Reposted from the NoTricksZone
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.
Predetermined rejection
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.
Outgassing, and pretty obviously.
Such recklessness; do not forgive them, for they do know what they are doing.
===========
“Science” is being redefined, just like “free speech” and “marriage”. “Truth” comes next.
Well then, I guess it’s time to set up a ‘Ministry of Truth’ to regulate that. Makes sense, right?
Truth has already been redefined to include beliefs.
“Your truth” negates facts. Just ask our leaders.
I truly believe you are truthful in your belief about truth. Ouch!! Now my head is starting to hurt!!
Redefined:
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the
world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other
modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted
once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought
diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far
as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact
and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly
wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at
them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but
chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of
unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever.
The only think Orwell got wrong was the timing.
“Woman”/“man” is gone already as are “peaceful protests” . And “democracy” has been redefined to mean “govt run by Democrats”.
Kim! Great to see you commenting!
TNX mucho. This argument is lethal to the false narrative of CO2 being the climate control knob. I can see why the narrators, in desperation, revealed the iron fist of censorship under the velvet glove of caring.
===========
Too subtle for most, I think.
OK, you’ve got your embedded spelling correctors, now we’re moving on to the embedded thought correctors. Just right click and select the approved thought.
Thimk.
Anyone remember Lysenko?
We never learn.
The thing about Lysenkoism is how long it took the Soviet politicians to publicly acknowledge it was junk. The Soviet Union was divided up into 3 regions for the purpose of agriculture, and in these 3 regions they had 20 famines in 20 years, a rate of 1/3 of the harvests. And every famine was blamed on the peasants because they’re stupid and not applying the theories correctly
So don’t count on the tide turning soon.
As Lysenko fit with their politics, Stalin and crew liked it. Rather why arguing the science in regard to climate change has no effect on the True Believers.
That is mostly correct, but it was a little more complex than that. The peasants were taught by the government to override their common sense about agriculture. So, at random times different villages would get freakishly good harvests and because it seemed to result from Lysenko’s methods, they would report those successes to Pravda (of course they would not publish disappointing harvests). So, what was produced as an automated “cherry picking” reporting mechanism, and eventually there were hundreds of reports in the Soviet media that backed up Lysenko. Lysenko rarely published in scientific journals but rebutted his opponents that did with the massive trove of Pravda articles that showed the “practical results” of his methods. Thus, the peasants unwittingly participated in this through the Soviet media and it looked like they were on Lysenko’s side. And the real irony was that the government was buying wheat from the United States and desperately wanted to increase its harvests. (wtf?)
I just bring this up because it is similar to what is happening now with Climate Change, where every unusual weather occurrence, that validates the theory, gets reported as “proof” of the theory. And weather occurrences that don’t, don’t get reported. This is illustrative of how pernicious something like this can become, as even well meaning people get sucked in, along the lines of: “if you are trained to find something, you will find it.” And now this is happening in other branches of Western science that are fast becoming “narrative based”…
Sorry about the “nit-picking” but I just thought I would expand on your comment. Lysenkoism seems so absurd on its face, but how it was implemented and how it resulted in the starvation of millions is quite complex. Once the idea “took hold”, it became a self sustaining cyclone, that was almost impossible to get out of.
An amazing story. IMHO
Our old buddy Noam Chomsky observed early in his career that it wasn’t necessary to have actual censorship to have the same effect.
Don’t be sorry, it’s not nitpicking, it’s additional information, it’s the political elites that perpetuate the political correct view, because they can’t be seen to be wrong.
How VERY curious the fact the HOLDOMOR occurred roughly in the same time span, and it isn’t even mentioned.
Talk about censorship and whitewashing history.
20 million white Christian Ukrainians and Russians starved to death by the Bolsheviks
In a classic example of the ‘cancel culture’ at the time, my grandfather documented the holodomor in a book (search on the subject and almost every photograph shown will be one of his). He spent 16 years in Lubyanka for his troubles.
We are grateful to these unsung heros. Fancy doing an article on Going Postal blog about him?
