While many media outlets ran stories this week about a scientific paper suggesting that Penguin chicks in Antarctica are dying by the thousands (despite evidence suggesting they aren’t), the mainstream media ignored another story that shows an ugly episode of bullying of a science journal by prominent climate scientists who demanded that a peer-reviewed paper they didn’t like be retracted.
The paper, A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming, said in its abstract, “In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.” This single phrase likely triggered the demands by prominent climate scientists for the paper to be retracted. Yet that claim is true, supported by real world data and numerous conclusions presented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent report.
This is yet one more in a growing list of shameful episodes in the catalog of climate science calumnies. It features many of the same rogues gallery of climate researchers caught playing fast and loose with data and short-circuiting peer review in the infamous ClimateGate scandal of 2009, such as Dr. Michael E. Mann and Dr. Stefan Rahmsdorf who used their influence to get this paper retracted. Here is the notice from The European Physical Journal Plus, which has officially retracted the paper with this statement:
“Retraction Note: A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming
The Original Article was published on 13 January 2022
Retraction Note: Eur. Phys J. Plus (2022) 137:112
The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Concerns were raised regarding the selection of the data, the analysis and the resulting conclusions of the article. The authors were invited to submit an addendum to the article, but post publication review of the concerns with the article and the submitted addendum concluded that the addendum was not suitable for publication and that the conclusions of the article were not supported by available evidence or data provided by the authors. In light of these concerns and based on the outcome of the post publication review, the Editors-in-Chief no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions reported in this article.
- The authors disagree with this retraction.”
Mind you the paper had already gone through peer review and the Editors didn’t cite any specific instance of the use of bad data or the drawing of unsupported conclusions, rather, it seems, unwanted attention from large mainstream media organizations and pressure from prominent outside researchers lead to a failure of “confidence” in the results. When they let “the science” through the peer review process decide, the paper was approved and published. When climate alarmism raised its ugly head objecting, the paper was retracted. This cowardly decision was the subject of Team Climate Crisis Resorts to Bullying, Again published at WUWT ten days ago. At that date, the paper was simply “under dispute”.
So, over a year and a half after publication, with over 40 citations, the paper is retracted at the behest of the “ClimateGate gang.”
The retraction by the relatively small and obscure journal The European Physical Journal Plus, and its prominent publisher Springer, shows a core problem in study of climate change: the corruption climate science in the pursuit of a political agenda.
Commenting on this instance of apparent cowardice in the face of pressure, Tony Thomas writes in Quadrant-online, How Science is Done These Days:
There’s nothing new about mainstream climate scientists conspiring to bury papers that throw doubt on catastrophic global warming. The Climategate leaks showed co-compiler of the HadCRUT global temperature series Dr Phil Jones emailing Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, July 8, 2004:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth, a colleague] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Thanks to a science whistle-blower, there’s now documentation of a current exercise as bad as that captured in the Jones-Mann correspondence. This new and horrid saga – again involving Dr Mann – sets out to deplatform and destroy a peer-endorsed published paper by four Italian scientists. Their paper in European Physical Journal Plus is titled A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming and documents that extreme weather and related disasters are not generally increasing, contrary to the catastrophists feeding misinformation to the Guardian/ABC axis and other compliant media.
Calls for retractions began only after two Australian media outlets’, the Australian and Sky News Australia, reports on the study garnered more than 400,000 views and thousands of comments. Leading climate alarm promoters in the form of The Guardian, Agence France-Presse, and the Covering Climate Now, a cabal of some 500 media outlets with reach to a 2 billion audience, to respond with fury and publicly rake the journal over the coals.
Writing on the retraction in his substack article, “Think of the Implications of Publishing,” climate researcher, Roger Pielke Jr, Ph.D. said:
To be clear, there is absolutely no allegation of research fraud or misconduct here, just simple disagreement. Instead of countering arguments and evidence via the peer reviewed literature, activist scientists teamed up with activist journalists to pressure a publisher – Springer Nature, perhaps the world’s most important scientific publisher – to retract a paper. Sadly, the pressure campaign worked.
The abuse of the peer review process documented here is remarkable and stands as a warning that climate science is as deeply politicized as ever with scientists willing to exert influence on the publication process both out in the open and behind the scenes.
