I’m not claiming that no climate paper has never been p-hacked. However, that specific paper isn’t p-hacking, and it isn’t a marine-heatwave study.
Resplandy 2018 estimated ocean heat uptake from O2/CO2. Critics found the uncertainties were too small so the authors retracted it. The central warming number barely changed.
Argo corrections are published sensor-bias fixes, not a secret rewrite of the record to make data fit a narrative.
Also MHW trends come from SST datasets. If you think a specific heatwave paper was gamed, I’m open to reading more. But as of right now, your claim that “this is p-hacking so ignore these videos” is exactly why we have the largest El Niño on record right now. Climate change is going to keep changing quicker and quicker, till you’re seeing it with your own eyes and not just through a phone screen.
Just in case you haven’t been paying attention, they’re purging everyone out of the military that might oppose the order to carry out a military coup when they get voted out.
Name the specific papers and the exact analysis choices you think are p-hacked. “Scientists want grants” is not evidence. The increase in marine heatwave days shows up across satellite records, different climatologies, and independent groups. That is harder to dismiss than a single p-value. I maintain, two things can be true; A funding motive can exist and the trend can still be real.
P-hacking is a real problem in some papers and data that gets shared online to try to further a narrative or cause etc. blah blah— I get it. It isn’t what’s happening here.
Multiple independent SST records and model comparisons show marine heatwaves have become more frequent and longer as the baseline ocean warms. That result doesn’t rest on one cherry-picked p-value. A warmer ocean can still make the same natural drivers more damaging. Both can be true at once.