“Scientific studies should be reproducible—especially if they are used to justify government regulations. But NAS’s report, The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science, released earlier this year, found that many supposedly scientific results cannot be reproduced in subsequent investigations.
We believe that individual scientists, the federal government, and state legislatures must take steps to promote reliable, reproducible science. And we believe that all Americans should be equipped with basic statistics and other tools to recognize faulty science when they see it.” click here
Within a matter of days after the press release for a newly published Nature paper spewed the usual it’s-worse-than-we-thought headlines throughout the alarmosphere (Washington Post, BBC, New York Times), the paper’s results were assessed to have “major problems” by an author of multiple CO2 climate sensitivity papers (Lewis and Curry, 2015). click here
Piers Larcombea,b,⁎ , Peter Riddc The need for a formalised system of Quality Control for environmental policy-science Marine Pollution Bulletin 126 (2018) 449–461
Research science used to inform public policy decisions, herein defined as “Policy-Science”, is rarely subjected to rigorous checking, testing and replication. Studies of biomedical and other sciences indicate that a considerable fraction of published peer-reviewed scientific literature, perhaps half, has significant flaws. To demonstrate the potential failings of the present approaches to scientific Quality Control (QC), we describe examples of science associated with perceived threats to the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Australia. There appears a serious risk of efforts to improve the health of the GBR being directed inefficiently and/or away from the more serious threats. We suggest the need for a new organisation to undertake quality reviews and audits of important scientific results that underpin government spending decisions on the environment. Logically, such a body could also examine policy science in other key areas where governments rely heavily upon scientific results, such as education, health and criminology.
“However Lewis, who has authored several peer-reviewed papers on the question of climate sensitivity and has worked with some of the world’s leading climate scientists, has found that the warming trend in the Resplandy paper differs from that calculated from the underlying data included with the paper.” click here and here
“If we combine the 1985 DOE graph with the 1990 IPCC graph, it becomes even more apparent why the New York Times cherry picked the 1979 start date. It was the century high point in Arctic ice extent.” click here
Check it out for yourself:
“What kind of people sit around for days knowing an animal is suffering an agonizingly slow death and do nothing but plan how to use that suffering animal to make money? Callous and self-absorbed people.” click here
“Mann’s comments are not helpful. In his apparent eagerness to take advantage of the heatwave to promote his climate message, he’s gone too far. How can you scientifically state we “would not have seen these extremes in the absence of climate change?” on the basis of a claim that the probability of such events has doubled? A doubling of probability still leaves a substantial possibility that such events could occur naturally, without human help.” click here