Errors In Measurements

I'd be curious to see some of those; it strikes me as the sort of sensational rumor that spreads quickly regardless of whether or not it's true (which I would suspect to be behind that recently reported study saying that fake news spreads faster than real news: fake news is likely to be more sensational). I can, for that matter, imagine situations where it would be legitimate to look at skewed data points like that, as well as, obviously, situations where it would be cheating.

I'll see what I can dig up. Since I am no longer an ASU student, or at least for now since I am doing a masters program in fall, so I don't have access to all the journal sites. You're likely referring to the Penn State email scandal which shows the complexity of science.

What I have found is researchers and technical people in general are poor ambassadors of their fields. Like writing a news article, it is radically different from scholarly journal writing. My training in statistics has always made me aware of sampling in all studies. Assume you have accurate data going back to year 0 AD - that is 2018 years of data which seems like a lot, yet in terms of global history it is just a flash. I've also been a bit skeptical on the ice core samples. I would like to see a study researching the actual process and if it could be influenced by non-human interference. Don't know if it exists, but it would be interesting to see what could come up with.

As for the fake news, totally agree with your conclusions and my guess is everyone likes a good plot that is why it spread's so fast. Fundamental human behavior.