{"id":301367,"date":"2024-02-11T19:03:16","date_gmt":"2024-02-11T18:03:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=301367"},"modified":"2024-02-11T19:03:19","modified_gmt":"2024-02-11T18:03:19","slug":"weaponizing-the-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=301367","title":{"rendered":"Weaponizing \u2018The Science\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two of my favorite substackers<\/em>, William \u201cMatt\u201d Briggs<\/a> and Roger Pielke Jr.<\/a>, have articles up that touch on the subject of what is disparagingly known as \u201cThe Science\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The initial caps version \u2013 The Science<\/em> \u2013 invariably means the opinions about some scientific subject held by those telling you to Follow The Science<\/strong>.  It very often means a strong consensus<\/a> position being promoted or enforced by a group advocating some particular belief about a scientific topic or policy position prescribed by those holding that belief.  And there are too many of these today to list \u2013 one The Science<\/em> for almost each and every topic you might choose to mention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, there is nothing wrong with any group, even a professional association, like the American Heart Association<\/a>,  the American Lung Association (ALA)<\/a> or the American Academy of Pediatrics<\/a> (AAP), having a group consensus position on a topic that falls under their purview.   The AAP even has whole section of their website<\/a> dedicated to advocacy, which includes such things as advocating to keeping guns out of the reach and hands of kids and making sure kids get their childhood illnesses vaccinations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem comes when we see things like this, as related by Pielke Jr.:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c<\/em>In September, 2022 California Governor Gavin Newsome signed into law<\/a> a bill that prohibited medical professionals from sharing \u201cmisinformation\u201d with patients. Specifically, the law stated<\/a> that it would be:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[U]nprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The law<\/a> defined \u201cmisinformation\u201d:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMisinformation\u201d means false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And there you have it\u2026.California passed a law that threatens the professional license of any medical professional who shares their professional opinion or any information that contradicts a  \u201ccontemporary scientific consensus\u201d.  It is considered \u201cfalse\u201d because<\/em> it contradicts the current consensus.  And in this case about a topic that has a lot of controversy and a broad range of opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201ccontemporary scientific consensus\u201d  <\/em>thus becomes legally enforceable under State law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s parse that: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contemporary<\/u><\/strong>:  <\/strong>If a thing, an idea, an opinion, or a consensus is contemporary<\/em> is just means it \u201c<\/strong>exists now\u201d.  The fact that it could or does \u201cexist now\u201d means that it could have been different in the past and might be different in the future. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scientific<\/u><\/strong>:<\/strong>  Simply means \u201cScientific<\/em> is used to describe things that relate to science or to a particular science\u201d.  When \u201cscientific\u201d is used as an adjective in today\u2019s language, it is often used as code word for \u201ctrue or truth\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consensus: <\/u><\/strong> Even the meaning of the word \u201cconsensus\u201d is a bit controversial.  Its core meaning is that of \u201c<\/strong>a generally accepted opinion; wide agreement<\/strong>\u201d.  Some dictionaries use \u201cunanimity\u201d as a synonym but unanimity<\/em> means \u201cagreement by all people involved\u201d, which is close but gets no prize. There will be varying opinions, but for this essay today, I will differentiate between consensus \u2013 <\/em>something which is generally accepted or has wide agreement \u2013 <\/em>as different from unanimity<\/em> which carries the concept that everyone agrees.  This is a bit tricky because a consensus reached by a democratic<\/em> group would be a statement with which all, or almost all,  can agree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pielke Jr. argues like this: \u201cThe notion of consensus-as-truth has been operationalized in various forms: journalistic \u201cfact checkers<\/a>,\u201d academic \u201cmisinformation<\/a>\u201d researchers, and content moderation<\/a> on social media platforms. The practical effect is the creation of self-appointed arbiters of truth \u2014 journalists, academics, social media platforms, and even governments<\/a> \u2014 who render judgments on acceptable and unacceptable speech according to conformance with an acceptable view.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And goes on to say:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe notion of consensus-as-truth can create obstacles to improving understandings. In re-reading Oreskes 2004<\/a> on climate consensus for the first time in a while I was struck by this comment:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. <\/em>[Oreskes 2004]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is completely backwards \u2014 scientific assessments are an interpretive snapshot of what a scientific literature says about specific scientific claims. When done properly, they are a useful characterization of what is often a large amount of published research. But make no mistake \u2014 the scientific literature does not \u201cagree\u201d with assessments, the literature informs the assessments<\/strong>.