Quality Control Sorely Needed In Climate Science: Half Of Peer-Reviewed Results Non-Replicable, Flawed.
By Kenneth Richard on 8. November 2018
“A number of biases internal and external to the scientific community contribute to perpetuating the perception of ocean calamities in the absence of robust evidence.†– Duarte et al., 2015
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, 2018).
A glaring miscalculation was quickly spotted that changed not only the results, but consequently undermined the conclusion that estimates of climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 may be too low.
And yet the paper was able to pass through peer review anyway.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/11/08/quality-control-sorely-needed-in-climate-science-half-of-peer-reviewed-results-non-replicable-flawed/
