The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science: What Is To Be Done?

Over the past few months I have been watching videos and listening to old audio presentations at various DDP meetings over the last 20 years or more.

DDP is short for “Doctors for Disaster Preparedness“, a non-profit organization based in Tucson, Arizona, USA, which provides with very un-orthodox and politically incorrect views on science in general, from nuclear to climate and pollution, you will have very different ideas than that of the mainstream, and to me this is a key factor in listening to what is said at the yearly DDP meetings.

Their YouTube channel is full of great lectures from very different kind of scientists, and such lectures are thought-provoking and do upset many of those who think that “the science is settled“ in this or that field.

The latest video was published just a few hours ago, and its title immediately caught my attention:

The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science: What Is To Be Done?

The speaker presented his lecture at the summer DDP Annual Meeting, and his name is David Randall, PhD, who is the Director of Research at the National Association of Scholars.

The whole 57 minutes presentation is worth watching, but two sections are worth mentioning here.

The first one starts at 27’14”, here is the link:

This is the caption, with highlighted text:


[…]there have been several studies that have found significant publication bias toward positive results in climate science journals, particularly in flagship journals such as Science and Nature.

Two scientists concluded in 2007 that the entire field of “probabilistic climate projection” […] which relies on combining multiple climate models had no verifiable relation to the actual climate and thus no predictive value.

I should say by the way, and these are people who are in the mainstream of climate science who in effect are saying […] “we believe in [our] results basically but we need to do our procedures better”.

If you aren’t in the mainstream you might look at this and say, uhmm, “no value”?

In 2010 a researcher tested a randomly selected issue of “Journal of Climate” and found that about three-quarters of the articles misused significance tests.

A 2016 article on how to improve computational results in “Weather and Climate Science” stated that it is impossible to replicate and verify most of the computational results presented in journal articles today.

I’m going to confess I look four wonderful phrases like that, my golly, if you don’t actually have to look that far hard to find them…

So [the] entire climate change crisis, and I’ll just use this yoke very carefully, may well be a pyramid of irreproducible research. It would be a good idea to go back and have that discipline redone according to the proper standards.


Later in the same presentation, at 55’20”:


Policymakers should prioritize the review of these regulatory agencies
with the greatest effect on the American economy and American’s individual lives.

The earliest possible reproducibility assessment should be taken of regulations concerning:

  • climate change
  • air pollution
  • pharmaceuticals approval
  • biological effects of nuclear radiation
  • the identification and assessment of learning disabilities, and
  • dietary guidelines

If you have other suggestions for ones other than the “dirty dozen”,
come to me and talk to me, though it struck me [this] is not bad places to start.

Government regulation should be based on the “best available science”, the best available science means reproducible science, and substantially reproduced science.


This is precisely how science should be dealt with. Because once more we are seeing the very negative effects of government intervention in science, and the fact that so many of the research papers experiment cannot be replicated is a clear indication of BAD science at play.

And surely an indication of bad usage of taxpayers’ money.

Let alone the immensely negative effects on the economy, and the continuous state of emergency claimed by those who are there “to save mankind“.

This kind of science reminds more and more of Ayn Rand’s magnum opus “Atlas Shrugged“, where the State Science Institute is not able to do any meaningful research, and only exists to appease the politicians and their cronies, not doing any meaningful research, and in fact going against those who would privately found research.

62 years have passed since the publication of “Atlas Shrugged“, and once again we can how Ayn Rand’s ideas and philosophy was very much ahead of her time.

Leave a Reply