https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-top-five-climate-science-scandals
Excerpt:
By Roger Pielke Jr.: I define a scandal as a situation of objectively flawed science — in substance and/or procedure — that the community has been unable to make right, but should. …
The Alimonti Retraction for an Unpopular View
The science community has shown a willingness to retract a climate science paper — in this case not for being wrong in any substantive way, but instead for expressing views that are politically unhelpful. In 2022, a group of Italian scientists published a paper that summarized the IPCC’s conclusions on extreme weather trends, consistent with what you’ve been reading here at THB. The paper broke no new ground but was a useful review to have in the literature. Even so, several activist journalists and scientists demanded that it be retracted — and, remarkably, the Springer Nature journal that published the paper obliged. I heard from a whistleblower who shared all of the sordid details, where you can read about here and here.
…
The Interns Made a “Dataset” and We Used it for Research
I have recently documented how the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) — supposedly one of the top science journals — published a paper using a “dataset” cobbled together by some interns for marketing a now-defunct insurance company. There is actually no such dataset out in the real world — it is a fiction. The paper is the only normalization study purporting to identify a signal of human-caused climate change in disaster losses and thus has been highlighted by both the IPCC and U.S. National Climate Assessment. That context makes its correction or retraction politically problematic. When I informed PNAS about the fake dataset they refused to look at it and stood behind the paper. Read about the backstory and how PNAS stonewalled any reconsideration.
…
- A Love Affair with Extreme Emissions Scenarios
The top of the table won’t be a surprise to longtime readers of THB. Extreme emissions scenarios that map out implausible and even apocalyptic futures are a favorite in climate research and assessment. This space continues to be dominated by a scenario called RCP8.5 — which has coal consumption increasing more than 10x by 2100 (see figure above and all credit to my colleague Justin Ritchie). However, as the community comes to accept the ridiculousness of RCP8.5, efforts are being made to replace it with another extreme scenario — Right now that appears to be SSP3-7.0 which also foresees a massive increase in coal (~6x) and a world of about 13 billion people in 2100, far more than projected by the United Nations.
…
- A Major Error in the IPCC
The IPCC is a massive effort, and if it did not exist we’d have to invent it. It is not surprising that a few mistakes can creep into the assessment. What matters is what happens when mistakes are made. I identified a major error in the IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report involving confusion over hurricane intensities — It was a simple error having to do with technical terminology that was misunderstood (hurricane fixes, i.e., measurements — became reinterpreted as hurricanes).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I laud Pielke Jr. for always pointing out the obvious embarrassments in climate orthodoxy.
The Marxist cabal has its’ tentacles in everything and escaping its’ grasp in the media is impossible unless you go to the internet. And they’re working on securing that as well.
Still trying to figure out what “its’..” means…
Climate Alarmist science is corrupt to the core, and the infection spreads throughout the science community, to the point of corrupting all the professional science organizations.
CO2 phobia has been devastating to the science community.
I will argue the turning point of climate science was 2000, when the IPCC embraced Mann, Bradley, Hughes 1998 “hockey stick” paper. It was very convenient for those arguing for CO2 as a thermostat, and very implausible, given history.
I would say it started with NASA allowing Hansen to take his stupid Venus climate model and apply it to Earth.
Hansen.
Wasn’t he the first one who started to “adjust” the US temperature records?
Yes, Hansen used to say the 1930’s were the hottest decade, but then when the warming phase topped out at 1998, and temperatures started cooling, then Hansen started changing his tune and started claiming 1998 was warmer than the 1930’s.
I think that the warming from t980 to 1998, had Hansen fooled. He was a True Believer in CO2 warming and figured that temperatrues would continue to rise because CO2. But the temperatures did not continue to rise, they started cooling even though CO2 levels were still increasing, so in around 2007, Hansen started claiming that 1998 was warmer than the 1930’s, so as to prevent people thinking that 1998 was not an unprecedented year.