\u201d  <\/em>[ emphasis mine \u2013 kh ]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The assessments Pielke Jr. refers to are the \u201cconsensus statements\u201d arrived at by the IPCC committees in the science chapters, by far more often, the consensus statements agreed upon by the politicians writing the Summaries for Policy Makers, which then get represented in the media as talking points as the \u201ccontemporary scientific consensus\u201d on climate change \u2013 by which the media and politicians really mean \u201cthe truth about climate change\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Peilke Jr. uses this illustration from  Clark et al. 2023<\/a> to make a point about the \u201cconsequence[s] of scientific censorship\u201d noting that \u201cAssume that each piece of evidence is equally weighty. Censorship that obstructs evidence against X will produce a peer-reviewed literature that concludes that X is true when most likely it is not.\u201c  There are 11 papers which conclude \u201cX is not true\u201d and only 6 which conclude \u201cX is true\u201d,  but 5 \u201cX is true\u201d were published, and only 1 \u201cX is not true\u201d got past the academic censorship and made it into press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Have we seen this recently?  Of course, in the Covid Origin Wars and consistently for many years in the Climate Wars. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Clark or Pielke Jr. use the word \u201ccensorship\u201d they don\u2019t just mean that a specific person or viewpoint is forbidden to be spoken or printed.  Academic Censorship<\/em> is when academic journals consciously, out of fear of pushback or out of blatant bias either refuse publish, refuse to consider or refuse even to send for review papers that on their face are contradictory to consensus positions.   In the image with stars we see only one dissenting paper made it into press. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We saw this regarding a paper<\/a> from Alimonti et al. just last year in which a team of Climate Crisis scientists raised havoc in the mass media (really, Climate Crisis News Cabal outlets) and bullied the editors of a high ranking scientific publisher to retract an already peer-reviewed, approved, and published paper. [ here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a> ]. The authors tell the story from their viewpoint here: .pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And what about the censorship-by-bias<\/em> in the Main Stream Media?  You only see or hear news when some news outlet makes the decision to have a journalist cover a story and then decides to publish it.  Even if actually published, a story may be \u201cburied on page 29\u201d.  In our electronic world, only front-page stories or pages elected for broad exposure as \u201cclick bait\u201d or \u201cpush news\u201d arrive at the majority of readers\/viewers.  Which stories those are results from decisions of editors who are constrained  by their Editorial Boards and Editorial Narratives<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

William \u201cMatt\u201d Briggs takes a slightly different approach<\/a> \u2013 he is, after all, a statistician.  He talks about the probability of some proposition, written in statistician-ese as Pr(Y).  Pr mean \u2018the probability of\u201d and of Y, being the proposition, such as Covid originated in a Lab in China,  based on the Evidence provided to be considered E,  which in the end becomes Pr(Y|E) \u2013 read as \u201cthe probability of Y given evidence E\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

That, he says, \u201cis, or should be, all of science.\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every science finding, every point of scientific \u201ctruth\u201d is based on a Pr(Y|E), the probability of the proposition \u201cY\u201d [ say, rising  CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere cause dangerous global warming ] being true \u2014- wait for it, here is the pivot point \u2014- given this particular set of evidence<\/em> \u201cE\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If one changes the set of evidence, adds something or subtracts something, as we do everyday in the journals of science, then the Pr(Y|E)  changes<\/em> because the \u201cE\u201d has changed \u2013 and you can not and do not ever ever ever (like really, never) have simply a probability of Y \u2013 it must be, is always always always Pr(Y|E)<\/u><\/strong>.  The probability, you can just consider this as meaning \u201cthe probability that this statement \/ view \/ proposition \/ etc.  is true, depends entirely on the whole set of evidence as presented<\/em> \u2014  change the evidence = change the probability of truth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c<\/em>Scientists should announce their Y and E, and then state Pr(Y|E)\u2014<\/em>and then stop<\/em>. Since the E picked by scientists (with some exceptions for mathematicians and the like) won\u2019t be necessarily true, and only contingent, all need to consider what different evidence would do to Y.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In any case, it is always scientism to say \u201cPr(Y|E)<\/em> means we should all do the following\u201d, and this is so even if there are no problems whatsoever with Pr(Y|E). From this it follows that nearly all research that involves statistics is deeply saturated in scientism.<\/em>\u201c<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And when someone  says \u201cwe should all do the following\u201d \u2013 that we should Follow The Science \u2014  then we have left the field of Science and entering into the hazy domain of Scientism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And even if we all believed with all our hearts on that Pr(Y|E) \u2013 the probability that proposition Y given evidence E being true is nearly 100% \u2013 that doesn\u2019t mean that we would all make the same decisions about what to do about it.  We wouldn\u2019t necessarily follow, nor should we. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why?  It\u2019s the Evidence, stupid!