Prominent climatologist Judith Curry, Ph.D. tweeted concerning the controversial retraction, “Reprehensible behavior by journal editors in retracting a widely read climate paper (80,000 downloads) over politically inconvenient conclusions. Journal editors asked me to adjudicate, and my findings were in favor of the author.”
There is good news though, the lead author of the retracted paper, physicist Gianluca Alimonti, from the National Institute of Nuclear Physics in Milan, Italy, and one of his co-authors, Luigi Marian, an agrometeorologist, have published a new paper “Is the number of global natural disasters increasing?” in the journal Environmental Hazards. Their answer? No, they are not increasing. We will wait and see if this paper is targeted by the Climategate Gang as well.
The media silence on this ugly episode episode of scientific bullying speaks volumes about their preferences for the kinds of facts, scientific scandals, and truths they choose to report – and ignore.
Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
Professor Curry is clearly on the side of science.
She went from alarmist, to realist – a great science mind based on empirical, reproducible evidence – a true light in dark times
When a religion dominates society, as Climastrology does today, it is not tolerated to call its dogmas into question.
Rich why not stop using anything developed by a religious person if you so dislike religion.
”…Georges Lemaître, (1894-1966), Belgian cosmologist, Catholic priest, and father of the Big Bang theory.”
I think the above demonstrates your blanket statement incorrect.
You misunderstood, mk. But thank you for the opportunity to clarify.
I am a Christian, a traditionalist Catholic. However, one who understands history and the ways in which worldly men (primarily) perverted the true teachings to turn the institutions of the church into an abomination. Abuses which made understandable the reaction against the faith led by Luther and Calvin and so on.
I refer to Climastrology because astrology is a pseudoscientific gnostic religion, a false belief. It’s my belief that this dominant religion of our post-Christian society exists because people are made with a nature that is drawn toward God and transcendence. Once they abandon the old dominant religion they still need religion because their ‘hearts are restless until they rest in [God]’.
In earlier times, men who claimed to believe in the Catholic Church, as well as my own ancestors who settled Boston and lived near Salem and its witch trials, disgraced our Christian faith. I don’t condemn the truths that they believed, I condemn the ugly sins they committed.
The existence of witches in Salem was settled science.
Yes indeed!
I believe they came to a concensus on the issue.
97%! 🙂
“I condemn the ugly sins they committed”
Which they wouldn’t have been able to do if they hadn’t dominated society.
That’s not even close to true JZ. Belief in magic, sorcerers and witches long pre-dates Christianity. Persecuting and killing people is not a Christian value, but was certainly reduced by the domination of society by Christianity.
Their crimes & ugly sins were more like ‘dying WITH Covid’. They were committed while they were nominally Christian, but not BECAUSE they were Christian. Since they were sins they were indeed DESPITE that they were Christian.
And consider the many tens of millions of people killed by communism/fascism in the twentieth century. Freed from the restraints of Christianity, they reverted to the full barbarism of pagan times.
The dogma of Climastrology (wonderful neologism) silences heretics when they can.
Dogma of any stripe is a statement of faith, not fact.
When you already “know” the truth anything contradicting that must be dangerous propaganda for some hidden nefarious reason — censor it.
Real belief (not make believe) arises when the evidence compels it. If it takes faith, it is make believe.
George, It seems to me that we must at least provisionally take some things on faith and act as though we take them to be true for the sake of a stable society.
Atheists have faith that there is definitively no God. At least agnostics are scientific and rely on evidence which they find lacking.
The irony is not lost on me that my contempt for Climastrology does not extend to all forms of religion.
“take some things on faith and act as though we take them to be true for the sake of a stable society”.
Who decides which things?
The vast majority take “on faith” the dogma of AGW, with no understanding of the fundamental physics; Stefan-Boltzmann or Beer-lambert.
Somehow an image of a greenhouse or a blanket is all they need to swallow the concept.
“We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” — Carl Sagan
Who decides which things?
In a just world, each of us individually. In the real world, it is those who have power, which usually means those who have accumulated money.
It is not esoteric articles of faith to which I refer. Not questions about the nature of God or the specifics of how we are supposed to worship. It is things like the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. What makes these things inalienable when all around us their inalienability is clearly denied? Either we believe that God ordains it or we choose to value it as if we believed that God existed and ordained it.
In the best case scenario, it is an educated populace voting in a free and fair democratic election. To the extent that people remain ignorant and are distracted by nonsense, a stable society is at risk.