And then NOAA and NASA started bastardizing their temperature records to make it appear that the years after 1998, were not cooling, like is shown on the UAH chart, but rather were warming above 1998, and they managed to squeeze about 10 years of “Hottest Year Evah!” out of the period from 2000 to 2015, even though the UAH chart shows that not one year between 2000 and 2015 is warmer than 1998.
Yeah, NOAA and NASA went full climate change propaganda after the temperatures failed to continue climbing after the 1998, highpoint, which was the warmest year since the 1930’s, but it wasn’t warmer, and it took 15 years for the temperatures to again warm up to that level. Although you would never know it listening to NOAA or NASA.
Here’s a UAH satellite chart of the period. See if you can find any years between 2000 and 2015 that could be declared to be hotter than 1998. The UAH chart does not show any, but the bastardized NOAA and NASA charts for the period show about 10 years that are warmer than 1998.
It’s all Climate Alarmist Propaganda.
Perhaps, but I put it at 2003 when Soon and Baliunas showed the medieval warm period was a global event ant the Vostok ice core data showed the change in temp was before the change in CO2. From then on, the science had to be settled.
The renaming of the Green New Deal as the Inflation Recovery Act has got to at least garner a (Dis)Honorable Mention.
A time honored Beltway tradition.
The Affordable Care Act wasn’t affordable.
The Inflation Reduction Act increased inflation.
Net Neutrality wasn’t neutral.
COVID19 vaccine did not prevent COVID19.
Water conserving low flush toilets use more water because require two flushes. Heat pumps switch to resistive heating when it gets cold.
DEI promotes discrimination against the more capable.
Gender morphed from sex (xx, xy) to psychological identity dismorphia (see Biden’s revised Title 9 for recent specifics).
I remember when handout were called “Welfare” playing off “to promote the general welfare”.
People eventually objected so they started to call the handouts “Entitlements”.
They also did the same thing with the word “rights”.
Who has the “right to a living wage” if all they do is sweep the floor?
(Whatever a “living wage” means. All I know is that every time they raised the minimum wage, I didn’t get a raise.)
If someone is great at sweeping the floor- they ought to be able to get by without welfare.
Inflation makes that difficult.
Wonder how they got from “promote the general welfare” to “provide welfare”.
Good question.
Probably related to “sex” being XX or XY to exhausting all the letters of the alphabet.
That is, taking a word people think they understand and changing the definition.
“Water conserving low flush toilets use more water because require two flushes.”
Some newer ones are very good- but very expensive and my plumber is absurdly expensive to install one for me recently. Using less water but I have less $$$ in my wallet.
Flushed with embarrassment to contradict Rud Istvan, but our three low flow toilets work great. Never back up, flush first time every time, Low Flow 6.5 GPF Cadet Standard. Installed about 20 years ago. “Right Height” for an adult. One of the greatest inventions since sliced bread. We did have one small problem. I installed them back to back in separate rooms with shared plumbing to the stack, which resulted in a vacuum whenever my toilet flushed. The minor eruption in the adjoining room which I liked to think of as a “bidet” cause some small alarms. Fixed last year.
You can add Nancy Pelosi’s Pay As You Go bill to the list. It did nothing to prevent Congress from overspending. In fact, after it passed, Pelosi exempted the very next bill from the Pay As You Go act, and the next, and the next. It was clearly meant only for show.
The US and other countries should build their own 30-year climate models that at least include the Sun which supplies 99+ percent of the heat, the clouds that can reflect 30 percent of the Sun’s energy back into space and the oceans that can hold 100+ years of heat, instead of relying on the IPCC models that include none of these.
Also, make it open source so researchers and others can look at the code instead of trusting the IPCC.
Let’s do it, who else will do it?
The WUWT model!
I am down with that, it’s almost ready to go, written in C# .Net8 VS 2022
I taught myself “C”. Got several really big books on it and tried everything in the books. I really got into it- I can imagine being a computer science major if I was starting college now. I just like the concepts- especially pointers and data structures. Never took any programming in college in the late ’60s, early ’70s. I was going to move on to C++ and object oriented programming but then found other interests.
