If you work in a PE shop you’d know it’s not riskfree and that the PE firm also puts their own money up plus money raised through LPs (hence “leveraged”)

I mean, just getting new management, improving efficiency and raising prices of any business is… normal business?

Whether a PE firm decides to buy it and do the same isn’t some nefarious act or special in any way, it’s just new owners.

Let’s say your neighbor has a lawn mowing business but wants to retire, says they’ll sell for $50,000. You think great! You could run the business better, plus the old man hasn’t raised prices since 1990! But you don’t have $50k, only $30k, so you borrow $20k from your brother. Congrats, you just did a leveraged buyout.

And no, it’s not risk free revenue (I think you mean profit?) because it clearly might go under and PE firms need to pony up some of their own cash too plus money raised through LPs.

It’s a ton of work to put together a case and bring it to court - we’re talking months of research and writing for complex cases.

It’s not realistic to assume the courts can strike down something days after it happens if it takes months to put an argument together.

But I’ve been rather impressed by how fast the Supreme Court makes decisions when cases are brought quickly (likely much less complex).

I think research ranges from this paper to ones more rigorous, but the problem of "adjustments" is consistent.

And the issue is not so much the research is being done, but rather how it's reported on. Scientists know the limits of rigor in climate science, but the public doesn't. So catastrophic predictions are viewed by the public as a sure thing, versus one particular prediction with wide error bares.

> This happens in every field of science, but it's often worse in fields that touch politics.

Indeed. Nobody plays fast and lose with papers on the structure of some random enzyme for political purposes.

This has always been the big issue I have with the conclusions draw in climate publications. I encourage anyone with strong opinion on climate change to do a deep dive on the temperature analysis.

The best example I can think of is the "global warming hiatus" that was discussed in depth in the top climate journals in the mid-2010s. Nature Climate Change even devoted an entire month to it.[1]

5 years later publications were saying "there was no hiatus at all".[2]

And as you said, when you dive into the paper, you realize that temperature measures are not objective at all. And I would ask - If everyone was in agreement that temperature increases paused, then 5 years later everyone agrees they didn't, how much confidence do we really have in the measures themselves.*

As someone who conudcted scientific research, this has a ton of inherent problems. It doesn't matter what I'm measuring, if the data collection is not objective, and there is no consensus (or at least trong evidence for adjustments), then the data itself is very unreliable.

If I tried to publish a chemical paper in a top journal and manually went in and adjusted data (even with a scientific rationale) the paper would be immediately rejected.

[1] https://www.nature.com/collections/sthnxgntvp [2] https://www.sciencenews.org/article/global-warming-pause-cli...