[FONT="]"It is rare to encounter a scientific fact that stirs widespread debate and distrust quite like the matter of climate change.[/FONT]...
https://theconversation.com/we-look...d-found-no-evidence-of-publication-bias-84500
I do remember climategate, but I don't recall most of the characterizations made by the OP (Climategate being a fake) or that are in the article. For those not chanting green slogans, it is very obvious that the article writer and his study, are mostly partisan press agentry for "their cause". It's hard to miss it; within the first few sentences the article proclaims human caused climate change as a "scientific fact" with "consensus among climate specialists...that is supported by a mountain of facts". It warns that "By refusing to accept the facts and potential ramifications of climate change" we are at dire risk, etc.
And like any shill for a cause, having established the good guy vs. bad guy melodrama, the article (as one of the good guys) goes on to assure us that there is this study that shows that those who doubt the flawless objectivity and good character of climate scientists are crazy - yes, all is well in the religion.
Now, I do believe that human caused warming is change in climates but it is not a religion for me. I don't have a dog in this fight, and by the time any really dramatic changes (for good or ill) occur I will be long dead. When the day comes that Alaska is dotted with palm trees and resorts, the US is Mexi-merica, and the main form of entertainment is Telemundo sports, with 24hr bee suited pro-wrestling...well, that is a day I will never see.
Still, it is most annoying to see folks wallowing in crude propaganda. So here are a few corrections:
1) Much of the intense scepticism about climate change science did not begin in 2009, its been around for at least 25 years.
2) It was not presented as a
conspiracy "to alter facts" or to show that "the only published results are in support of the theory". The emails speak for themselves; they are a display of poor behavior, bad ethics, and self-righteous crusading fervor by a substantial but particular group of paleoclimate scientists (some of whom also contribute to future climate modeling). It is an exposure, in their own words, of intentional refusal to show which actual data they used, the strategies of denying critics access to journals, the strategy of boycotting journals, their own shared enemies list, their shabby data handling, rule breaking, and hobby of hurling contempt and insults on other scientists. They were quite open about it keeping peer reviewed "skeptics" from reports to policymakers, for example:
Mike, …..The other paper by MM [Mckittrick and Michels] is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! Cheers Phil (Jones).
Mosher, Steve. Climategate: The CRUtape Letters (p. 171). nQuire Services Inc.. Kindle Edition.
3) Inquiries into the climategate scientists found nothing wrong because they didn't "inquire" about the actual wrong-doing pointed out by critics.
Last, offering the public an opaque numerological study on "biased selection of facts" is little more than gas-lighting; an attempt to show a magic stat number(s) that "proves" the reader of emails didn't see what he saw, that he crazy. Why "there is no bias in the selection of facts" because "we have this number". Mind you, there is no way to know what facts are ignored in any study UNLESS you know what facts are available. You can't find a flaw in the use of the wrong statistical test, or a withheld R2 verification score UNLESS you actually audit the study. Nor do many notice that researchers have caught on long ago how to inflate the meta literature to "independently confirm" results, such as using the same flawed proxies over and over, to "prove" the results are correct (e.g. Briffa)
Besides in these meta-analysis type studies, you can always cherry pick your own set of "120 studies" and can change weighting of each to obtain whatever results you want.
Look, there are some kinds of debates were participants don't want to know the truth, they have already made up their minds (and so have their team). Hence, you get propaganda, just like what you linked to.