How can any tax-funded entity that publishes the “results” of the GCMs, not also publish their source code for examination?
I have studied the scientific method at five different schools. Not a single one taught that hiding your experimental conditions was part of the scientific method.
Alarmist Climate Science is a bastardization of science.
All G20 countries have their own climate models. They incorporate the same error- CO2 directly alters Earth’s radiation balance.
I have had a long-running dispute with the ACCESS modelling team in Australia pointing out the fundamental errors in their models compared with measurements. Their response is that their model produces middle of the road trends. They are not concerned with measured data. Their world revolves around models.
Models are political tools to give the appearance of science. They are based on special fisiics where the atmosphere can create water. Where open ocean surface can sustain more than 30C. Where radiation energy goes from cold to hot.
I could tolerate such bad science if they didn’t also claim “the science is settled”.
If it is ‘settled,’ it isn’t science.
The IPCC is unashamedly by charter a political organisation, not a front-line scientific research collaboration.
Some snippets from various “About” statements –
The IPCC does not conduct its own original research.
The WMO and UNEP therefore created the IPCC as an intergovernmental body in 1988.
Scientists take part in the IPCC as both experts and government representatives.
Member governments must also endorse the reports by consensus agreement.
The IPCC is an organization of governments.
An interesting read also is this boastful article “How The IPCC Got Started” from the Environmental Defense Fund’s website.
Note the pride in their being convenors of an organisation whose
“main accomplishment was to provide official auspices for a more activist group of experts”
https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/01/ipcc_beginnings/
The IPCC is a massive effort, and if it did not exist we’d have to invent it.
It was invented; by WMO & UNEP.
Global is about as massive as you can get.
Two questions.
What happened to item 2?
What does TC intensity mean?
Tropical cyclone My WAG! 🙂
There seems to be some inconsistency between the article shown here and the substack article that it was based on. Looks to be transposition issues, it’s all higgledy piggledy.
As John mentioned, TC intensity would refer to Tropical Cyclones
Thanks to both of you.
The paper was retracted essentially because the authors cherry-picked evidence supporting their narrative and ignored any evidence challenging it. They examine a tiny subset of papers cited in the IPCC AR6 report around detection and attribution, yet come to a polarly opposite conclusion than did the IPCC. The author’s defense being that they didn’t actively misrepresent the papers they cited does not really cut it.
If you are writing a review paper, which presents no original research but is meant instead to summarize the state of the science and draw inferences from it, it is paramount that you exhaustively review the entire body of literature available, which these authors plainly did not do (I won’t assume motive and outright accuse them of doing so intentionally, but it’s not a hard leap to make).
WRONG.. they found that the writers papers mis-interpreted the data themselves so they could get published.
Altimonti et al actually look at the underlying data and corrected the misinterpretation.
Coming to an opposite conclusion to the IPCC.. so what..
It show the massive political and agenda bias is removed.
The underlying data on every facet of climate, shows there is no climate crisis.
Perhaps you can quote me that section of the retracted manuscript.
roflmao.
So you are saying that Altimonte et al didn’t misrepresent the papers.
And that what they published was correct.
You are such a putz . !
Show us where there is a global “climate crisis”. ! We are waiting. !!
I can’t actually find any fault in the Altimonte paper.. can you. !
So, to clarify, Alimonte et al did not find that other authors had deliberately misrepresented the results of their research, as you just claimed?
So to clarify, you agree that the IPCC DOES misrepresent many things so they can do their scaremongering.
Altimonte et al have corrected those misrepresentations and presented a true picture of ZERO CLIMATE CRISIS.
Show us where there is a global “climate crisis”. ! We are waiting. !!
I can’t actually find any fault or error in the Altimonte paper.. can you. !