Those stupid farmers that actually do the job…..
These days it is a lot easier to maintain a highly curated politically correct collection of scientific literature. Back in Lysenko’s day, this is how they removed “harmful science” from the libraries:
Stalin and the Scientists by ~ Siman Ings
Unless one spends some effort, they won’t realize that they are reading a “highly curated“ set of scientific literature when delving into the climatology journals. So, in that milieu, it is hardly surprising that 97% of scientists agree with the CAGW hypothesis. If you valued your career you would be insane not to.
*It is interesting to note that when scientists did dissent in the USSR (Andrei Sakharov was a famous example) they were carted off for psychiatric evaluation… the same as just happened with Marine Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller Jr. who asked for leadership accountability regarding the Afghanistan debacle.
I am a bit surprised by the lack of creativity here, as the PTB always seem to follow the same dry and unoriginal playbook.
Can you blame them? It keeps working!
“It would be insane not to.”
“No sane prosecutor would prosecute.”
“it is hardly surprising that 97% of scientists agree with the CAGW hypothesis. “
That was a provably false claim.
For what its worth Lysenko, as a young horticulture researcher, just ripped-off Mennonite farmers from Kansas, who had a good track record of adapting crops to varied climates. Like many in the Communist Party he worked his way up on a series of lies, and then attacked, as anti-science, anyone who had a difference of opinion. Does any of this sound familiar?
I don’t know who initially discovered it in the United States, it could have been the Mennonites, but it was reported in the literature.
I can’t tell you how many things I have “discovered” in my scientific career that were not discoveries, but something previously discovered… it seems like that happened with Lysenko:
Stalin and the Scientists by Simon Ings
That fingerprint is there with Climate Change as well. Politicians looking for a cause/crisis as a guise to implement policy:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/?sh=11124b9f68a
Politics is about the vision of the way things “ought to be” and when it is aligned with science great things can be achieved. However, when they are in opposition, one or the other has to be destroyed.
Today’s Stalin is the woke mob. And not surprisingly, Bernie Sanders loves it.
Bearing in mind that Bernie and his wife honeymooned in Stalin’s USSR. Hard to imagine, but true.
It’s even worse than I thought (and I already thought things were bad).
The corruption is evidently bottomless, It is far beyond my comprehension. Does anybody have any respect for truth anymore?
The natural world follows truth, it is physics but it is dumb; false narratives die before its eloquent silence.
Let me reprise an oldie from Judy’s annals about attribution of warming:
Attribution, she a bitch.
Don’t know how, just scratch that itch.
Puff, the Magic Climate,
Lived by the CO2;
Nature turned and bit it, someplace rich.
====
In lieu of science and rational assessment, handmade tales are narrated and normalized for a sociopolitical goal with benefits. As long as they can sustain a consensus by force (dictatorial) or choice (democratic), this condition will persist indefinitely, and may progress if left untreated.
It’s not just progressing, it’s accelerating at breakneck speed.
The purpose of Journals need to be re-considered. The distribution of information no longer requires journals. There’s now this information superhighway thing that’s like a series of tubes. Information can be shared by that.
The problem with that idea is that any old rubbish can be shared and some people are too stupid to tell it’s rubbish. So the endorsement of a journal is a way of weeding out the junk.
But as journals are selling their credibility they are also commercially biased to maintain their credibility. That means never allowing anything to be published that questions what they have previously endorsed.
No questioning. No progress. No Science in this journal.
So no need for journals anymore. They have become obsolete.
Perhaps you would like to know David Zaruk (if you don’t know him already). He runs a very interesting site called “The risk monger”. One of his texts explains why he, a researcher, does not publish in perr-reviewed journals:
https://risk-monger.com/2020/07/31/why-i-dont-publish-in-peer-reviewed-journals/
Thank you. I did not know David Zarak,
I did know of the tragic decline of academic publishing that he so eloquently describes in that link.
What neither he nor I have addressed is why. It’s partly because of the internet, But also it’s to do with the growth of academia. Too much academic is being published without really adding anything new.
