Spodnji članek iz Quartz govori o 3% od vseh znanstvenih člankov o klimatskih spremembah, ki so podvomili o to, da so spodbujene od človeka, za katere pa so ob poskusu replikacije brez izjeme ugotovili, da so potvorjeni. Bodisi ne štimajo predpostavke, bodisi uporabljajo napačno metodologijo, bodisi prikazujejo zgolj tiste rezultate, ki jim gredo v prid. Ta zgodba ne potrebuje komentrja, morda le dodatek, da je bila večina teh kritičnih znanstvenih člankov spoznorirana s strani industrije.
Bojim se, da je tudi drugod (denimo v kemiji, medicini itd.) podobno. Ker je tudi v ekonomiji. Vse tiste študije od 1960-tih naprej o denimo škodljivosti visokih davkov, škodljivosti minimalne plače in sindikatov, koristnosti deregulacije bančnega sektorja in deregulacije nasploh itd., so bile sponzorirane s strani zasebnih fundacij, katerih donatorji so bile in so še velike korporacije. James Kwak temu v knjigi Economism posveča celo tretje poglavje (The Long March of Economism).
It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.
But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.)
Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results
Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.
“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post.
One of Hayhoe’s co-authors, Rasmus Benestad, an atmospheric scientist at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, built the program using the computer language R—which conveniently works on all computer platforms—to replicate each of the papers’ results and to try to understand how they reached their conclusions. Benestad’s program found that none of the papers had results that were replicable, at least not with generally accepted science.
Broadly, there were three main errors in the papers denying climate change. Many had cherry-picked the results that conveniently supported their conclusion, while ignoring other context or records. Then there were some that applied inappropriate “curve-fitting”—in which they would step farther and farther away from data until the points matched the curve of their choosing.
And of course, sometimes the papers just ignored physics altogether. “In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup,” the authors write.
Those who assert that these papers are correct while the other 97% are wrong are holding up science where the researchers had already decided what results they sought, the authors of the review say. Good science is objective—it doesn’t care what anyone wants the answers to be.