When you make throwaway comments that you don’t stand behind and can’t substantiate it makes coherent discourse impossible, bnice.
The paper was retracted because the authors, deliberately or not, ignored vast swathes of the literature they were claiming to be reviewing that would have materially affected any interpretation of the current state of scientific understanding. You don’t seem to have any worthwhile objection to this fact.
WRONG.
The paper was retracted because Mickey Mann and his fellow climate scum didn’t like it because it was a correct interpretation of the evidence..
That is patently obvious from the reviewer comments (reviewer 1 being one of the AGW scum brigade)
Show us where there is a global “climate crisis”. ! We are waiting. !!
Show us where Altimonte et al were wrong…
You are an empty vassal, with nothing behind you except BS. !
If a policeman is dispatched to a potential crime scene, and reports that he saw no evidence of a crime in his inspection, but it soon came out that the crime was reported to have taken place in the garage and he never went there to look, we’d be hard pressed to say his report was wrong. Indeed there was no crime to be seen in the few rooms he actually checked. But we would be very right to criticize the thoroughness of his investigation.
Alimonte et al claim to be reviewing the studies cited by the IPCC, but in fact consider only a very narrow selection of them, ignoring critical works that undermine their bold conclusions, and they nowhere indicate that they are arbitrarily omitting most of the literature available for their meta-analysis. This is the main reason why the paper was retracted, which you can see in the review RPJ published, and neither you nor RPJ have a single objection to this fact. You just avoid it in desperate hope that nobody will notice.
roflmoa.. and another mindless analogy that says… “blah, blah”.
Show us where there is a global “climate crisis”. ! We are waiting. !!
Where Is The “Climate Emergency”? – Watts Up With That?
Show us where Altimonte et al were wrong…!!
The paper was retracted because it wasn’t “on message” and the climate scum put pressure on the journal.
And you know that, and are just trying petty excuses.
Most reviewers saw nothing wrong with the paper.
And you can’t point out anything wrong with the paper.
You are an empty vassal, with nothing behind you except BS. !
Mindless yabbering is not science.. but all you seem to be capable of.
As always, bnice, you don’t respond to anything actually being said to you, so engaging with you is pointless, but to recap:
Alimonti et al purport to present a meta-analysis of peer reviewed literature related to climate extremes, and claim that the preponderance of the available literature doesn’t support any notion of a “climate crisis.”
The study was retracted because it was found that the authors summarily ignored most of the available literature on the subject of climate extremes. They considered only five types of extreme events, ignoring, for instance, sea level rise, wildfires, and heat waves. Within that limited selection of extreme events, they summarily ignored vast swaths of literature, focusing only on a small handful of papers (much them not the most recent research) that could seemingly support their conclusion – this is called “cherry picking.”
They further misrepresented the implications of much of their cited research. The study considers only global patterns, for example, while many types of climate extremes can have oppositely directed signals within different regions, resulting in no global-scale trends despite profound regional-scale differences emerging. The authors offer no justification for this oversight.
The IPCC AR6 Working Group I report, published more than a month before Alimonti et al submitted their paper for publication, also contains meta-analysis of the body of scientific literature on this topic, but is vastly more comprehensive. Alimonti et al failed to acknowledge the conclusions of the IPCC AR6 report, much less articulate reasons why their conclusions differed so drastically from those of the IPCC.
This is, of course, all described in detail in the review comments from the journal’s investigation that RPJ published, so you are well aware of them and are feigning ignorance so that you can prolong and draw out your trolling session. Knowing this, I expect your reply will, as is typical, ignore everything I’ve written and contain a series of personal insults and off-topic rants, so I direct this comment not so much to yourself as to any readers who might encounter the discussion and appreciate the context. And if you fail to mount a substantive reply I will not engage with you any further on the topic.
YAWN !!!
Show us where there is a global “climate crisis”. ! We are waiting. !!
Where Is The “Climate Emergency”? – Watts Up With That?
Show us where Altimonte et al were wrong…!!
