Was it a critic of the IPCC’s notion of dangerous manmade climate change who wrote this?

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results.” …

In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data.

Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. [They] aid and abet the worst behaviours. [Their] acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. [Their] love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. [They] reject important confirmations.

Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.

No. It was Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals, in his April 11 editorial. A professional statistician who (precisely because of his expertise in statistical methodology) is a critic of the IPCC discusses the implications of that editorial for the debates over climate change.

Interesting reading.