<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Science didn\u2019t stop being done last year, or even yesterday \u2013 so the cumulative evidence supporting last year\u2019s \u201ccontemporary scientific consensus\u201d has changed already and will change more in the future. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Going back to Pielke Jr<\/a>., he wraps up with these two statements:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c<\/em>The notion that scientists should agree with a consensus is contrary to how science advances \u2014 scientists challenge each other, ask difficult questions and explore paths untaken. Expectations of conformance to a consensus undercuts scientific inquiry. It also lends itself to the weaponization of consensus to delegitimize or deplatform inconvenient views, particularly in highly politicized settings.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Followed by:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cA recent study of scientific censorship by scientists by Clark et al. 2023<\/a> finds that pressures by scientists on their peers to conform to a consensus are fairly common within the scientific community:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Confirmation bias and other forms of motivated cognition can fuel a self-reinforcing dynamic in which censorship and self-censorship discourage empirical challenges to prevailing conclusions, encouraging a false consensus that further discourages dissent.\u201c<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bottom Lines:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1.  \u201cThere is no such thing, therefore, [as] Following The Science.\u201d \u2013 William Briggs<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.  Science changes moment to moment \u2013 as new evidence is produced and found for and against various hypotheses. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

3.  Generally accepted understandings of scientific topics \u2013 commonly referred to as \u201cconsensuses\u201d \u2013  are themselves momentary and must be allowed to change as evidence changes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.  Enforcing a consensus view, in any manner,  is anti-science and calls to \u201cFollow the Science\u201d are always made to enforce some consensus and thus also anti-science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And, a final word:    The California law, mentioned at the beginning of the essay, has been repealed<\/a>, after being shot down by the courts.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

# # # # #<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Author\u2019s Comment:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read the two substack pieces from Pielke Jr. and Briggs (here<\/a> and here<\/a>).   Worth the effort.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My ongoing series on Monarch Butterflies<\/a> is an example of the changing of a consensus by new evidence \u2013 albeit by just a little.  Once Chip Taylor weighed in, the pre-existing consensus began to crack.  In a couple more years, the consensus will have shifted considerably.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even the Skeptical Climate View shifts and changes as time goes on and more and broader evidence is presented for and against the prevailing consensus view.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Enforced consensus is tyranny and is destructive of the scientific enterprise.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Learn to spot when consensus enforcing is taking place \u2013 and don\u2019t fall for it.  Brute force methods, think Michael Mann et al, are obvious \u2013 biased journal editing is much more subtle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thanks for reading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If a thing, an idea, an opinion, or a consensus is\u00a0contemporary\u00a0is just means it\u00a0\u201cexists now\u201d.\u00a0 The fact that it could or does \u201cexist now\u201d means that it could have been different in the past and might be different in the future.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":301370,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"If a thing, an idea, an opinion, or a consensus is\u00a0contemporary\u00a0is just means it\u00a0\u201cexists now\u201d.\u00a0 The fact that it could or does \u201cexist now\u201d means that it could have been different in the past and might be different in the future.\u00a0","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691818427,691826870,691820528,691826871,691820151],"class_list":{"0":"post-301367","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-consensus","9":"tag-follow-the-science","10":"tag-misinformation","11":"tag-pielke-jr","12":"tag-the-science","14":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0spaceforce_1280p.jpg?fit=1280%2C721&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1goL","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":220671,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=220671","url_meta":{"origin":301367,"position":0},"title":"Human Impacts on Weather and Climate: A Book Review","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"26\/09\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Human Impacts on Weather and Climate\u00a0is a serious, academic book of the science comprising the topic set out in the title.\u00a0","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-1227.png?fit=956%2C484&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-1227.png?fit=956%2C484&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-1227.png?fit=956%2C484&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/image-1227.png?fit=956%2C484&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":285084,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=285084","url_meta":{"origin":301367,"position":1},"title":"Why Are Scientists So Slow to Abandon Their Failed Climate Models?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"25\/10\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Climate modeling has arguably been worse than nothing because false information has been presented as true and \u201cconsensus.