So far all you have managed in a sort of plaintive and very pathetic mewling / whinging sound.
To do that he would need to show that hurricanes, flooding, wildfire, storms, heatwaves are showing a steady increase in frequency and or severity over the last 50 years.
He will have quite some trouble doing that.
Reviewer 2 recommended “Accept as it” and noted:
Reviewer 3 wrote:
Reviewer 4 wrote:
Try again, little monkey !
Oh look , someone doesn’t like the comments of the reviewers being posted.
Diddums… 😉
RPJ’s “reviewer 1” raised numerous substantive criticisms that stand on their own merit, which you have summarily refused to acknowledge or address. A fifth expert who was solicited to adjudicate, along with the editorial board of the journal, found these criticisms to be significant enough to warrant retraction. Any attempt to argue that the retraction was unjustified must contend with these criticisms, which you have not, nor has RPJ, nor have the study’s authors.
I appreciate that finally you’ve found some enthusiasm to throw into attempting a counterargument, but you have failed to actually respond to any of the points I made above, just as predicted.
Reviewer 1 obviously one of the major climate SCUM brigade..
No interested if the paper is correct or not, just that he disagreed with the CORRECT conclusions
Most of the reviewers saw nothing wrong.
—
Show us where there is a global “climate crisis”. ! We are waiting. !!
Where Is The “Climate Emergency”? – Watts Up With That?
Show us where Altimonte et al were wrong…!!
So far all you have managed in a sort of plaintive and very pathetic mewling / whinging sound.
Since you are totally unable to answer these two questions, the only assumption that can be made is that….
… you agree totally with the Altimonte paper…
… and its conclusion that THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS.
I share your distaste for the childish, insulting and mainly content free posts by bnice. They are too often a complete waste of space. But in this case I think he or she is right,
The paper passed peer review, and bnice posts key quotes from that review. In the opinion of qualified people working in the field the paper was evidently worth publishing. Not necessarily correct, but worth publishing.
This alone shows that the appropriate remedy for those who differ from its conclusions would be to write a rebuttal, and for the journal to publish it.
Given the peer review comments it is hard to disagree with Pielke’s conclusion, that retraction was based on disagreement with the inconvenient conclusions. The particularly damning quote of bnice from the review comments is the one to the effect that the paper is not differing materially from the IPCC conclusions.
Anyway, don’t lets get into a flap over this particular paper, or indeed over the existence (or lack of it) of anything like a climate crisis. The real problem we are all facing is the idiotic measures on energy which the climate tendency is advocating and in many cases getting implemented. Measures which will wreck our energy supply without making the slightest difference to global emissions. This is the real problem to focus on.
Its a bit like trans ideology. We can argue till we are blue in the face about whether there is such a thing as being trapped in the wrong sex body.
But regardless, the thing to focus on (and which the Cass Report does focus on) is whether the treatments which the medical profession has bought into for this real or imaginary condition are safe and effective in their own right. And Cass concluded that, at the very least, there is no evidence they are either.
The success of Cass in changing the terms of the public debate by this focus, and by careful discussion of the evidence, is an example climate skeptics should learn from.
To be properly WOKE parents, your children have to be trans.
Its just another form of virtue-seeking.
It’s an abomination to God who created us male or female.
I share my distaste for lily-livered pansies that want to be polite to slime-bags that support the massive society destroying agenda call AGW.
But you do so in a way that is counter productive. Childish rage and personal insults are ineffective, or worse, by association do damage to the position that you are trying to support. Rational argument based on evidence is the only thing that is effective.
If its just to relieve your feelings, you probably need to go somewhere else for that. There are more productive venues for that, too.
The quotations bnice provides are not from the peer reviewers of the original manuscript. The publisher initiated an investigation of the paper after public criticism shed light on some apparent shortcomings, and as part of the review they instructed Alimonti et al to prepare an addendum, specifically to discuss why their conclusions differed so starkly from those of the IPCC, from which their work was purportedly being drawn.
