Archives quotidiennes :

better to know...?, climate-debate

Climate Alarmists’ New Normal: Catastrophizing Every Weather Event

by Dr. M.  Wielicki, Oct 2, 2023 in ClimateChangeDispatch

Catastrophizing the weather…

“Catastrophizing” the weather refers to the exaggerated portrayal or emphasis on the severity, frequency, or implications of weather events beyond what scientific data and historical context might suggest.

In essence, it involves making a weather event seem more disastrous or exceptional than it truly is. [emphasis, links added]

Over time, consistent exaggeration can erode public trust in weather forecasts and warnings. If people believe that threats are frequently overblown, they may become complacent and fail to take necessary precautions during genuinely severe events.

If authorities act on exaggerated weather forecasts, it could lead to the unnecessary allocation of resources, diverting them from regions or times where they might be genuinely needed.

The constant exposure to exaggerated disaster threats can induce unnecessary fear and anxiety among the public, potentially affecting mental well-being.

If every weather event is portrayed as a catastrophe, it becomes challenging for the public to discern which events pose genuine threats. This can dilute the urgency of actual severe weather warnings.

In the context of climate change, while it’s important to communicate the real risks associated with a warming planet, it’s equally essential to avoid undue alarmism.

Balanced, accurate communication ensures that the public remains informed, however, that is not what we commonly see.

For example, the recent rains in NYC have been noted as evidence of significant climatic shifts.

Meet The Alarmists:

…

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

How ‘Preapproved Narratives’ Have Corrupted Science

by A. Finley, Oct 2, 2023 in ClimateChangeDispatch

Scientists were aghast last month when Patrick Brown, climate director at the Breakthrough Institute in Berkeley, Calif., acknowledged that he’d censored one of his studies to increase his odds of getting published.

Credit to him for being honest about something his peers also do but are loath to admit. [emphasis, links added]

In an essay for the Free Press, Mr. Brown explained that he omitted “key aspects other than climate change” from a paper on California wildfires because such details would “dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.”

Editors of scientific journals, he wrote, “have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives.”

Nature’s editor, Magdalena Skipper, denied that the journal has “a preferred narrative.” No doubt the editors at the New York Times and ProPublica would say the same of their own pages.

Mr. Brown’s criticisms aren’t new. In 2005 Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis wrote an essay titled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.”

He contended that scientists “may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings.”

“The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true,” Dr. Ioannidis argued.

“Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers qualifications for promotion or tenure.”

In addition, many scientists use the peer-review process to suppress findings that challenge their own beliefs, which perpetuates “false dogma.”

As Dr. Ioannidis explained, the more scientists there are in a field, the more competition there is to get published and the more likely they are to produce “impressive ‘positive’ results” and “extreme research claims.” …snip…

The peer-review process is supposed to flag problems in studies that get submitted to journals. But as Dr. Ioannidis explained in a Sept. 22 JAMA editorial, the process is failing:

…