Len Gillman from Auckland University of Technology, who led the study that concluded that “microevolution happens faster in warmer environments”, is baffled by his findings, which is “the first time the effect has been shown in mammals, which regulate their own body temperature.”
Apparently when you control for both temperature and species, those in the tropical regions tend to develop more mutations. So why do you conclude that warmer environments lead to more frequent mutations? Did you look into the fact that the tropics receive significantly more ultraviolet (and other short-wave) waves, and it takes those high-energy waves to disrupt the DNA replication process. It’s possible that cooler temperatures encourage more conservative energy use and cell replication schedules (which decreases the likelihood of mutations)–but that doesn’t mean it’s appropriate to forget the most obvious cause.
Don’t try to defend your legitimacy by claiming consensus: “We have previously found a similar result for plant species and other groups have seen it in marine animals. But since these are ‘ectotherms’ - their body temperature is controlled directly by the environment - everyone assumed that the effect was caused by climate altering their metabolic rate.” No. Not everyone.
As you can see, it doesn’t take a scientist to do science, and even “scientists” can produce bad science. Forgetting the difference between correlation and causation is a major flaw–not even seasoned scientists are immune to that pitfall. Therefore, we need to be more skeptical of the findings published outside of peer-reviewed scientific journals.