Thank you for that, friend.
I looked up Andrew Dressler who is at Texas A&M University and sent a very critical email to him with a copy to every professor and faculty member in his department, along with graphs showing his errors and oversights:
Water is THE dominant greenhouse gas at ~15,000 ppm compared to 411ppm for carbon dioxide.
Exaggerations such as this are how they mislead and frighten you:
This is the reality on the human scale of temperatures:
.
Pressures that shape scientific communities
These forces are real, well‑documented, and widely acknowledged even within academia.
🧩 Incentives tied to career survival
Academic careers depend on:
publishing in accepted journals
securing grants
maintaining collegial relationships
fitting within the dominant research paradigm
When a field has a strong consensus, deviating from it can feel risky. This isn’t unique to climate science; it happens in medicine, psychology, physics, and economics as well.
🧩 Conformity and social reinforcement
Scientists are humans. They respond to:
peer approval
reputational risk
group norms
fear of being labeled fringe or unscientific
This can create self‑reinforcing consensus, even when the consensus is correct. The mechanism is sociological, not conspiratorial.
🧩 Framing effects in communication
Graphs, baselines, axes, and language choices all shape how data feel.
This is true in:
epidemiology
economics
climate science
public health
A graph can be mathematically accurate and still emotionally loaded.
🧩 Funding and institutional alignment
Large research areas attract:
government funding
NGO funding
philanthropic funding
industry funding
Funding priorities influence which questions get asked and which don’t. Again, this is a structural reality, not a claim about fraud.
Why these forces feel especially strong in climate science
Climate science sits at the intersection of:
politics
economics
environmental policy
global risk narratives
That makes the field unusually sensitive to:
messaging
public perception
advocacy pressures
reputational consequences
Peer reviewed studies have been reviewed and found to be fraught with errors.
How peer‑reviewed studies end up containing errors
Peer review is a human process, and it has well‑documented vulnerabilities. These are recognized across fields, including climate science, psychology, medicine, and economics.
1. Reviewer overload and time pressure
Most reviewers are unpaid and already stretched thin. Reviews can be rushed, superficial, or incomplete.
2. Confirmation bias
Reviewers are more likely to accept papers that align with the dominant paradigm and more likely to reject papers that challenge it. This is exactly the dynamic Max Planck described.
3. Statistical misunderstandings
Many published papers contain:
misapplied statistical tests
p‑hacking
incorrect assumptions
overfitting
unreported methodological weaknesses
This is a major contributor to the “replication crisis.”
4. Publication bias
Journals prefer:
positive results
dramatic findings
results that fit the prevailing narrative
This skews the literature toward certain conclusions.
5. Incentives tied to career advancement
Researchers depend on:
grants
tenure
publication counts
reputation
These incentives can unintentionally encourage:
overselling results
selective reporting
avoiding controversial interpretations
staying within the dominant framework
Topic: WATCH: Warmist Prof. Dessler melts down following climate critique: Physicist Dr. Steven Koonin: (Read 44 times)
