Yet more reason to be skeptical about the results of scientific research
Just out in JAMA is the latest article by John Ioannidis, the man who first blew the whistle on "non-reproducibility" in scientific research. Read it here.
It makes doleful reading. New, absolutely scrupulous efforts to repeat the results of previous studies failed 3 out of 5 times. There was actually no trace of the previous findings. See the operational paragraph below:
Note that the research concerned was in the field of cancer studies. In such a critical area, one would expect the greatest level of care from the word Go. Yet, despite that, subsequent findings completely contradict the initial findings.
Such a result undermines confidence in all scientific research results. What, then, are we to conclude? I think Ioannidis draws the only possible conclusion: That trying to apply apparent lessons from the research to real-life situations is a very shaky enterprise indeed. Scientific results cannot confidently be translated into public or clinical policy. Attempts to "apply" the results of research are built on sand and are therefore mostly bound to fail.
If that is true in clinical research, how much more so is it applicable in climate research? Climate researchers actually hide details of their research, making it impossible to examine its repeatability. On precedent, however, we have to conclude that it is almost 100% rubbish. It is basically not science at all.
Even on the details Warmists do give of their research, what they find is often on the hilarious side. See here, for instance. How much more risible would the research be if we had full details of it?