But that would be drifting off topic.
“also it’s to do with the growth of academia. Too much academic is being published without really adding anything new.”
Yes, I agree that this is one of the main causes (if not the most important). Nowadays when I look at a journal of my area I feel that what is being published is mainly data, there is no real interpretation in order that data make sense. Laboratory equipement became cheaper, lots of instruments now are able to regurgitate quantities of numbers in pritnted outputs or directly to Excel files: people have no time to think about them. Long ago Charles Darwin made a revolution in biology using just a ruler and one thermometer — and lots of thinking. Ah!, and with a very minimal modicum of “peer reviewing”…
If there needed to be any proof of the worthlessness of “peer review” as a measure of the veracity of science “papers,” here it is. Politics rules, real science is suppressed, science “journals” are non-science.
The only reason for rejection of this paper is, to quote Jim Carrey in Liar Liar, “Because it’s devastating to my case!”
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=jim+carrey+liar+liar+clip+devastating+to+my+case&docid=608021280245896386&mid=C3638EAD3F5CC377E9BCC3638EAD3F5CC377E9BC&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
If there needed to be any proof of the worthlessness of “peer review”
You would think Sokal would have proven that already.
I would love to say I am surprised, but the entire field, along with pretty much the entire university system, is captured by corruption. There needs to be a full-on assault of cool-headed skepticism and, frankly, humorous ridicule of this field. Let the average person know what alarmists intend to do to their lifestyles. No car that can drive more than 250 miles without stopping for hours to recharge, no backyard grill, no gas powered mower, tools, etc. No more air travel. No more natural gas stove or heat.
When they follow through with these things, there will be fallout, and people will begin to question the narrative.
My understanding is that Bretz was never such censored however disbelieved, geologists can clarify this. There was an exhibit we saw on his, among others involved, story highlighted at the Columbia River Dam. My impression is that at least de facto science censorship has been increasing. At least they seem somewhat consistent, however very confused and corrupted. We now have departments (colleges next?) of SCIENCE COMMUNICATION. So far I have not seen any evidence recognizing logical errors.
Bretz, J. H. 1969. The Lake Missoula floods and the channeled scabland. Journal of Geology. 77:505-543.
There are many dams on the Columbia. Which one has the Bretz exhibit? Thanks.
My question, too.
Grand Coulee, has been well over a decade, might be able to find the date. It was part of the tour of the dam. At least I got the river right.
Thanks! I suspected as much, as the biggest dam in the Channeled Scablands. The Bretz Floods indeed formed the Grand Coulee.
Haven’t been there in going on 60 years, although close a few times since. The four lower Columbia dams however I’ve driven past most years of my life. Bonneville predates me, but The Dalles (1957), John Day (1971) and McNary (1954), closest to my native AO, all were built in my childhood.
I’m just old enough to remember Celilo Falls before they were drowned by The Dalles Dam. The freeway sign for the park now says “Ancient Indian Fishing Grounds”, but Indians were still fishing there in 1956. I guess they nevertheless qualify as ancient, though.
Coulees there are orders of magnitude larger than they are in Louisiana where the name is common. I have a grapefruit sized piece of “gravel” from a bar in Moses Coulee. Every geologist, among others, needs to see that place. I studied the 1957 Texas flood, then the order larger 73-75 Louisiana floods, hope I don’t get to see another larger one, wouldn’t survive it anyway. Also one needs to see the huge erratics near the Pacific coast along with the Missoula lake levels in Montana showing way up on the mountain along with Dry Falls. I once got shown the only waterfall in Louisiana, small jump to the top.
Also a glance at a sediment map and profile in the Gulf of Mexico abyssal is instructive, should be required reading for current crisis promoters.
It is shocking, indeed.
It is illuminating to read the letter from the second “special-editor” appointed to lead the “revision”. At a certain point, he wrote:
“In conclusion, I reject the manuscript and, to preserve the reputation of Copernicus journals, ask the HGSS editorial board to definitely bar access to Richet’s article, including the abstract.”
