A basic precept of good scientific research is that the researchers fully disclose any circumstances which may affect the reported outcomes of the research. That obviously includes any potential conflicts of interest, such as financial relationships of any sort. In general, there is higher scrutiny of research with revelations of outright fraud and other issues with research across many disciplines. Now a new study focuses on climate research and specifically conflicts of interest among those looking at hurricanes. (OSF Paper)
82 papers published between 1994 and 2023 were examined. They looked at funding sources and other financial relationships. They found that researchers who reported funding from “non-governmental organizations”, i.e., climate hysteric groups, were far more likely to report that climate change was causing more frequent and stronger hurricanes. Now, even the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has stated that the research does not demonstrate that there are more or stronger hurricanes in recent decades, so these findings are puzzling to begin with, but are likely explained by the funding sources.
However, none of the authors in the research reviewed made any disclosure of personal conflicts of interest, which is simply impossible. The funding source itself is a conflict of interest. But the notion that not one of 331 authors of these 82 papers had a conflict of interest of any sort is not credible and it reflects on the ethics of the researchers. We already know that climate researchers tend to think it is okay to lie and fudge results to get the “right” result to save the Earth.
So just one more reason to not believe a single piece of hysteric climate research. And no such research should be used as a basis for any policy action. If researchers don’t reveal every possible source of bias, there is no basis for trusting the results.