The editorial board solicited review of the addendum from 4 different people, and requested the input of a fifth, a subject matter expert who was asked to adjudicate the reviews. The excerpts bnice provided are from three of these reviews of the addendum. Interestingly, these three reviewers considered the addendum as-is, without consideration of the context in which the addendum was requested to begin with. On its own, the addendum does not say anything starkly in error, but it does not address the need of explaining the disparity between the Alimonti et al paper and the IPCC report, which is what it was intended to do. The fourth reviewer took this into consideration, saying:
The reviewer goes on to lay out in detail exactly where the original manuscript is deficient, and where the addendum fails to address the deficiencies, concluding:
The subject matter expert agreed with this assessment and recommended retraction, which the journal agreed with.
What is interesting here is that no one, not even RPJ, is arguing that the original paper ever should have passed peer reviewed (RPJ explicitly says he would have rejected the manuscript as it was published had it been submitted to him for review). What they are arguing is that the retraction of this paper, which should not have passed peer review, was unfair and politically motivated, which they offer no evidence of. In fact, I think the journal was overly generous toward Alimonti et al, and bent over backwards giving them every opportunity for clarification, and despite the retraction, the original article is still freely available on the publisher’s website, just with a note at the top expressing that the publisher does not endorse it.
I misunderstood what bnice was quoting.
I still don’t see that retraction was a sensible reaction however. Publishing a rebuttal would have been much better – and actually, more productive in getting the validity or invalidity of the paper clearly established.
It was JS Mill, 150 year old political philosophy, who remarked that error which is not publicly available cannot be publicly refuted. Once published, leave it there, expose it to criticism. If the criticism is valid, it will refute the paper. If not, well, we will learn something.
I think that is a valid position, and people critical of the paper tend to fall either way on whether retraction was the appropriate outcome. But it’s clear the paper never should have been published without substantial revisions, and that the journal was justified in taking action. It is also not valid to claim that the only possible reason for the retraction was political disagreement with the authors, when it is abundantly clear that serious unaddressed issues were raised both publicly and by the internal review RPJ made public.
I think this is a confusion between a poor paper and one that should not be published. The peer review process has moved gradually in the direction of only wanting to publish papers which the reviewers think correct. There is also a tendency to use ‘peer review’ as a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, so the fact that it has passed peer review is often cited as evidence of validity or credibility. Which it should not be.
There was evidence of this happening in the Climategate correspondence, and its counter-productive. It just leads to claims that there is real stuff that ‘they’ don’t want to see published. Whether true or not, this is damaging to the kind of open discussion that gets us all to the truth.
If what you try to do is only get true papers published, the end result will be censorship of inconvenient points of view and inconvenient data and theories.
One result of the way peer review is being done in climate is this site. You and some others here are very critical of it. But you have to consider that a large part of the explanation for its existence is the perception that peer review is operating as a kind of censorship. It is far better to let ‘bad’ papers be published and then refuted than to deny them publication, the consequence of which will be to drive their conclusions underground where they cannot be refuted.
Should ‘The Bell Curve’ or Andrew Wakefield’s paper on autism have been published? Probably yes, and the proof is that once published both attracted rigorous debate, and in the case of Wakefield, complete and universally accepted refutation and exposure of his medical practice. The debate over heredity and environment that was triggered by The Bell Curve also advanced our knowledge. That’s how science advances. It shrivels in the dark.
This isn’t about the “truth value” of the paper, it’s about the quality of the scholarship in it. Omitting contrary results, misconstruing cited research, and presenting an editorial opinion (no evidence of “climate crisis”) as the conclusion of the work are not things that ever should pass peer review.
The initial review of the paper should have resulted in major revisions. There is a way to present such a meta-analysis that is robust, objective, and thorough, but Alimonti et al failed to do it.
There is value in publishing controversial research, there is little value in publishing poor scholarship.