Well, I know what I would do if I was a researcher on that field are AND did not find in the paper any flaws that would compromise its results and conclusions: I would just cite that as a personal communication from the author… (after having his permission, of course).
Simple as that. If I can be a referee to read papers in order to decide if they should be published or not, I do not lose that competence to evaluate when I am selecting the scientific information that I use in connection with my work. And often I did not use in the discussion of my work some papers that were in the “front line” at the time: just because I found in them some methodological flaws that compromised their use.
Tom Halla asked if anyone remembers Lysenko. I have studied the history of Lysenko and Lysenkoism, I remember. And I second Tom’s question.
I agree with that 100%. Twenty years ago, Trofim Lysenko was a punchline. And it would have been a waste of time to study him, and be about as productive as studying Lamarkianism or Cold Fusion. Why read about something that can never happen in a Western Democracy? Lysenkoism is from another world.
However, I have completely changed my mind on this. I think the “Story of Lysenko” should be required reading for undergraduate science majors, because it so clearly illustrates how fragile science is and how easily politics can derail it.
I think the whole university has been evolving to worship statistical analysis of data by using software tools on a computer. Where did p-hacking come from, using tools with no idea of what assumptions are needed. It has reached the point where even professor level teachers do not have the expertise to adequately assess how to properly use statistical analysis. Add this to the loss of physical immersion into fields of study, i,e., feeling it, seeing it in action, smelling, in other words learning what uncertainty really means. Then data measurements become just numbers to be tossed around using floating point calculations and who really cares about the real world. That’s why too many engineers are sceptics, no math to describe how climate works. It wouldn’t surprise me that some Einstein in the future devises how it works but is canceled because his hypothesis doesn’t fit with all the current academic establishment. History repeating itself!
“using tools with no idea of what assumptions are needed. It has reached the point where even professor level teachers do not have the expertise to adequately assess how to properly use statistical analysis.”
I second!
“Then data measurements become just numbers”
And again I agree!
I agree! It is one of the cheapest forms of science to do (all you need is a laptop) and it gets results:
The Sugar Conspiracy
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin
I could publish a paper a month using that technique:
Data Dredging
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging
At one time the scientific literature was reserved for reporting “significant findings” but now that statistics has become all the rage, you can report “significant significances“…. (sigh)
Pure White and Deadly. A great book, by Yudkin. Formed a lot of my opinions as a Dr.
I agree including Lamarck, don’t know about Cold Fusion. In fact this may worth looking into defamation if you compare it to their excuse, but this is a mess of information. I recall reading in real science articles about the temperature preceding the gas some three decades ago. Besides, this is a history journal–History of Geo- and Space Sciences, but still requires rigor.
“The manuscript HGSS-2021-1, posted as journal article on 26 May 2021, was removed on 10 September 2021 after applying a post-publication review that resulted in a rejection of the manuscript.”
From the “Post-production review on …In conclusions:…”
“(1) One needs to understand the difference between the natural and the anthropogenic C cycle.(2) The present day (anthropogenic) emissions lead to the measured CO2 rise, whose impact on Earthʼs energy imbalance is now also measurable, and not only a theoretical product of model.”
From “Section 2. background: …”
“Hence, the first goal of this study is to analyze the nature of these relationships to ascertain whether or not CO2 is the real climate driver of the Earth. This is a complete misconcept of the understanding of how CO2 influences temperature and vice visa by mixing natural and anthropogenic C cycle effect. Until this is not understood any further discussions are meaningless
From “Review of Richet, 2021: …” “The temperature-CO2 climate connection:….”
These conclusions are deeply flawed for several reasons. First and foremost, the author implicitly commits the logical error that “temperature variation on Earth can have only one cause.”” That does not fit a definition of a logical error that I am familiar with, besides they seem to contradict their own problem with the paper that contradicts the idea that there is only one cause. .
COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics, is used as their retraction called “rejection” excuse. Besides the ad hominem, they commit the real logical error of appeal to authority. “In the light of the above and after conferring with the author, the HGSS editorial board, and experts in the field, Copernicus Publications has come to the decision to temporarily bar access to the article and perform a post-publication review, as recommended by COPE in such cases6.” Did they close the gate after the horse left? Temporarily? There might be serious problems with the paper, but they condemn themselves.
My bad! I was just speaking generally about the optimal use of time… there might be some things that Lamarkianism (~epigenetics) or Cold Fusion could teach, but if you are working with a grad student who wants a degree and job in four years, it is hard to justify spending their time on such topics. And I would have lumped Lysenkoism in there as well… until now. (sigh)
Lamark was an independent spirit, an author of the “Encyclopedie“, with a huge contribution to the biologic sciences. He has been defamed and ignored because of his conceptions regarding heredity in evolution, which were absolutely legitimate in the scientific context of his time. Should I mention the extravagant theory of heredity followed by Charles Darwin, that he explained in detail more than once in his works? But it seems that no one got some time to think about it, so better ignore… Both theories, demonstrated wrong a posteriory, do not diminish the contribution of these two great scientists to the evolution of the biological thought!
The paper was published … it can’t get unpublished unless it is retracted and that has not happened.
This whole business reminds me of the trials of Alfred Wegener.
“Green” is big business.
Academic researchers get their value assessed by number of publications and by dollars of funding. This is no secret.
So, there is value in jumpin on a trend, whether worthwhile or not. I know academics who were in the right place at the right time to be among the first to develop research in a new, long-term topic, and those researchers were able to ride the wave all the way to retirement. Steady successful funding is a dream for most.
Al Gore and others have made “green” into big business. By design. The plan has been to first create the problem, and then create the solution: green investment. Then, to invent the investment management firm.
This is Generation Investment Management, LLC. Created by Al Gore.
Nations and large organuzations, such as the BBC, offer pensions. They have to take that pension payroll deduction and invest it in a way that will have the money available when the person retire. A major financial obligation.
“Green” created the international sign-on idea, and then told nations: sign on now, and get in on the ground floor: declare you will have your govt pensions in “green.” “Responsible investing.” Then, invest now while the companies selling the green technology are lower cost – because as more nations sign on, their value will go up. Get in on the ground floor.
So, the signatory nations sign on, and begin their commitment to go green: solar, etc. – as part of their goverment budget. This drives the “green” market. And their investments go up. AND, each nation wants the rest to go ahead and sign on.
If you sign on late, you miss getting on at the ground level.
So, all the signatory nations are biased. BBC has pensions heavily invested in Green – in GIM LLC, specifically. Of course they want “green” initiatives to succeed. Lots of bias in all of this.
Trillions in investment dollars.
https://www.iigcc.org/about-us/our-members/
Yep, create the new Apple, Microsoft, or Amazon and drive by inducing fear into the masses. Orwell is turning over.
Time for a new on-line free-access journal:
“The Journal of Climate Papers Blocked by Activists”.
Publishes such papers accompanied by the full correspondence with the editor(s) of the rejecting publication.
The existence of such a fall-back publication would take the sting out of the thoroughly corrupted peer-approval system.
No kidding, that may be of interest! If good science practitioners will not let it derail as is happening with the Ploses…
That’s such an awkward, confusing headline.
Science is a very handy fig leaf
Once the ice core data was published the CO2 causes climate change hypothesis should have been ash canned. That it persists indicates that it is climate hysterics who are acting for moneyed interests, not the skeptics.
A fraud can only exist this long after refutation because those with money & political power maintain it.
As T.H.Huxley supposedly wrote—-such a beautiful theory, destroyed by an ugly little fact.
Well, I did read an ‘explanation’ of why this still means that CAGW will destroy the planet on unreal climate.
Apparently, even though temperatures increased before CO2, what REALLY happened was that temperatures rose, CO2 rose a few hundred years later, and then that CO2 caused more warming. Thus CAGW fearmongering us preserved, thank the Climate Gods!
