"Scientific" Results That Can't Be Replicated - Climate Edition

Color me shocked. New Scientific Scandal Shaking The Climate Alarm Industry

Seems there may be some cooking of the books.

If you have any bullshit radar at all, I assume that it has already been set off with loud alarms and flashing red lights. But of course, all of the Munday/Dixson papers sailed through peer review and were quickly published at the most “prestigious” journals.

Yet somehow the Munday/Dixson work was so preposterous that it eventually attracted the interest of a group of young scientists who thought that the results just could not possibly be right. Over the period 2016 to 2019 a group of seven researchers led by Timothy Clark and Fredrik Jutfeld attempted to replicate the principal results of Munday and Dixson on fish behavior. Clark, Jutfeld, et al., published the results of their work in January 2020 in Nature, with the title “Ocean acidification does not impair the behaviour of coral reef fishes.” The bottom line: they could not replicate the claimed effects on fish behavior at all.

The article linked above is thorough in its takedown of the orginal "science," and how amazing to was that the paper just sailed through peer-review. One guy even went to look at more data in other studies, and says there are more problems, but no details were provided.

But then this is not a new problem in science. I wrote about it (in a different context) in 2016. “Einstein, We Have a Problem” – The problem with so much science today is it isn’t true. That post was talking mostly about medical research.

The common misconception is that scientists are dispassionate brains working in a lab somewhere. They are people. They have political goals. And they spend a lot of time applying for grant money. You don't get grant money to study climate if you are not firmly in the Human-created-climate-change camp. Or the global warming camp. Or whatever.