At least theoretically, scientific publishing has always been proud of rigorousness…at least theoretically. Peer review should act as a firewall to ensure that only results that meet strict statistical and methodological standards can make it a prestigious journal. [emphasis, links added]
I know this process was witnessed by their own eyes, and they spent years reviewing academic papers and funding advice.
Statistical significance is the bedrock of scientific validity, and there is no result, and the result is meaningless.
I personally rejected many manuscripts that failed to meet these standards, Publication uncertain or statistically trivial results can only confuse the waters of scientific discourse.
However, In climate science, the fundamental principles of statistical significance seem to be ignored, but rather pushing the alert narrative.
Take the latest example Natural Earth Sciencein principle, journals with the highest academic standards should be maintained. Their recent publication on Greenland Ice clearly states:
In any other area, this admission alone will be a reason for refusal. If the change is within the range of measurement uncertainty, by definition, there are no statistically significant findings.
However, the paper was not only accepted, but has since been transformed into a doomsday headline. independent and Earth.comclaiming that Greenland's ice sheet is “cracking and collapses at a very shocking rate”.
Where does the author correct such false statements? Silent.
Where Natural Earth Science Make sure its publications are not used to drive misinformation? Can't find anywhere.
It's not just bad science…it's academic fraud.
When journals allow statistically trivial results to be constituted with meaningful results, and scientists persist when media distort their work, they betray the foundations of scientific integrity.
as a result of? It is right to be a public who is increasingly distrusting science.
Climate industrial complex and its role in deception
It's not just an event. This is a function of the modern climate industrial complex, not a mistake.
The symbiotic relationship between academia, media and policy makers ensures that even the weakest climate shockism can find a global audience.
There is a reason for this: money and control.
Climate science has become a multi-billion dollar industry. Even if these findings are full of uncertainty or completely contradictory findings, they are granted to researchers who make “shocking” findings.
Journal Natural Earth Science Even if rejecting these studies in any field that still values statistical integrity, these studies will benefit from the publication of fascinating research that elicits traffic and citations.
Meanwhile, the media flourished with fear.
The title says “The Greenland ice sheet may not change significantly” won’t produce a click. But claiming it was “crashed at an alarming rate”, suddenly, it was front page news.
Then there is the political class, which uses this endless cycle of alarm to justify tough policies.
Carbon taxes, net zero orders, restrictions on reliable energy…all are proven by the scientific industrial complex to no longer care about the truth, but just maintain its influence.
Scientist's Silent Counsel
I know firsthand what happens to those who challenge the dominant narrative. I was forced to take a position at the University of Alabama when I opposed the politicization of climate science and the infiltration of Dei ideology into academia.
My criticism comes from scientific and rigorous, it doesn't matter… Questioning the institution is enough to make me a target.
My experience is not unique; Many researchers know that their work is falsely stated, but they remain silent, fearing the professional and personal consequences of speaking out.
Irrational Fear is written by climatologist Dr. Matthew Wielicki and has been supported by readers. If you value what you read here, consider subscribing to and supporting the work there.
Reading for rest in irrational fear
