This happened to Jack Schmitt in ArizonaNew Mexico, as well. His opponent's campaign slogan was "What *On Earth* Has Jack Schmitt Done For Us?" https://t.co/FUr9endlmH
I would note that this is another problem with a government space program in a representative republic, and why it’s hopeless to think we can do Apollo again. People who want to see space science happen need to look to other funding sources.
They screwed the pooch. And we’re not all gonna die from overheated oceans. Good for Nic Lewis. And this demonstrates once again of the lack of value of peer review.
Funny how, like “mistakes” in reporting on politics, these errors always seem to go in one direction.
Data dredging is fairly common in health research, and especially in studies involving food. It is one reason contradictory nutrition headlines seem to be the norm: One week coffee, cheese and red wine are found to be protective against heart disease and cancer, and the next week a new crop of studies pronounce that they cause it. Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, said that many researchers are under enormous pressure to churn out papers. One recent analysis found that thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days.
I liked this:
“P-hacking is a really serious problem,” said Dr. Ivan Oransky, a co-founder of Retraction Watch, who teaches medical journalism at New York University. “Not to be overly dramatic, but in some ways it throws into question the very statistical basis of what we’re reading as science journalists and as the public.”
You don’t say.
It goes far beyond nutrition. A lot of drug research is based on this sort of thing as well, including the statin scam.
Few, if any, dispute that atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing since the industrial revolution. What is in dispute is the effects of this. The prevailing media narrative is that “OMG we’re all gonna die!” but this is an interesting post.