“ it is an educated populace voting in a free and fair democratic election.” Since the elites have been doing their best in the new age of Wokeism to destroy education, then clearly society is at risk. In case you hadn’t noticed, we used to be living in the Age of Reason. That’s been replaced by the Age of Hurt Feelings.
Free and fair? Ridiculous. There’s nothing free and fair about national election processes in modern times. It’s now acceptable for supposed bastions of democracy to launch political inquistions against their opponents and imprison them. It’s now acceptable for modern versions of Sturmabteilung to disrupt elections by violence.
Ok, no dispute from me on that, we’re basically screwed if there is no God to save us. Look where things are heading.
“Either we believe that God ordains it or we choose to value it as if we believed that God existed and ordained it.”
Not necessarily. I believe in “unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” not because I believe in God or act as if I did- it’s easy to conclude that freedoms are a pragmatic solution- they result in happier people, by and large because humans cannot be regimented for long- we are a “social species” but only in a weak sense. For most of the time humans have existed, they lived in small groups so it’s built into our species to not be dominated by others. We can learn much about “human nature” by studying how humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years without civilization.
“Atheists have faith that there is definitively no God.”
Not true. I know religious people like to say that, but it’s not a matter of faith, at least not for this atheist. If someone finds evidence of a land of unicorns, then I’ll start accepting that unicorns exist.
In your opinion, nothing exists until it is proven to exist?
Try looking up the total number of historical texts used to “prove” the existence of people like, Julius Ceaser.
Mark, first try a spelling book.
Geoff S
Oh Geoff, that’s worthy of Nick, but not you.
Rich,
No malice intended. The set-up proved irrestibbe. Cheers Geoff S
I’ll resist. Are you toying with us?
Jeff, it always puzzles me why a person would be so invested in disparaging others’ beliefs as you seem to be. Comparing belief in a higher power to belief in unicorns is just ridicule. Not very polite to be sure, but also not obviously profitable either. I mean what itch do you scratch by it?
Turning the question around on myself, why do I relish disparaging Climastrology? (Also qualifying as others’ beliefs). I suppose that the reason is that their beliefs are threatening my wellbeing. Does my Christianity threaten you in some way?
You brought up atheists, and painted them with the same brush. If you see my comparison as ridicule, then that’s on you.
No, Christianity doesn’t threaten me, perhaps it does others. Does atheism threaten you that you need to disparage it?
I don’t believe that I have disparaged atheism, Jeff. At most I argued that agnosticism is more logical than atheism.
But atheism isn’t a hypothetical threat. There have been and still are many Christians persecuted by atheists. There are examples of atheists persecuted by theists of course. Maybe you can even think of some persecuted by nominal Christians, but there’s no question that atheists are a far greater threat to Christians than vice versa.
I think it’s fair to say that painting theists with one brush is as wrong as painting atheists with one brush.
As for persecution, theists have also persecuted each other, often while believing in the same god. These are the kinds of things, among many others, that lead me to atheism.
Ok yes. Fair to say that all individuals should be judged on the content of their character.
As I said earlier, I am sympathetic to those who reject religion because of its manifest flaws. At various times in my life I’ve been there too.
“Atheists have faith that there is definitively no God.”
Not quite. Atheists live without a god-belief. A very different position from the one usually ascribed.
But I agree with you that religion has been perverted. I believe the perversion is mostly by collectivists who embrace the ideology of religion — right and wrong divinely prescribed — in order to gain police power and oppress people into conformity.
No – atheists fail to follow one key logical dictum. “Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.”
After a while, absence of evidence where evidence has been keenly sought is sufficient to make one think that a hypothesis is false. That’s the case with atheism. But it’s only a thought which has firmed over time, not a religious-style belief. As in all science, evidence could still change an atheist’s mind.
You may well think that way, I can’t know your mind. But you’d be dishonest to deny that there are many who take it as a proven fact that there can be no gods. This despite having the capacity to think that they understand quantum physics.
When the space to search is nearly infinitely large and the object being sought has no desire to be proved scientifically, it’s not surprising that no “scientific” evidence has been found.
It’s akin to trying to measure what came before the Big Bang. It is utterly and permanently inaccessible to our ordinary senses. It is outside the visible dimensions of space and time.
The metaphysical is either a reality only knowable by revelation or it is a false concept.
Those who would apply science to the goal of proving or disproving the existence of God are wasting time. It’s as silly and naive as the Soviet propaganda that the cosmonauts have been to heaven and there’s no God there.
