There is zero evidence that CO2 or human activity warms the climate. The studies use manipulated models to get the results they want that are invalidated by their predictions that dont come true.
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Modeling the Framework for False Positive Findings
Several methodologists have pointed out [
9–11] that the high rate of nonreplication (lack of confirmation) of research discoveries is a consequence of the convenient, yet ill-founded strategy of claiming conclusive research findings solely on the basis of a single study assessed by formal statistical significance, typically for a
p-value less than 0.05. Research is not most appropriately represented and summarized by
p-values, but, unfortunately, there is a widespread notion that medical research articles should be interpreted based only on
p-values. Research findings are defined here as any relationship reaching formal statistical significance, e.g., effective interventions, informative predictors, risk factors, or associations. “Negative” research is also very useful. “Negative” is actually a misnomer, and the misinterpretation is widespread. However, here we will target relationships that investigators claim exist, rather than null findings.
Invalid science consists of scientific claims based on experiments that cannot be reproduced or that are contradicted by experiments that can be reproduced. Recent analyses indicate that the proportion of retracted claims in the scientific literature is steadily increasing.<a href="
Invalid science - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a> The number of retractions has grown tenfold over the past decade, but they still make up approximately 0.2% of the 1.4m papers published annually in scholarly journals.<a href="
Invalid science - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a>
The U.S.
Office of Research Integrity (ORI) investigates scientific misconduct.<a href="
Invalid science - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a>
Incidence
Science magazine ranked first for the number of articles retracted at 70, just edging out
PNAS, which retracted 69. 32 of Science's retractions were due to fraud or suspected fraud, and 37 to error. A subsequent "retraction index" indicated that journals with relatively high impact factors, such as
Science,
Nature and
Cell, had a higher rate of retractions. Under 0.1% of papers in
PubMed had were retracted of more than 25 million papers going back to the 1940s.<a href="
Invalid science - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a><a href="
Invalid science - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>4<span>]</span></a>
The fraction of retracted papers due to scientific misconduct was estimated at two-thirds, according to studies of 2047 papers published since 1977. Misconducted included fraud and plagiarism. Another one-fifth were retracted because of mistakes, and the rest were pulled for unknown or other reasons.<a href="
Invalid science - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a>
A separate study analyzed 432 claims of genetic links for various health risks that vary between men and women. Only one of these claims proved to be consistently reproducible. Another meta review, found that of the 49 most-cited clinical research studies published between 1990 and 2003, more than 40 percent of them were later shown to be either totally wrong or significantly incorrect.<a href="
Invalid science - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>5<span>]</span></a><a href="
Invalid science - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>6<span>]</span></a>
