L'onesta verità sulla disonestà

Anche in Brasile, si è parlato del paper ritrattato di LaCour & Green sulla capacità di persuasione degli attivisti politici gay, dice Richard van Noorden di Nature che sonda le opinioni degli “esperti” in disonestà scientifica:

The world’s largest gathering of specialists in research misconduct kicked off on 31 May in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, shortly after science’s latest scandal broke. On the evening before the start of sessions on how to diagnose and remedy ethical faults in research, delegates to the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity sipped caipirinhas, Brazil’s national cocktail — and swapped views on what could be gleaned from a flawed political-science study.

Il programma della conferenza è spaventoso. Comunque quest’anno c ‘è anche questo:

The new Italian guidelines on research integrity in the European context, presentation Ilja Richard Pavone

link aggiunti. Al CNR, le linee guida dovrebbero essere queste (pp. 7-8, il resto riguarda corruzione, abusi di atti d’ufficio, conflitti d’interesse).

Mmm… conviene (ri)leggere l’intervento di Dan Ariély alla conferenza dell’anno scorso, “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty“.

Dall’editoriale di Nature:

Some scientists do cheat, of course, just as some scientists drive too fast, take drugs and are unfaithful to their spouses. The reasons are complex and varied. With some exceptions, scientific organizations do not engage with the issue of misconduct as seriously as they should. Why would they, when public confidence and (moral and financial) support remains so high?
… although high-profile fraud makes headlines, a broader and more common set of unappealing behaviours — from corner-cutting to data-juggling — lie under the surface. Convention says that a tiny minority of scientists cheats, yet academics and researchers frequently make the case that irregularities are widespread. A 2014 survey of hundreds of economists, for example, found that 94% admitted to having engaged in at least one “unaccepted” research practice  (S. Necker Res. Policy 43, 1747–1759; 2014).

*

A proposito di quelli che barano, Mark Richardson, Zeke Hausfather, Dana A. Nuccitelli, Ken Rice e John P. Abraham pubblicano

Misdiagnosis of Earth climate sensitivity based on energy balance model results

una demolizione delle vecchie bufale che Sua Signoria Lord Christopher Monckton e di Willie “Big Oil & Coal” Soon avevano riciclato su una rivista cinese per conto dello Heartland Institute.

Abstract appetitoso:

Monckton of Brenchley et al. (Sci Bull 60:122–135, 2015) (hereafter called M15) use a simple energy balance model to estimate climate response.

• They select parameters for this model based on semantic arguments, leading to different results from those obtained in physics-based studies.
• M15 did not validate their model against observations, but instead created synthetic test data based on subjective assumptions.
• We show that M15 systematically underestimate warming: since 1990, most years were warmer than their modelled upper limit.
• During 2000–2010, RMS error and bias are approximately 150 % and 350 % larger than for the CMIP5 median, using either the Berkeley Earth or Cowtan and Way surface temperature data.
• We show that this poor performance can be explained by a logical flaw in the parameter selection and that selected parameters contradict observational estimates.

Purtroppo il resto è paywalled. ATTP (un degli autori) fa un mini riassunto, perché

I expect a couple of others articles out soon, that I shall link to when they’re live. I don’t think, therefore, that I really need to say too much. 

Essenza delle picconate a cura di Rose Andreatta, con grafico delle temperature inventate da Monckton et al. (M15) in rosa saracinesca; idem Dana Nuccitelli sul Guardian, e Mark Richardson su Skeptical Science.

*

Su Nature Climate Change, esce un modello di Grégory Beaugrand et al. sulla “vulnerabilità delle specie marine“

Our results indicate that local species loss will be a prominent phenomenon of climate warming in permanently stratified regions, and that local species invasion will prevail in temperate and polar biomes under all climate change scenarios.

E’ un modello molto semplificato, tengono conto delle temperature solo alla superficie, e non c’è niente sull’acidificazione.

*

Sui PNAS, un numero pazzesco di autori stima il numero delle specie di alberi. Pare che sia la prima volta:

Using a pantropical tree inventory database from closed canopy forests, consisting of 657,630 trees belonging to 11,371 species, we use a fitted value of Fisher’s alpha and an approximate pantropical stem total to estimate the minimum number of tropical forest tree species to fall between 40,000 and 53,000, i.e., at the high end of previous estimates. Contrary to common assumption, the Indo-Pacific region was found to be as species-rich as the Neotropics, with both regions having a minimum of 19,000–25,000 tree species. Continental Africa is relatively depauperate with a minimum of 4,500–6,000 tree species.

L’Europa è ancora più depauperata, ha soltanto 124 specie.

***

Alle 7.30 di questa mattina, al CERN  l’LHC è entrato in funzione a 13 TeV, i primi fasci erano da buttare, ma poi è andata di bene in meglio, altre immagini delle collisioni e champagne. Reportage su Nature.

Nota per Marco: noi siamo sintonizzati, ma tu quand’è che trasmetti le novità?

Una brutta notizia, Leo Lederman (qui nella fattoria del Fermilab insieme alla moglie Ellen)  non sta bene.