Any decent book on Christian Apologetics will provide you with “proofs” for the existence of God. Atheists do not (others may argue “prefer not to”) accept these proofs.
Two recently published books, The Curious Occurrence of Life by Dimitri Chakhov and Canceled Science by Eric Hedin, make fairly compelling arguments for the existence of a Creator.
“Evidence” is there. Atheists choose not to accept it.
I think we have common ground in the view that oppressors subvert faith to use people’s beliefs against their true interests. Ultimately to benefit the oppressors materially.
Whether it be genocidal conquistadores half a millennium past, supposedly spreading God’s word or today’s crony capitalists impoverishing the poor with energy deprivation in the name of ‘saving the planet’.
Given the number of wars that have been fought by kings supposedly to defend the correct understanding of a higher power, I am sympathetic to anyone who throws the baby out with the bathwater, disgusted at the whole enterprise.
I see faith as a gift and not something arrived at by study of evidence. As St. Thomas Aquinas said: “To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.”
How many of those wars were fought over religious differences, and how many were fought with the religious differences being the excuse.
If it hadn’t been religion, they would have found some other excuse.
And why would the higher power allow such things to occur in his name?
That’s a mystery that every year teenagers and other immature amateur philosophers discover as proof that there can’t be a god.
Do you seriously not know the classical answer to that question, Jeff? Well, in case you don’t, God gives us free will to choose to act according to his will or to commit sin.
Yes, that was my point.
This episode will have a strong Streisand effect.
Yes, some people will see the hypocrisy and censorship, that is true, and probably that number is bigger than the number who would have seen the paper had it not been retracted. But unfortunately there’s a difference.
When BS tried to hide people seeing her opulent clifftop palace, nobody doubted that she was in fact living in a mansion that stressed the ‘delicate coastal ecosystem’, while blathering incessantly about protecting the environment and providing affordable healthcare.
Here the retraction has occurred and many people will assume that it means that the paper was invalid. Any article which references it will be “debunked” by saying the paper that the article is based on was retracted.
Did the authors retract it or was it retracted by the journal? Reading this it was the journal under pressure from various directions including the MSM that retracted not the authors.
For the authors to retract it would require errors and omissions in the source data or the usage of the data. I can’t see a reference to that.
Unless somebody knows more than I do?
Retracting something for which a record exists, ten’s of thousands have read, and for which there is no evidence of malfeasance, is like denying a hurricane happened because one is unhappy with its effect. It is further evidence of how out of touch with reality progressives are. They re-define words in the hope people will change their feelings, put a spin on events, and cherry pick facts to promote their ideology — in short, lie. How long can a society last when the ‘news’ media use a phrase like “people who have a penis,” and refuse to publish comments that take to task such agenda-driven verbosity?
You’re correct, but how do you suppose the execrable Mikey Mann will characterize it?
Does he have a penis?
Don’t you mean “do they”? He might be a birthing person or she might happen to have a scrotum. At least according to the inmates running our insane asylum.
The journal retracted over the objections of the authors. It says “the authors disagree” on the retraction notice.
And if the low information reader got beyond the “fact check” debunking the skeptical claim because it’s based on a “retracted study”, that would be a miracle.
Thanks Rud for mentioning the Streisand Effect. I’ve loved her voice for 60 years but have increasingly abhorred her politics and was unaware of this effect. This was especially hilarious ““Image 3850” had been downloaded only six times prior to Streisand’s lawsuit, two of those being by Streisand’s attorneys. Public awareness of the case led to more than 420,000 people visiting the site over the following month.
A multiple of 100,000 was not bad. The next time I listen to her “The Way We Were” I will have another reason to smile.
As the history about consensus have shown time out and in again is … that consensus as “proven” science only survives on funeral at a time – or, science is about power not the truth.
The question is, how long does “(C)agw” based on the “expert(r)us” survives this time. My hope is it falls long before many of those, Michael Mann, The Grifter and his inconvenient pal Al, who is spreading mis- and disinformation in large scale, dies, so we all can get the opportunity to say the Semmelweis effect lasted 28 years this time, the 28 years is based on Benjamin Santers´ claim that AGW was a mere fact in 1995. The charade propably won´t fall this year, but, one could only hope it would … !!
