Finding reputible data?

[Evalind]

My husband, an INTP, has strongly taken to the "global warming is a liberal, politically motivated, hoax" side of the environmental debate. (He listens to a lot of conservative radio - Glenn Beck and such.)

I can't help but think that the view he's adopted is just as incorrect as the folks who think the planet is going to cease to exist in the next 10 years if we don't eliminate all human generated greenhouse gases. There has to be a happy medium, and I'd like him to be more open to simple things like recycling, but he spouts "facts" about how it's less environmentally taxing over all to make a new soda can than to recycle one. (He hasn't given me any sources of data, just "facts" that seem very convenient for his preferences. I have yet to search for contradictory info due to being lazy, so yeah, I suck too. :p)

Anyway... how do you decide if a study/report is worth considering? What do you look for when figuring out if something is credible, or at least semi-credible? I'd like to know how to approach any data I do find in the future.

[brewmaster]

Scientifically, I only consider peer reviewed journals to have even the slightest amount of validity. Even then I have to carefully read their Materials and Methods section to gather an understanding of what they have proven/claim to have proven.

Problem with journals is that today journals want impact. Therefore, researchers trying to get in the best journals will make speculations as to what their data actually means in their Discussion sections. Frequently, I see people cite what has been claimed in a Discussion section. Although this is not a false method of science writing, sometimes it can mislead. People can misunderstand what they actually said, and take it as truth. Which in reality what shows up in a Discussion is the researchers take on the data.

If it is said on the web or mainstream media, I consider it completely false until proven reasonably valid through my own investigations, and usually that only involves the topics that I have prior knowledge of. If I am not already knowledgeable on said topic, I will take it as a data point, but would never cite it.

With respect to making a new can versus recycling, I have heard more than one data point suggesting that is an old fallacy. I will tell you that I do not have sources to cite for that. But, I do remember one of them being reputable enought that I have taken that fallacy as being a fallacy.

Regarding the global warming debate; an ENTJ friend of mine, who works in this area, and I respect his opinions greatly, summed it up the best that anyone possibly could. His conclusion was that the Earth has experienced levels of CO2 greater than what we are experiencing right now, and even greater. The data presented in Al Gore's movie is somewhat misleading because he did not present the total picture. The greatest problem is that the prior CO2 spikes were not due to human causes, rather so called natural processes. This current CO2 spike is undoubtedly due to human intervention. The consequences of this spike are completely unknown. It hasn't happened before, so we have little to be able to predict the consequences of this action.

I'm going to bed now.

[blueback]

I love facts and statistics. . .in the same way I love sex dolls. They are just as pliable and I have the same opinion of anyone who uses them.

It is very, very difficult to find objective data. First, someone has to ask the question, then someone has to fund the research, then someone has to actually do the research, then someone has to analyze the data, then someone has to interpret the data, then someone has to write about the data. Notice that every one of those steps required a person and people always have biases. Even when they are legitimately objective they make mistakes.

I think the global warming debate is fueled by scientists who love the idea of having a moral crusade which is backed up by science. The same people who scream that we have to stop greenhouse gas emissions also get REALLY upset when engineers propose ways to cool the earth without limiting greenhouse gas emissions (reflective particles for example).

That being said, I support the debate. The more that is said about it, no matter how trite, the more people realize that fossil fules are non-sustainable. If we don't want to return to building our houses out of rocks we need to switch to an unlimited source of energy. A good step towards that objective is fuels that are non-sustainable, but will at least be there when the oil runs out.

[brewmaster]

It is very, very difficult to find objective data. First, someone has to ask the question, then someone has to fund the research, then someone has to actually do the research, then someone has to analyze the data, then someone has to interpret the data, then someone has to write about the data. Notice that every one of those steps required a person and people always have biases. Even when they are legitimately objective they make mistakes.


In most cases the person who asks the question, does the research, analyzes the data, interprets the data, and writes it, is the same person, no matter how many authors are listed (I am speaking from an agiricultural research perspective, I cannot speak for other areas of research, however generally in the university setting this is the case). As a scientist I am very unbiased. I may have desires to see where the direction goes, but it never would cloud my judgement on the data, if it were the opposite of what I wanted, I would report it so, despite the source of the funding. We make mistakes sometimes, yes, but in general we do not.

[blueback]

I may have desires to see where the direction goes, but it never would cloud my judgement on the data, if it were the opposite of what I wanted, I would report it so, despite the source of the funding. We make mistakes sometimes, yes, but in general we do not.

Then you are, in my understanding, in a unique position. My impression (and I'm not a research scientist but my Mom is) most pure scientists are looking for three things, money to fund their research, research data which is publishable, and glory for publishing something first. I'm not saying that they can't have pure motivations, I'm just saying that most of the rewards go to those who accept that they are living in a capitalist society, and treat their research as a 'for profit' activity.

I'm confident that most scientist don't make mistakes in their methodology or conclusions. What I meant at the end of that list was that once they publish their findings they will be interpreted and written about by others. There are plenty of good research projects that conclude, present their findings, and subsequently see their research project cited in a woman's magazine as a way to prevent cancer. Apparently the women in America think that Woman's Health is a beacon of scientific journalism.

[brewmaster]

Then you are, in my understanding, in a unique position. My impression (and I'm not a research scientist but my Mom is) most pure scientists are looking for three things, money to fund their research, research data which is publishable, and glory for publishing something first. I'm not saying that they can't have pure motivations, I'm just saying that most of the rewards go to those who accept that they are living in a capitalist society, and treat their research as a 'for profit' activity.


Yes, this statement is correct. Many scientists are looking for those three things. That is the exact reason I am trying to get the hell out of academia ASAP. I don't want to search for money (grants), I want to do research. I don't want to publish, publishing wastes my time. I don't want glory (in fact I would prefer complete anonymity), I want my research to be useful.

I hear what you are saying. I think you are correct in your analysis on about 75% of scientists out there.

As to your second paragraph; I see what you are saying. Yes that is annoying.

[ShaiGar]

Could someone please clear up something for me?

I constantly hear that the earth has, in its history, experienced more carbon pollution than we currently have, or project to have within the next 10 years. However a brief study of human history ALSO shows that there have been large tracts of time where life was unable to be sustained.

Surely the argument isn't whether or not Earth can take the pollution, but if us humans can take the climate change.

[Evalind]

Surely the argument isn't whether or not Earth can take the pollution, but if us humans can take the climate change.

I think it's fair to assume this is true, it just doesn't make it into the media stream presented this way very often. I'd also suggest that humans will be able to survive a greater amount of climate change than some of the eco-systems on the earth, and that, in turn, will be a large part of how humans are affected by it.

I'm more concerned by pollution in general than by climate change. It won't matter if the planet stays in exactly the same temperature/climate ranges for the next few thousand years if we lose access to abundant, clean drinking water.

[thegnat]

Could someone please clear up something for me?

I constantly hear that the earth has, in its history, experienced more carbon pollution than we currently have, or project to have within the next 10 years. However a brief study of human history ALSO shows that there have been large tracts of time where life was unable to be sustained.

Surely the argument isn't whether or not Earth can take the pollution, but if us humans can take the climate change.

Yes I think the main problem with humans' opinions on global warming is that they think the *planet* will die if we don't do anything. When in reality our issue is survival of the species. The planet will survive. new species will emerge, old species will last. But whether humans do or not is the question.

Perhaps the earth *has* experienced this kind of climate change. But *humans* haven't. Therefor we might become extinct if something isn't done.

And I pretty much agree with others on scientific papers. I certainly think though that they're more reliable than opinion articles or journalism.