Very special item missing: science.
Very special item missing: science.
Archive link:
Are you asleep yet? The paper goes on to say that the issue of climate change is indeed a controversial one, since there are several sides to the issue and pretty much every side aside from those who paint it as not just climate change but “climate catastrophe” aren’t likely to get much funding in or, frankly, out of academia.
However, the interesting part of the paper — authored by academics Jessica Weinkle (University of North Carolina, Wilmington), Paula Glover (North Carolina State), Ryan Philips (Johns Hopkins University), William Tepper (High Point University), Min Shi, and David Resnik (both of the National Institute of Environmental Health Science) — is, thankfully, contained in the abstract. Funding from non-governmental organizations was correlated with finding “a positive association between climate change and geophysical characteristics of hurricanes as a research outcomes.” That’s pretty important stuff, considering that how much climate change may or may not impact hurricane strength has serious implications on public policy. But, here’s the great part: Nobody was able to identify the conflict of interest here, since “none (0) of the 331 authors disclosed COIs.”
That’s right: Out of 82 papers the authors analyzed in the meta-analysis, written between 1994 and 2023, absolutely zero of the 331 academics who had conflicts of interest disclosed them, despite the fact that the conflicts of interest are positively correlated with alarmism about anthropogenic climate change and hurricane strength.
Since COI disclosures in other areas of research, such as bioscience, range from about 17% to 33%, we suspect that some authors had COIs that they did not disclose,” the authors of the study, published Feb. 18, added.
Archive link:
https://archive.is/OaIUe
>Are you asleep yet? The paper goes on to say that the issue of climate change is indeed a controversial one, since there are several sides to the issue **and pretty much every side aside from those who paint it as not just climate change but “climate catastrophe” aren’t likely to get much funding in or, frankly, out of academia**.
>However, the interesting part of the paper — authored by academics Jessica Weinkle (University of North Carolina, Wilmington), Paula Glover (North Carolina State), Ryan Philips (Johns Hopkins University), William Tepper (High Point University), Min Shi, and David Resnik (both of the National Institute of Environmental Health Science) — is, thankfully, contained in the abstract. **Funding from non-governmental organizations was correlated with finding “a positive association between climate change and geophysical characteristics of hurricanes as a research outcomes.” That’s pretty important stuff, considering that how much climate change may or may not impact hurricane strength has serious implications on public policy.
But, here’s the great part: Nobody was able to identify the conflict of interest here, since “none (0) of the 331 authors disclosed COIs.”**
>**That’s right: Out of 82 papers the authors analyzed in the meta-analysis, written between 1994 and 2023, absolutely zero of the 331 academics who had conflicts of interest disclosed them**, despite the fact that the conflicts of interest are positively correlated with alarmism about anthropogenic climate change and hurricane strength.
>**Since COI disclosures in other areas of research, such as bioscience, range from about 17% to 33%**, we suspect that some authors had COIs that they did not disclose,” the authors of the study, published Feb. 18, added.
(post is archived)