Why be skeptical about global warming, climate change, scientific studies? Poor reproducibility
There is a huge uproar about a global warming and climate change article over at FiveThirtyEight that has brought out Al Gore's warming alarmists and skeptics in the web site's comments section, where I've posted a few comments. Why should we be skeptics about scientific research of any kind? Because the reproducibility of huge percentages of studies published in "peer reviewed" journals is extremely poor.
It is so poor that governments and foundations are funding organizations like the Reproducibility Initiative, which is in the business of trying to reproduce the work of scientists who have claimed significant advances in peer reviewed journals.
At the same time, venture capital firms like Third Rock have built staffs to try to reproduce academic discoveries of new drugs that they might fund in startup drug companies if the studies can be replicated or reproduced. In an article, Trouble at the lab, the Economist explains the reproducibility movement. Read that article and you'll see why you have to be a global warming and climate change skeptic.
Global warming "scientists" frequently have refused to publish their raw data or their models. So it's hard to reproduce their findings. Of course, global warming researchers don't have the data, computer models, computer power, computer power or even the scientific knowledge needed to prove anything.