Climategate and Fakegate fiascoes, a 'dark science force' was unleashed which is still reverberating

(click on image to enlarge - image source)

Read here. There is a growing consensus among experts that bogus science does significant and irreparable harm to both the science community and the general public. And there is a greater realization that bogus science is happening way too frequently.

A new study takes a crack at the quantification of bogus "questionable research practices" (QRP). Below are a few findings and quotes related to the study:

• "John et al. used multiple methods to assess the prevalence of questionable research practices (QRP) among psychology researchers.  They found a surprising high prevalence of such practices in their study."
• "...simulations that showed how greatly QRPs increase the likelihood of finding support for a false hypothesis. QRPs are the steroids of scientific competition, artificially enhancing performance and producing a kind of arms race in which researchers who strictly play by the rules are at a competitive disadvantage. QRPs, by nature of the very fact that they are often questionable as opposed to blatantly improper, also offer considerable latitude for rationalization and self-deception."
• "QRPs can waste researchers’ time and stall scientific progress, as researchers fruitlessly pursue extensions of effects that are not real and hence cannot be replicated. More generally, the prevalence of QRPs raises questions about the credibility of research findings and threatens research integrity by producing unrealistically elegant results that may be difficult to match without engaging in such practices oneself. This can lead to a “race to the bottom,” with questionable research begetting even more questionable research."

For a better understanding (and a fascinating read to boot) of the 'hockey stick' science disaster, read this book. Read a previous 'C3' summary on the same subject.

Previous peer-reviewed postings.