Depending on what you mean by "false", I agree. Almost certainly human activity is causing global warming. But I don't think we have any basis whatsoever to understand the implications of that.

People thinking and behaving as though this realm we share maps cleanly to binary (true / false) logic is a real problem in science and metascience (and policy based thereon).

Ioannidis seems to be every bit as guilty of this fallacy as those whose work he is critiquing.

Models are *models* and the map is not the territory.

So to me, the "falsity" in the conclusions is not that the truth is the opposite of whatever is being claimed. It's that the underlying assumption that having conducted the study and run your stats gives you someplace to stand to make firm statements about reality is absurd.

That's exactly not science.

Garbage in and garbage out.

Reminded me of the DEFCON 26 track: “Svea, Suggy, Till - Inside the Fake Science Factory” that uncovered the predatory publishing process back in 2018.

Excellent investigative journalism although they somehow threw in some climate change opinion toward the end of their formal presentation (50 minutes). Literally took a stance (as an aside) without giving a balanced examination. Virtue signaling and sort of guilty of doing what they’re trying to protect against. Funny I never noticed it the first time I saw the track.

I’d like to use their methods to pull climate change research from all sides and see how many publish through less-reputable processes vs. established, and what universities/grants/businesses/lobbyists are associated with each. That’s a lot of data to parse.

I’m thinking they’re missing the angle from which the peer reviewers, grants, university funding etc… affect the selection process from the top as well. Just curious if politically unpopular evidence is unable to get through peer review. 🤔

https://youtu.be/ras_VYgA77Q