Science is science because it has the ability to correct itself. This means that when researchers hit a dead end, they turn around and look for another path. [emphasis, links added]
However, in highly politicized situations, science may face obstacles to self-correction, meaning that when science goes off track, it may be more difficult to change direction.
This is especially true when bad science becomes politically important.
This is where climate science will be in 2024.
at the same time, The climate science community seems to have lost its collective ability to point out bad science and get things back on track.
Today, especially for the many new readers THB has acquired this year, I'm rounding up the top five climate science scandals THB has covered over the past few years.
I define a scandal As is the case with objectively flawed science—substantively and/or procedurally—society has been unable to correct it, but should.
Let's get straight to it. . .
5. The interns created a “dataset” that we used to conduct research
I recently documented how Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) – said to be one of the top scientific journals – published a paper Market a now-defunct insurance company using a “package” cobbled together by some interns.
No such data set actually exists in the real world – it's just fiction.
This paper is the only standardized study aimed at identifying the signals of man-made climate change in disaster losses, and has therefore received the focus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. National Climate Assessment.
This context makes corrections or retractions politically problematic. When I reported a fake data set to PNAS They refused to read it and stood behind the newspaper. Learn the backstory and how PNAS prevented any reconsideration.
4. Alimonti retracted due to unpopular views
The scientific community has shown a willingness to retract climate science papers—in this case Not for being wrong in any substantive way, but for expressing politically unhelpful views.
In 2022, a group of Italian scientists published a paper, Summarizing the IPCC’s conclusions on extreme weather trendsconsistent with what you read on THB.
This paper does not break any new ground but provides a useful review of the literature.
Even so, some activist journalists and scientists called for the article to be retracted — It is worth noting that Springer Nature The journal in which the paper was published is obligated.
I heard a whistleblower reveal all the sordid details, which you can read here and here .
3. IPCC’s major mistakes
When this accurate finding reached the IPCC synthesis report, it became the antithesis of inaccuracy.
The IPCC is a huge endeavor and if it didn’t exist then we would have to invent it. It is not surprising that some errors may occur in the assessment.
What matters is what happens when you make a mistake. I discovered a major error in the IPCC AR6 synthesis report involving confusion about hurricane intensity – This is a simple error related to a misunderstood technical term (hurricane repair, i.e. measurement — reinterpreted as hurricane).
At least once a week someone cites an error in the IPCC synthesis report to me Lie that the hurricane is getting stronger.
You can read about the bug here and how an IPCC insider later revealed to me that it was caused by The IPCC failed to follow its own quality control protocols.
Read the break from The Honest Broker
Roger Pielke Jr. has been a professor at the University of Colorado since 2001. He holds degrees in mathematics, public policy, and political science, and is author of many books. (Amazon).
The Honest Broker is written by climate expert Roger Pielke Jr and is reader-supported. If you value what you read here, please consider subscribing and supporting the work.
