Roger Pielke Jr has some strong words about a forthcoming paper that he feels misrepresents his work. Note that we’re not talking about an advocacy position here, an op-ed or a short video piece that are unable to capture all nuances adequately, but an actual scientific paper. Roger concludes:
The bottom line here is that while this is just one paragraph in one paper, there is perhaps reason to be concerned about the fidelity of the literature, whatever the underlying causes may be. We have documented other shortfalls in the literature on several occasions on this site. To the extent that these data points are representative of broader problems in the climate literature, scientists should redouble their efforts to exert high standards of quality control. For if I can spot these misrepresentations in the literature, then others will as well.
Roger’s field is a specific one relating to the impacts of hurricane damage. We have seen, however, similar objections in the field of malaria, for example. It would be an interesting research topic for someone to assess how widespread such misrepresentation is in the climate literature and whether climate science is unusual in this regard. Such a study would answer a lot of questions about the effects on science of politicization.