There is value in publishing controversial research, there is little value in publishing poor scholarship.
Problem is distinguishing between them. In the present case, the objection is that the paper’s conclusions are not valid because of what is alleged to be poor scholarship.
Once something has passed peer review I think its detrimental to science to be retracting it on those grounds.
Wakefield maybe should have been retracted because of fraud, not sure. But even then I would think it better to retain but publish rebuttal. Out and out fraud, making up results, is one of the few grounds which may justify retraction. There are lots of problems with the Bell Curve book, but again, better rebuttals than censorship, however flawed it may be.
What about MBH 98, the famous hockey stick paper? A lot would say that should be retracted, if we are going to have wholesale retractions following successful peer review and publication on the grounds you are defending. Lots of other ‘orthodox’ papers, some of which Istvan has itemized here and in his book.
No, I think science is best served, once its passed peer review and got into print, by retaining it and publishing a rebuttal. In the end the process of retraction following protests is actually undermining peer review itself by substituting a sort of post publication peer review. And I think you will find the arguments over retraction sliding into arguments about the subject of the paper, as they have here. In which case, have them in the open.
It isn’t always difficult to distinguish. The issues with Alimonti et al were glaring and were raised immediately on publication by multiple experts in the field. The paper passed peer review most likely because it was submitted to a journal that does not typically cover the subject under discussion, so the editors did not have subject matter knowledge of research in the field (and for whom picking appropriate peer reviewers would be challenging). Speaking frankly, that is almost certainly why the authors chose to publish in such a journal.
Further, the journal bent over backwards trying to give Alimonti et al an opportunity to defend their work. RPJ is alleging unfair treatment from the publisher, but I don’t see that in any of the materials he published.
The valid criticisms of MBH98 are subtle points about nuances of the methodology that wouldn’t be expected to be part of the peer review process, none of which materially affect the conclusions of the paper. Nor do they speak to any lack of scholarship on the part of the authors. The paper was in fact presenting a novel approach to paleoclimate reconstructions, which should be expected to be refined via typical scientific discourse (and it has been).
That’s a far, far cry from Alimonti et al’s work, which is a meta-analysis of other people’s research that cherry picks favorable results and ignores large swaths of relevant research (and even misrepresents aspects of the research it does cover).
But, it was published. The best approach would have been to reply to the claims and publish that. That is how actual peer review is supposed to work. What we have currently is a system of ‘gate keepers’ that sometimes make mistakes.
Yes.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA….., you are full of words and no details, you are all empty words, and you avoided a link that supports this articles position.
Your credibility is still stillborn…..
Wild fires are not increasing. That has been well established
Sea level rise has ZERO to do with extreme weather events.
Heat waves WERE considered.
What else you got?
In the phrase you quote, this is a classic case where the charge of ‘bad scholarship’ which is used to justify retraction or not publishing in the first place is actually a disagreement about what the paper is arguing and concluding.
Its never appropriate to ban or retract on these grounds.
It sounds like you are rationalizing the charge by the Media about Trump ‘lying’ about election fraud. Most challenges were dismissed for lack of standing because there was no evidence, because there was no investigation. Certainly no objective investigative journalism by the media.
Bla bla bla bla bla, you have yet to make your case, you drone on a drone on and on.
LOL, you couldn’t answer the simple question,
That should be really easy…… to answer but you don’t have it because it doesn’t exist.
While you will fail answer it what about these two questions:
Where is the Lower Tropospheric “hot spot”?
Where is the Positive Feedback Loop?
I think you will ignore them too.
Where is the substantiation of your comments?
LOL, you didn’t quote anything and then make a case over it, now you demand others to do it…..
Is this the same kind of argument alarmists use when they point to the fact some kinds of plants don’t benefit from increased CO2 in the atmosphere and therefore CO2 isn’t a benefit?
“cherry-picked evidence”
Calling out your own sin, Alan.
