Oh Look – Yet Another Bogus Harvard ‘Study’: Climate Change Edition (Again)

Seton Motley | Less Government | LessGovernment.org
Harvard Has No Use
for the ‘Genuine’ Key

We have been saying it for years and years – College IS for Dummies.

Universities charge exorbitant amounts of coin – to further indoctrinate their victims in ignorance and hardcore Leftism (please pardon the redundancy).

But a cursory glance at the average college course schedule – demonstrates the inanity on parade.

The Most Useless College Majors

The 10 Most Worthless College Majors

15 Dumbest College Majors if You Want to Make Money When You Graduate

Top 10 Useless College Degrees & Classes

20 Completely Ridiculous College Courses Being Offered At U.S. Universities

All of this Leftist boobery – leads Leftists in other areas of life to ask colleges to conduct totally bogus “research” “studies.”

How predictably does that turn out?

The 10 Greatest Cases of Fraud in University Research

Scientific Research Fraud on the Rise

Another Major University Disgraced In Fraudulent Global Warming Research

The 10 Most Ridiculous Scientific Studies

10 Truly Bizarre Scientific Studies

How awful is the “studies” publishing process?

Fake Research Papers: How Did More Than 120 ‘Gibberish’ Computer-Generated Studies Get Published?

And no college does ridiculous – like Harvard does ridiculous. It’s why they’re the elite of the elite. Of the ridiculous.

Harvard’s “studies” – reach stunning heights of ridiculousness.

College IS For Dummies: Harvard Government-Run-Internet Edition: “Which brings us to this latest bit of…fake “study” nonsense:

“Harvard Study Shows Why Big Telecom Is Terrified of Community-Run Broadband

“Let us please clarify: When you hear ‘broadband’ prefaced by ‘community-run’ or ‘municipal,’ ‘muni-‘ or ‘public’ – it means government-run.

“What is being discussed is government – famed the world over for its openness and free speech protections in places like Iran, North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia – running the greatest open platform in the history of the planet.

“What is being discussed is our governments – famed the world over for massive debt, Obamacare, the post office, Amtrak, the uber-flammable DC Metro,…. – delivering you broadband.

“Big Telecom is ‘terrified’ of government broadband – for the very same, very reasonable reasons We the People are terrified of government broadband. And Obamacare. And Amtrak. And the DC Metro. And….”

You say you want another example of Harvard “research” fraudulence? No problem:

Academic Slams Activist For Using Dodgy Science To Clobber Exxon: “An expert in content analysis slammed academic Naomi Oreskes Thursday for using sketchy and biased methods to show ExxonMobil purposely misled people about climate change.”

We’ll for these purposes leave aside the fact that man-caused climate change is a corrupt, debunked myth – created and bolstered by the same “expert” “researchers” extruding the same sort of corrupt “studies” at which we have been looking.

This Harvard “study” claiming Exxon lied – claims to have reached its conclusion using a process known as “content analysis.”

So ExxonMobil asked for a rebuttal – Kimberly A. Neuendorf, Ph.D. The collegiate exceptional exception – that proves the ridiculousness rule.

Neuendorf is a Cleveland State University professor – with decades spent toiling in the field of content analysis:

“Tom Johnson, a professor of journalism at the University of Texas, for instance…(said) that Neuendorf is one of the preeminent scholars in the field document analysis.

“‘She literally wrote the book on content analysis and has an invaluable website connected to the page,’ Johnson said without weighing in on the report she conducted for Exxon. ‘She has conducted numerous content analyses. I would put her among the top three trusted sources on this topic.’”

In fact, Neuendorf created the research method used by the Harvard study in question. She is thus the perfect person to ask to analyze it. And what conclusion did Neuendorf draw?:

“Oreskes relied on a series of invalid research methods to determine Exxon used ads to cast doubt on climate change.…”

Well that sounds more than a mite fraudulent:

“‘In light of these significant errors and omissions, the conclusions reached…are not sound, and should not be relied upon,’ Neuendorf wrote….”

This Harvard duo was also caught comparing apples and bowling balls:

“(T)he ads cited in their report were predominantly from Mobil before the company merged with Exxon in 1999, meaning Oreskes and Supran compared the research of one company with the advertorials of another.”

Nigh the entire process – was fraudulent:

“‘To maintain objectivity, content analysis coding ought to be conducted by coders who are at arm’s-length with regard to the research,” (Neuendorf) noted, adding that Oreskes and Supran violated that tenet when they used themselves as coders.”

And these two went into the process – biased against their subject:

“Tweets espousing anti-oil and environmentalist sentiment are the least of their academic transgressions. Both Oreskes and Supran have a long history of supporting an attorney general-led crusade against Exxon.

“In fact, The New York Times cited in May 2016 that Oreskes was one of the original architects of the anti-Exxon campaign, which officially kicked-off during a climate conference in California in 2012.

“Attorney Generals Eric Schneiderman of New York and Maura Healey of Massachusetts have been at the forefront of the attorneys general-led crusade to bring Exxon to heel.

“Oreskes has been described as an anti-oil acolyte.…”

This all-encompassing fake-ness and fraudulence became too much – even for an initially-friendly Leftist media:

“Oreskes…published the analysis in August 2017, which received favorable coverage from Reuters and The New York Times, among several dozen other outlets.

“(But s)ome outlets slowly began taking notice of several significant problems with the methods and tools Oreskes and her colleague, Geoffrey Supran, used to draw her conclusion.

“Energy in Depth’s Spencer Walrath, for one, reviewed the ads Oreskes’ used in her research, all of which appeaed in The New York Times throughout the 1990s, and found that more than 90 percent of them acknowledge that climate change was caused in part by human action. Bloomberg posed similar questions about their research.”

This Harvard “study” – is yet another batch of bogusness in a long line of bogus college “studies.”

This Harvard “study” – is yet another batch of bogusness in a long line of bogus Leftist government-activist assaults on ExxonMobil.

It should be given just that much credence and consideration.

And by that we mean…absolutely none whatsoever.

This first appeared in Red State.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.