The only slight problem with this, as exists with ALL the ‘positive feedback’ and ‘tipping points’ narratives, is a simple and easily proved one: if this did occur, then ANY warming for ANY reason would cause ireversable runaway warming. It NEVER has occurred, so it is obviously and demonstrably wrong. Just try pointing that out on unreal climate, however, if it still exists.
What does merit have to do with controversial or affiliation.
The point is they censor opposition because they have no argument that will stand up to criticism.
If the intolerant had always had their way information would still be carved in stone and pictographs in the desert and paintings in caves.
I have read the work of Dr. Richet some time ago, while I do agree that there is no way that temperature follows CO2 levels at any time in the pre-industrial times, much of his work is a little too much story and should contain more hard evidence…
During a glacial-interglacial transition, there is much overlap between the temperature rise and the CO2 rise, so that programmers can claim that CO2 did help a lot in reaching higher temperatures. But during interglacial-glacial transitions, the temperature and methane levels are already on a new minimum and land ice sheets at a new maximum before CO2 levels start to drop.
When the CO2 levels then drop with about 40 ppmv, there is no clear evidence of an further cooling, to the contrary.
That is clearly visible for the previous interglacial: the Eemian at 130-115,000 years ago:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/eemian.html
Some 50 years ago I uses an attribution program called Anova to find out the contribution of the different actors, but I suppose that similar programs exist in R.
Something for Willis Eschenbach to find that out: Milankovitch cycles, CH4 and CO2 as drivers for the observed temperature changes in three parts: the upgoing part, the downgoing part and the full cycle…
The paper was submitted to a journal focussing on the history of science. That means its audience consists mostly of non specialists with regards to the subject, in this case the ice cores. Hence the ‘much story’ to put the subject into context.
Thanks for the background! If that the aim is of the journal, then the article was right on target and the comments of the “peers” far from justified. There was no reason to remove the article anyway…
And it deals more with criticising (analysing, evaluating: methodology and its limitations; etc.) the way how that particular science endeavour was developped that with the actual scientific results. More with the “how” the results were obtained than with the results themselves.
There is a way to deal with alternative points of view in the scientific method. If known before the paper is written address them in the paper. If not known until after publication a followup paper is in order to address them. However, never, ever censor objections. Never.
Censorship is politics (majority rule). That’s not science.
Well stated, George! I completely agree!
Always remember: The truth can survive any assault thrown against it; but the lie needs a strong fortress of censorship and propaganda to protect it.
Have you noticed that true believers of any emotional movement — climate change, COVID-19, and similar — will never say “here is the evidence you are wrong in which you and others can and should verify for yourselves.” It is always “YOU ARE SPREADING MISINFORMATION AND I MUST SILENCE THAT ALL COSTS!!!!”
If their belief were solid and sound, they wouldn’t need to silence dissent because the truth can withstand the strongest assault against it. Since their belief is based on lies, it couldn’t withstand the weakest of attacks by the weakest of persons, so it needs something strong like censorship and propaganda to protect it.
Such censoring, retraction etc are now becoming a new tactic to preserve a certain agenda from a certain group. For retraction no open debate is allowed. Whereas, alarming papers without much scientific basis are published very easily in Nature GeoScience and many other reputed journals.
For earlier cases, an influential scientist will write a post-publication review and there is no debate allowed; whereas for later cases inspite of many post-publication sensible reviews those reviews are ignored. Not a single paper from agenda-based science is retracted or suppressed. Can science ever progress following that path? Some people are surely getting rich from agenda-based science, but what society is achieving? I wonder what could be the end point of such propaganda-based science and where are we leading the next generation.
How to stop those? Will more and more ethical people step up?
It’s a premeditated corruption of the scientific method. Nothing more, nothing less.
The only people who ever do this are those with an agenda.
AKA watermelons.
Some options for “collateral damage” in those new reviews …
– – – – –
A significant effort is made to summarily dismiss any and all “evidence” that does not appear in “(serious) peer-reviewed scientific journals” … or, even worse, only appears “in some random blog post” …
Gavin Schmidt, welcome to “under the bus” ?
