http://www.thegwpf.com/ivo-vegter-history-keeps-proving-prophets-of-eco-apocalypse-wrong/
Tag: climate science
Bad Science Evolves
“As long as the incentives are there, then rewards will be there for those who can cheat the system, whether they do so intentionally or not.”
Now, imagine you’re a researcher who wants to game this system. Here’s what you do. Run many small and statistically weak studies. Tweak your methods on the fly to ensure positive results. If you get negative results, sweep them under the rug. Never try to check old results; only pursue new and exciting ones. These are not just flights of fancy. We know that such practices abound. They’re great for getting publications, but they also pollute the scientific record with results that aren’t actually true. As Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet once wrote, “No one is incentivized to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivized to be productive.”
http://www.thegwpf.com/the-inevitable-evolution-of-bad-science/
Have You Seen This Sentence: “… this study does not question the existence of a long-term anthropogenic warming trend during the 20th century.”
Have you ever read a paper on climate science and seen a sentence like this:
“We would like to emphasise that this study does not question the existence of a long-term anthropogenic warming trend during the 20th century.”
Guess what. That means the paper has probably been censored by the climate gatekeepers running the journals.
GWPF has the story from The Times:
“Research that questioned the accuracy of computer models used to predict global warming was “censored” by climate scientists, it was alleged yesterday.
One academic reviewer said that a section should not be published because it “would lead to unnecessary confusion in the climate science community”. Another wrote: “This entire discussion has to disappear.”
The paper suggested that the computer models used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were flawed, resulting in human influence on the climate being exaggerated and the impact of natural variability being underplayed.”
A third reviewer was much more supportive of the paper, saying its “very provocative” suggestion that climate models were flawed was “so interesting that it needs to be discussed more fully”.
However, almost the entire paragraph was deleted, along with the conclusion that “the average sensitivity of the IPCC models may be too high”.
The journal chose to publish only the opening sentence: “We would like to emphasise that this study does not question the existence of a long-term anthropogenic warming trend during the 20th century.”
sunshine hours 