The lesson is: Do not threaten the gravel train or you will get crushed. Science comes after the political power, money, and recognition. (Thank you Andy, Judith, Tony, Roger, and everyone here for taking the stand for SCIENCE. )
That the senior editors listened to someone like Mann speaks volumes about their character.
While he is despised by skeptics, Mann is by the standard measures a top climate scientist. He has (1) a lot of peer reviewed articles, some of which are (2) highly cited in other people’s articles. He also has (3) his own well funded institute. Thus his voice carries great weight in the AGW science world which presently dominates climate science.
Here are his pubs with cites. The co-author list is a good part of the cabal.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KrRw4RIAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao
A scientist does not adopt the methods and practices of Michael Mann
Yep, he is the Holy Father of Climastrology!
The L Ron Hubbard of weather.
Better!
Which is ironic when one realizes that he has no formal academic background in climatology, meteorology, atmospheric physics, or even physical geography.
A good measure of the abject corruption of climate science.
Meanwhile he is one of the loudest voices demanding that those who lack the proper credentials lack the authority to speak on matters climatic.
claiming, not demanding. I was originally going to write a different post and changed it halfway through. When are we going to get the editing feature back?
To be fair, he also appears to be despised by other academics and scientists as well as sceptics.
Research grants are a fantastic way to buy the science you want
Yes and the US climate research program gets $2.6 billion a year, which buys a lot of scary sh*t. NSF, DOE and NASA get most of that, much of which then goes to academic alarmists. A bountiful racket but certainly not science. It is dominated by modeling.
Of course it is, modelling is the only way to get those scary results you want, because reality is far less scary, much more stable
Penguins were an approved positive-negative. Narrative compliant, too.
The paper in question was doubleplus negative and was not compliant
This thoroughly shameful behaviour is nothing less than one would expect – it’s hardly the first time, either.
Story tip – YT video – Chinese E bikes are exploding –
Chinese E-Bikes are Exploding like Crazy – Self Destructing Spectacularly – YouTube
Thank Gaia Connecticut is subsidizing them with my taxes!
London Fire Brigade said (1st Sept) they had dealt with 104 E bike fires and 19 E scooter fires so far this year.
I would have been more surprised these days, if they had covered it!
We know that most MSM has been captured by the alarmist mob, including western Govts and institutes, they are the official propaganda wing of the climate alarmism Ministry
But, decreasing reader numbers are hurting them, same as MS TV channels – their left wing infested woke, ideological preach fests are losing the room and people are increasingly turning to alternative sources, hence the push by western leaders to increase censorship of the internet etc, they will prevent contradiction and opposition to their official narratives, by hook or by crook, by nudge or by force
We must resist, we must ensure truths, facts and empirical science are always available to the masses, it is the only way to prevent fraud, corruption and malfeasance
The MSM doesn’t cover the millions of deaths per year caused by cold weather increasing the number of heart attacks and strokes during the cooler/colder months.4.6 million deaths per year from cold vs 500,000 deaths per year due to heat
‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext
It’s not so much a political agenda as an economic one. In order to get funding for their work, researchers need to convince those with the funds that their research is, in fact, critical at this moment or “everyone will die”. Those funds are disbursed to institutes and labs that employ thousands of well-paid employees. Keep in mind that every penny that government has at its disposal is eventually distributed to an individual human being. The design and construction of labs, the acquisition of materials and supplies, the wages of workers and administrators are all dependent on grants needed to combat some problem, real or imagined. There is an army of people whose livelihood depends on expensive research. If climate change is accepted as a normal part of nature there will be thousands selling flowers on street corners. Climate change research is really welfare for academics.
This is correct.
Consider the number of named departments in academia. Lots of new departments have formed but none have been abolished. OK, some have been renamed (like the old Departments of Eugenics) but none have been wound up.
Just as new fields spring from old subjects as knowledge grows, so one would expect departments to merge or be shut down as that seam becomes dry.
It’s obvious in the Arts as well.
There is no senescence in academic fields. Thus there is no evolution in Academia. No healthy growth or progress.
Uncontrolled growth is a cancer that distorts all the surrounding areas and overeats resources.
Peer review is to be the arbitrator, the ultimate tool in the search for truth.
Yet A critical assessment was retracted “based not on any claims of scientific misconduct, but simple disagreement.” Roger Pielke Jr., The Honest Broker, “Think of the Implications of Publishing”
And Proximal Origins, despite repeated calls and obvious flaws/conflicts of interest, has not been.