– – – – –
The first commandment of the Church of AGW : Thou shalt have no other climate forcing but CO2 …
– – – – –
If your methodology concludes that a sine wave and a cosine wave (with the same frequency) have “zero correlation”, may I humbly suggest you change your methodology ?
– – – – –
I have absorbed the notion that “changes in (local, Antarctic) ice-core dD temperature proxy ~= 2 x GMST changes“.
Am I the only person in the entire world to have done so ?
– – – – –
In AR6 you only have to read as far as the SPM (42 pages out of 3948).
Paragraph D.1.1, page SPM-36 :
– – – – –
Note that the last reviewer raises some questions that I consider to be valid.
The “Methodology” section of any “serious, peer-reviewed, scientific paper” should allow other people to reproduce (/ replicate ?) the results.
Just because one “side” manages to get papers published that fail to meet this criterion doesn’t mean that “the other side” should be able to get away with it as well.
Very funny, and very good.
================
“…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.”
So, are the papers that do align with the warming narrative “sufficiently reviewed” by those who reject the warming narrative? That, in a sane world, would be the precedent set by the Copernicus reasoning.
One of our electricity suppliers in Ireland increased its prices two months ago (electricity by 9% and gas by 7.8%). Next month it will increase these again by 9.3% and 7%. They keep telling the public that renewables will solve the problem.
Our deputy prime minister in Ireland recently blamed low wind for power shortages. His solution is for us to build a lot more wind turbines.
However, if we try and expose their utter foolishness we have the politicians, the complicit media, the deceitful social media and the naive and gullible public all arrayed against us. They are all so spiteful they will not only slander us but even resort to physical violence should we raise our protesting voices too loudly or too often. I have tried making comments online on one of a few more critical local websites but find my comments are only posted days later when the articles have been archived – a subtle form of censorship.
I have much sympathy for honest researchers and their difficulties with most scientific journals today. These journals are part of the array against dissenting science and medicine.
I want to commend this website for seeking to uphold the best in honest scientific endeavor.
Time to distinguish science from “the science” to which everyone is supposed to bow down. “The science” is simply whatever the almighty state demands. Like Nazis insisting that Aryan blood was superior to non-Aryan blood. “The science” has nothing to do with the truth.
What goes around, comes around – Suck it back row!
One question I’ve struggled with regarding causality: CO2 follows T- rise, is, can this and modest warming caused by the LWIR absorption by CO2 in the atmosphere both be true?
In the case of outgassing from the oceans with warming arising from Milankovic cycles, clearly this is the elephant in the room. This evolution of CO2 arises from it’s lower solubility in warm water. Once in the atmosphere, however,
an entirely different property of CO2 is free to act, that of its ability to absorb IR and delay emission of this energy to space.
Indications from observations are that the latter effect is small and that feedback to any warming is net negative (model projections proved to be 300% too high) so it appears to be a marginal effect. Nevertheless, epistemologically, the simple case of Richet is deficient.
It should be mentioned, that all other gases evolved from the ocean as well. Oxygen outgassed into the atmosphere where it did not have a warming effect. Warming also resulted in evaporation, putting more water vapor into the atmosphere where it had a much greater effect than CO2 on warming the atmosphere because of its ability to absorb LWIR.
It is a trivial truth that warming of the seas resulted in evolution of CO2 (and evap of seawater), but that says nothing about the behavior of these components added to the different medium of the air.
That’s the criticism a good reviewer would have made. Nevertheless, Copernicus’s ham-handed totalitarian gatekeeping remains totally wrong.
Civilization depends on the Institution of Science to “get to the truth” in many vitally important matters. Science and the proper implementation of the Scientific Method (used to keep humans out of the process) has been tremendously valuable. However, bad, corrupted science (as in dietary recommendations via unhealthy food pyramids, and recommending processed seed oils and trans fats over other fats, and the Climate Crisis fraud) has already cost humanity millions of lives and $Trillions in money and suffering. Therefore bad science should be the basis for a HUGE Class Action Law Suit against all the purveyors of fraud in Science.