\u201d Alarmism and disruptive policy activism (forced substitution of inferior energies; challenges to lifestyle norms) have taken on a life of their own. Fire, ready, aim has substituted for prudence, from science to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"climate alarmism\"","block_context":{"text":"climate alarmism","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-alarmism"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0climate-models-epic-fail.webp?fit=999%2C775&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0climate-models-epic-fail.webp?fit=999%2C775&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0climate-models-epic-fail.webp?fit=999%2C775&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0climate-models-epic-fail.webp?fit=999%2C775&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":346242,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=346242","url_meta":{"origin":301367,"position":2},"title":"Roger Pielke on Weather\u00a0Attribution","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/10\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Roger Pielke Jr looks at the science (or not!) behind extreme weather attribution","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0raychel-sanner-cswvKS59E90-unsplash-1-1-scaled-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C416&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0raychel-sanner-cswvKS59E90-unsplash-1-1-scaled-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C416&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0raychel-sanner-cswvKS59E90-unsplash-1-1-scaled-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C416&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0raychel-sanner-cswvKS59E90-unsplash-1-1-scaled-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C416&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0raychel-sanner-cswvKS59E90-unsplash-1-1-scaled-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C416&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":214811,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=214811","url_meta":{"origin":301367,"position":3},"title":"Consensus Cake – Science is Not a Democracy","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"21\/08\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\"97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths and Social Proofs.\"","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/0Screenshot-2022-08-21-191653.png?fit=883%2C510&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/0Screenshot-2022-08-21-191653.png?fit=883%2C510&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/0Screenshot-2022-08-21-191653.png?fit=883%2C510&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/0Screenshot-2022-08-21-191653.png?fit=883%2C510&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":346207,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=346207","url_meta":{"origin":301367,"position":4},"title":"Climate Activists Frustrated by IPCC\u2019s Refusal to Link Extreme Weather With Carbon Emissions","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/10\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Last June, the state-reliant BBC reported that human-caused climate change had made U.S. and Mexico heatwaves \u201c35 times more likely\u201d. Nothing out of the ordinary here in mainstream media with everyone from climate comedy turn \u2018Jim\u2019 Dale to UN chief Antonio \u2018Boiling\u2019 Guterres making these types of bizarre attributions.","rel":"","context":"In \"Attribution studies\"","block_context":{"text":"Attribution studies","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=attribution-studies"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0PVHTHRCMLVH73EK45U6M6IVDKE.jpg?fit=1200%2C628&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0PVHTHRCMLVH73EK45U6M6IVDKE.jpg?fit=1200%2C628&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0PVHTHRCMLVH73EK45U6M6IVDKE.jpg?fit=1200%2C628&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0PVHTHRCMLVH73EK45U6M6IVDKE.jpg?fit=1200%2C628&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0PVHTHRCMLVH73EK45U6M6IVDKE.jpg?fit=1200%2C628&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":376604,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=376604","url_meta":{"origin":301367,"position":5},"title":"The Flawed ICAT Hurricane Loss Dataset: A Call for Scientific Integrity in Climate Research","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"27\/04\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"In a compelling study published in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology (April 2025), Roger Pielke Jr., previously a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder and now a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and professor emeritus, exposes critical flaws in a widely used dataset of U.S.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"ICAT dataset\"","block_context":{"text":"ICAT dataset","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=icat-dataset"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/0Eye-Of-A-Hurricane-header.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/0Eye-Of-A-Hurricane-header.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/0Eye-Of-A-Hurricane-header.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/0Eye-Of-A-Hurricane-header.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/0Eye-Of-A-Hurricane-header.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/301367","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=301367"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/301367\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":301371,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/301367\/revisions\/301371"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/301370"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=301367"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=301367"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=301367"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}