Science, buttressed by peer review, was thought of as a bastion of impartial truth seeking. When exploring the contrast of the science community’s reaction to the two papers in my latest article, Truth, I come to the disheartening conclusion: “We have lost science.”
The mainstream media views it’s primary job to be the protection and promotion of GroupThink.
Thus, the suppression of a paper that goes against groupthink is double plus good and not noteworthy.
The entire ruckus has to revolve around the definition of ‘extreme‘
In the age of unfalsifiable science, extreme nowadays is anything even remotely unusual, temporarily or spatially.
Anything goes inside climate science.
Firstly the arbiters of ‘extreme’ are the climate scientists themselves – how could anyone else possibly be qualified?
And they are never going to exagerate or pass porkies now are they?
Secondly is the media themselves and why they were so involved.
Their very lifeblood is reporting on extremities so for anyone to come along and say that there are aren’t any is a ‘bit of a blow‘
But, they’ve spent their entire existences reporting on ‘extremes’ and ‘unusuals’ so for someone to say that there aren’t any, is a point blank accusation that their entire existence is, and always has been, based on lies and falsehoods.
Pretty grim innit?
There were so very high stakes here.
(It is thus rather surprising they took as long as they did to act…….)
Ooooh yes…
A lovely lovely example fresh in everyone’s mind will be The Rain That Fell on the Burning Man Festy
As we all know, the place became a bottomless mudbath due to ‘torrential rain’
Even the fearless ‘rangers’ were forced to retreat to whatever high ground they could find
Me being me took off to any wunderground stations I could find/around near Black Rock and the rain that fell barely even registered on any of the gauges, even on the worst affected (Thursday) day.
Then on one of the sites I saw recording this climate disaster and in very small print, were words that reflected exactly what wunderground reported.
This ‘torrential rain’ never amounted to more than 2.5mm (one tenth one inch) per day and only on 2 days
Attached is the report for Gerlach on the Friday
laugh or cry
It says it’s raining there now but the gauges aren’t recording any.
It has got to be that funny sort of rain that evaporates before it hits the ground.
Is THAT what set off the torrential alarms – some hyperactive and artificially, thus non-intelligent, computer?
Yeah. I don’t think the quantity of rain that fell on Burning Man was the issue, despite what some ‘news’ sites are mistepresenting as ‘torrential’. Glastonbury habitually seems to get greater quantities and it rarely causes a huge problem. No the problem has been that the rain has caused a thick gluey mud that clogs up vehicle wheels and has made the Burning Man site (which is in the middle of a desert with no roads) isolated to all vehicles. Presumably if the conditions persist the organisers will have to use helicopters to ferry people to the nearest towns. Some people (such as Chris Rock) have already walked the 8 miles to the nearest tarmac roads and gone home so it isn’t deep mud nor impassable to people on foot, just wheeled vehicles.
misrepresenting. I do wish this editing bug is fixed soon!
“Concerns were raised regarding the selection of the data, the analysis and the resulting conclusions of the article.”
You could say that about every Hockey Team proxy paper.
Thanks, Anthony!
Climate science was hijacked for numerous, self serving agenda’s. What we get instead, is almost all activism, selling a manufactured climate crisis that supports those agendas!
. Mainstream climate science, now follows the ANTI scientific method.
Cherry picking all the extreme weather and disaster events, stamping out discussions about natural variation and photosynthesis and attributing it all to a beneficial gas which is greening the planet as well as massively increasing food supplies and causing a scientific climate OPTIMUM for most life.
If you show the authentic data or use the scientific method to try to inject numerous legit science realities into the discussion, they try to cancel/censor you and shun you.
Call you a denier to discredit you for using the scientific method.
Climate activism that teaches following settled/manufactured climate science religion.
I had an issue with Springer many years ago when their journal editor, having personally assured me that my paper would be treated on its merits (he actually phoned me to tell me that), took 11 months to reject it saying “we don’t need yet another paper critical of the climate models”. I suspect that Springer had in fact published no papers critical of the climate models. Springer higher management told me that editors had pretty much a free rein to determine what they published.
Now, in this case, I suspect that The European Physical Journal Plus came under pressure from Springer to retract, and the nice-sounding words about editors’ freedom only applies in one direction.
Where’s Nick stokes when you want to hear the defense of the indefensible?