I’m thinking $10 Trillion would be justified for starters.
But somehow, these VERY dangerous and costly fraudsters are totally insulated from justice…and our Tax Monies are $Paying most of these crooks. These corrupt Scientists are “Above the Law”…like all the corrupt and criminal Leftists are nowadays.
And the Justice System and the Sciences have been corrupted by the same people.
I understand where you are coming from, however, as I have said here before the perpetrators will simply resort to the standard fall back position, by stating that they were simply basing their “opinions” on the best available scientific information at the time!!! It’s a little bit like the classic copout line, “I did what I thought was right!”.
I can understand reasonable people believing the man made climate change hoax. But at this point not to have reversed course is indicative of a mental illness. The refusal and censorship of data that has not been manipulated for their purpose is telling. The narcissistic belief that humans effect the climate more than nature is indicative of a narcissistic character complex. This becomes more clear everyday as the climate “protesters” and climate politicians become increasingly a physical representation of various mental illnesses, transgenderism, autism, narcissism, obsessive compulsive disorder etc.
It is a religion now, and soon to be The Religion of the State in America. Never mind it is against the law, laws are for peons, not the ruling classes who grovel at the Alter Of Man Caused Globall Warmining.
There’s very little science left in climate science. The bulk of it is junk science.
When climatology started to allow wholesale alterations of raw data, it became junk science.
Why the low rating?
This is a sheer Machiavellian exercise of political power by people with an agenda.
Those same activists are crying like babies when the general public disbelieves their erudite proclamations over such things as vaccines and masks and gasoline and diesel,, but then they’ll forget that they were the one’s responsible for unscientific, biased, authoritarian, behavior like this.
They can’t remove my blog post on this withdrawn paper, however:
https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2021/6/14/challenges-to-the-co2-global-warming-hypothesis-4-a-minimal-ice-age-greenhouse-effect-79
The journal’s name, Copernicus, should be changed to Inquisitor. Or, perhaps, Big Brother.
This paper by Pascal Richet is excellent.
It’s “postface” deserves repeating in full:
Regardless of any particular interpretation of the climate record, it seems appropriate to give the last word to the famous naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc, Earl of Buffon (1749). Himself a mathematician by training, Buffon (1749) voiced a strong warning very early on about the misuses of what are now called models by expounding in the Initial Discourse of his monumental Natural History the “difficulties one finds when attempting to apply geometry or calculations to physical subjects that are too complicated.” As he noted, one has “to strip the subject from the majority of these qualities, to produce an abstract being that no longer resembles the actual being” and, after much reasoning and calculation, one projects an “ideal result onto the real subject, and this is what produces countless falsehoods and errors.” Hence, Buffon concluded, “the most delicate and most important point in scientific studies” is “to distinguish well between what there is of the real in a subject from that which we add to it arbitrarily as we consider it: to recognize clearly which properties belong to the subject and which properties we only imagine it to have.”
As quoted in Richet’s excellent paper, the Earl of Buffon in 1749 predicted exactly the dark art of climate modelling two and a half centuries in the future:
Buffon warned of the “difficulties one finds when attempting to apply geometry or calculations to physical subjects that are too complicated.”
He sensed nonlinear chaotic emergent pattern, though did not name it as such. Ahead of his time (his fellow countryman Benoit Mandelbrot would discover this two centuries later).
In making a model, one has “to strip the subject from the majority of these qualities, to produce an abstract being that no longer resembles the actual being”.
And, after much reasoning and calculation, one projects an “ideal result onto the real subject, and this is what produces countless falsehoods and errors.”
Hence, Buffon concluded, “the most … most important point in scientific studies” is “to distinguish well between what there is of the real in a subject from that which we add to it arbitrarily as we consider it: to recognize clearly which properties belong to the subject and which properties we only imagine it to have.”
Can’t put it better than that.
Truth is only what the political activists say, and anything that conflicts with that must be silenced.