Climate Alarm Industry Is Scientifically Bankrupt

Climate Alarm Industry Is Scientifically Bankrupt

 Climate science has become a politically-corrupted, agenda-driven,
federally-beholden science-industrial complex; along with a
military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned about in
his 1961 farewell address.



As he stated: “The prospect of the nation’s scholars by Federal
employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present —
and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and
discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to equal and
opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of
scientific-technological elite.”



Estimating that as many as half of all medical studies are wrong,
Editor-in-Chief Richard Horton of The Lancet, a leading peer-reviewed
international medical journal notes that medical science “has taken a
turn towards darkness."



He attributes this circumstance to research “afflictions,” failings
which can also be observed to infect many U.S. and U.N.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.



Included are small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory
analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession
for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance.



As in the case of highly sensationalized IPCC reporting, Dr. Horton
admits that scientific journal editors “aid and abet the worst
behaviors” in order to gain a maximum “impact factor.”



He charges that “In their quest for telling a compelling story,
scientists too often sculpt data to fit their theory of the world.”



A May 22 New York Times article agrees. Titled “What’s Behind Big
Science Frauds?” authors Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky discuss how
leading scientific journals have been duped into publishing bogus
studies which reference nonexistent data.



Again, this results from pressure to double down on that all-important
“impact factor” of influence determined by the likelihood studies will
be referenced in subsequent “downstream” articles.



Given that most all climate research funding comes from public
alarm-dependent agenda-driven government sponsors, and their ideological
green activist acolytes, there should be little surprise that so many
researchers bend objectivity and science to oblige.



As the late Stephen Schneider who authored important parts of three U.N.
IPCC reports has explained, "like most people, we’d like to see the
world a better place, which in this context translates into our working
to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.”