Met office "faking" climate data
- Thread starter ANDYLASER
- Start date
If this your field, could you shed any light on whether what Doctor Mike Yeadon, ex vice president of Pfizer has to say has any merit?
Last edited:
Is this the same Dr Mike Yeadon who’s been long since discredited?
Did Pfizer's Former 'Chief Scientist' Say There Was 'No Need for Vaccines'?
Michael Yeadon last worked at Pfizer a decade ago, and was never the company's "chief scientist." His anti-vaccine argument relies on predictions that never panned out.
www.snopes.com
The same, Yet he somehow managed to pull the wool over enough experts eyes to become vice president of Pfizer and a the worlds leading expert on respiratory diseases. Somewhat implies the industry doesn't care too much for due diligence if his shenanigans weren't exposed until long after he'd left.Is this the same Dr Mike Yeadon who’s been long since discredited?
Did Pfizer's Former 'Chief Scientist' Say There Was 'No Need for Vaccines'?
Michael Yeadon last worked at Pfizer a decade ago, and was never the company's "chief scientist." His anti-vaccine argument relies on predictions that never panned out.
Last edited:
Well, at least folk are talking about something other than the climate now!
This is interesting regarding the purity of “science”.
This is interesting regarding the purity of “science”.
I did not read the link, i have not considered Snopes a reliable source since they were forced to retract 60 articles that were plagiarized by the sites co founder David Mikkelsen who was also embroiled in legal disputes with former business associates over ownership of the site that generated claims and counterclaims of fraud, financial mismanagement, conspiracy and embezzlement.
You’re right, an ex-Pfizer employee spouting disproven conspiracy theories on YouTube is a much more reliable source. I’m glad you’ve done your due diligence.
His Wikipedia page cites sources for his misinformation as well. I wonder if those citations are acceptable?
A quote from a medical doctor acquaintance after he had finished his PhD thesis: "There seems to be be a notable difference in statistical and clinical significance."
He was referring to (possibly without knowing this reference)((from WP):
"
In 1925, Ronald Fisher advanced the idea of statistical hypothesis testing, which he called "tests of significance", in his publication Statistical Methods for Research Workers.[28][29][30] Fisher suggested a probability of one in twenty (0.05) as a convenient cutoff level to reject the null hypothesis.[31] In a 1933 paper, Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson called this cutoff the significance level, which they named α
. They recommended that α
be set ahead of time, prior to any data collection.[31][32]
Despite his initial suggestion of 0.05 as a significance level, Fisher did not intend this cutoff value to be fixed. In his 1956 publication Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference, he recommended that significance levels be set according to specific circumstances."
However that p=0.05 seems to have been written in very hard stone as it is used in many fields as the word of god without any thought (mine included). Only later did I start to wonder where that value originated. It seems to have been working fairly well in engineering when applied to test values in materials within a batch but not so well when several batches are considered. (Reason for batch testing in critical applications, that had to be learned the hard way.)
Just one example of the pitfalls in research. There are some more ...
He was referring to (possibly without knowing this reference)((from WP):
"
In 1925, Ronald Fisher advanced the idea of statistical hypothesis testing, which he called "tests of significance", in his publication Statistical Methods for Research Workers.[28][29][30] Fisher suggested a probability of one in twenty (0.05) as a convenient cutoff level to reject the null hypothesis.[31] In a 1933 paper, Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson called this cutoff the significance level, which they named α
Despite his initial suggestion of 0.05 as a significance level, Fisher did not intend this cutoff value to be fixed. In his 1956 publication Statistical Methods and Scientific Inference, he recommended that significance levels be set according to specific circumstances."
However that p=0.05 seems to have been written in very hard stone as it is used in many fields as the word of god without any thought (mine included). Only later did I start to wonder where that value originated. It seems to have been working fairly well in engineering when applied to test values in materials within a batch but not so well when several batches are considered. (Reason for batch testing in critical applications, that had to be learned the hard way.)
Just one example of the pitfalls in research. There are some more ...
Could not find it now but I have once seen a climate model results with uncertainty value added, that did not really assure me of anything else but of these researchers being a bit more realistic and maybe also honest than the rest.
Similar threads
