“Climatologist Exposes How Junk Climate Science Drives The Billion-Dollar Fear Machine” by Dr. Matthew Wielicki

Scientific publishing has long prided itself on rigor… at least in theory. Peer review is supposed to act as a firewall, ensuring that only results meeting strict statistical and methodological standards make it into prestigious journals.
I know this process firsthand, having spent years reviewing academic papers and funding proposals.

• Statistical significance is the bedrock of scientific validity, without it, results are meaningless noise...
• Yet, when it comes to climate science, it seems that fundamental principles of statistical significance are being ignored in favor of pushing alarmist narratives.

Take the latest example from Nature Geoscience, a journal that should, in principle, uphold the highest academic standards. 

Their recent publication on Greenland’s ice sheet explicitly states:


The study’s data fails to show a statistically significant Greenland-wide trend, yet it gets spun into alarming conclusions. 

That’s bad science.
In any other field, that admission alone would be grounds for rejection...