From: Climate Etc.

By: John Ridgway

Date: September 23, 2025

Natural Selection of Bad Science. Part II

In an earlier essay [1] I explained how positive feedbacks can lead to potentially problematic scientific mono-cultures. I also acknowledged that poor research design and data analysis had become commonplace within the behavioural sciences, largely as a result of a ‘natural selection’, driven by the career enhancement that comes with publication. However, I did not question whether there were any reward structures within climate science that may also have led to a natural selection for bad statistical practice.

Because modelling is not measurement

Well, in fact the evidence is that there is such a system of reward, and an early indication of the problem can be found in a quote reported by Professor Jeroen Pieter van der Sluijs, of the University of Bergen. It is alleged to come from a modeller working on the IPCC’s First Assessment Report (FAR):

“What they were very keen for us to do at IPCC [1990], and modellers refused and we didn’t do it, was to say we’ve got this range 1.5 – 4.5°C, what are the probability limits of that? You can’t do it. It’s not the same as experimental error. The range is nothing to do with probability – it is not a normal distribution or a skewed distribution. Who knows what it is?” [2] (continue reading)

Natural Selection of Bad Science. Part II