By Kenneth Richard on 30. September 2021
Post-publication rejection of peer-reviewed scientific papers precisely because they are “are highly controversial due to their political and social implications” are another means climate activists continue their banishment of dissent on climate change.
Back in 2009 the Climategate e-mails provided written documentation affirming suspicions climate scientists inclined to activism seek to “oust” those who they suspect might be in the “greenhouse skeptics camp” from participating in a scientific journal’s peer-review process.
Further, they would even “redefine what the peer-review literature is” if that’s what it would take to prevent heretical papers from being referenced in IPCC reports.
Image Source: Lowe, 2009
The scientific literature says CO2 changes lag paleoclimate temperature changes
A few months ago we highlighted a peer-reviewed scientific paper about the logical contradiction of a perceived CO2-induced paleoclimate record even though ice cores overwhelmingly support the conclusion temperature changes precede changes in CO2 by hundreds to thousands of years.
Image Source: Richet, 2021
That the ice core record clearly affirms this sequencing (CO2 changes occur at least centuries after temperatures change) is not even controversial. Just a few of the many observational studies supporting the temperature-leads-CO2 ordering include Mudelsee, 2001, Fischer et al., 1999, Monnin et al., 2001, Schneider et al., 2013, Stott et al., 2007, and Shin et al., 2020.
The Copernicus Gatekeepers of Truth
After likely receiving heavy criticism from climate activists for daring to publish a “skeptic” paper in their journal, the Gatekeepers of Truth at Copernicus then “decided” this paper was not sufficiently reviewed by those who reject papers that do not align with the anthropogenic global warming narrative.
Two reasons Copernicus offers for post-reviewing an already published paper stand out:
“The topic and conclusions of the manuscript are highly controversial due to their political and social implications, a fact that author, editor, and referees were aware of, as evident from email records, the manuscript’s cover letter, and referee reports.”
“6 [of the reviewers invited to referee the paper] are publicly known as being in favour of or having ties to an industry benefiting from the manuscript’s conclusion.”
So the author was aware that his paper was “highly controversial” and had “political ad social” implications, and yet he had the audacity to seek publication in their journal anyway. What an odd criticism this is.
While offering no scientific justification for doing so, questioning the background and suspected political affiliations of reviewers is apparently deemed sufficient to disqualify them from reviewing manuscripts. Nowhere do the “acceptable” referees tackle the logical lead-lag cause-effect problem in paleoclimate science. At Copernicus, the science is apparently less important than the occupational and political affiliations of those reviewing manuscripts.
In June and July, new reviewers who were selected by Copernicus because they were predisposed to reject the already-published paper merged their criticism of Richet’s paper into a single document here.
By late August to early September, the foregone conclusion had been realized. Dr. Richet’s paper questioning why it is assumed CO2 drives the present climate changes when it can be demonstrated CO2 did not drive climate change in the ice core record, was rejected.
Dr. Richet: “Should IPCC-revolving scientists be the only holders of truth?”
Dr. Richet wrote a reply to the Copernicus Gatekeepers of Truth who rejected his paper after it had been published. As an Earth scientist (geochemist and thermodynamicist) commenting on the CO2 ice core data, he is claimed to have improperly benefitted from a too-friendly peer-review process because 3 of the reviewers allegedly “have ties to industry benefitting from the manuscript conclusions.” (What “benefit” this is remains unspecified.)
Richet rightly points out that those criticizing his conclusions about the ice core data contradicting the CO2-drives-climate narrative likely have at least indirect ties to the $89 trillion dollars of climate-related “green” industries that necessarily must be spent (2015-2030) to transition to CO2 emission mitigation in the coming decades.
Regarding the disqualification of reviewers with ties to industries allegedly benefitting from the manuscript’s publication, Richet notes that Copernicus, the man, was Church administrator who never published on astronomy until later in his non-scientific career.
Importantly, none of Richet’s opponents were able to refute the central claim that “the interpretation of ice-core results flatly contradicts the fundamental principles of scientific reasoning.”
Finally, Richet asks why it is that only those scientists who align their views with that of the UN IPCC are allowed to decide on matters of “truth” in climate science.
Of course, this question will remain unanswered.