To AlanJ, using data straight from the IPCC reports and interpreting it correctly, is “cherry-picking”
Still waiting for him to show us where this “climate crisis” is !
It is clear Alan has no argument and avoids answering a simple question given to him several times because it would support the posted article.
Do you have a citation to support your assertion?
I find the catagorization of hurricanes problematic. A hurricane can go through various stages and intensities. It can go from a cat2 at some point, turning to cat5 a few days later, go back to cat3, go down further or pick up speed. So, in the end, what DO you call it? Do you use an average?
You call it weather.
Just an opinion, based on if a tree falls in the forest, would be the category of record should be the strength of the hurricane at landfall. If multiple landfalls, then the highest category is logged.
If the hurricane does not make landfall, it should be logged as a hurricane without a cat number.
Yep, averages of data points hide serious essential info.
My go-to example to demonstrate this is –
your vehicle requires that your 4 tires should each have 40 psi pressure to operate properly & safely.
you check them for pressure, and get readings of 20, 30, 50 and 60 psi.
so your averaged tire pressures for your vehicle is 40 psi.
all good to go?
(only if you’re after a Darwin Award)
Good question.
Usually (I think) what sticks is the cat when it makes landfall.
(Though the MSM will tend to report it a cat5 that made landfall as a tropical depression.)
And it always lands on its feet. 🙂
Then they need to publish a disclaimer.
“No cats were harmed in the landfall of this hurricane.” 😎
Probably the only reasonable way you could do it would be to use the category it is at landfall as the measurement. This is typically how tropical cyclones have been measured in the past, with their strength at landfall being of most interest and most easily observable.
What if there is a big hurricane and it doesn’t touch land- or it does but barely causing little damage. I’d think it should hardly be counted- or discount it’s value regarding any “climate emergency”.
It is a bit like characterizing an Earthquake. The media typically report the readily available Richter Magnitude. which is a measure of the energy released. However, if it has a deep focus, and is far removed from any people, there will be minimal to negligible damage. A far better approach is to use the Modified Mercalli Intensity, which is arrived at by assessing the damage inflicted, which will take some time to assess. By the time that information is available, it is old news and the media has moved on. Therefore, the Mercalli scale has never become popular. However, I would say that if a hurricane never even comes close to land, then the speed of its winds is largely an academic question or little concern to the average person.
interesting- never heard of Modified Mercalli Intensity- makes perfect sense
How can we get out of this nightmare in which the most incompetent, dishonest and ignorant activists run each occidental country in almost all the fields ?
How did we achieve to get there ?
What got us here was electing the wrong people. Electing the right people will get us out of it.
Sadly, I am thinking that is not possible.
We are going to find out about November 5, 2024.
Perhaps but at the UN, the WHO, the European Commission, etc., all are non elected people mostly marxists and/or WEF puppets, which impose their totalitarian / dystopian agenda to we the people whoever we may elect, isn’t it ?
Well, they didn’t impose anything on Trump, so I think we would be safe with him in charge.
Trump did tell the UN to pound sand when he pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement. If Trump is elected again, he will pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement again.
I don’t think Trump has much respect or fear for the UN and the totalitarians associated with it.
I hope that Trump will be elected, of course for US citizens but also – hopefully – to kick the anthill of European institutions.
I live in France, a brainwashed country in a roten Europe, ruled by a Globalists’ puppet, where freedom of expression (and thus elections fairness, medical informed consent, etc.) are becoming “things of the past”.
There were at least four easily proven clearcut academic misconduct papers written up in various Blowing Smoke essays.
In each case, I wrote the sponsoring journal providing the indisputable evidence and a draft copy of the soon to be published book essay, requesting retraction. Nothing happened in any.
The climateriat has been protecting very bad ‘science’ for a very long time. This post is just some newer examples. Nothing will change until there are real consequences.
I think the problem has to be worked backwards. Grid failures and other disastrous consequences from mitigating a ‘rooted in bad science’ non-problem will eventually get enough people’s attention to look under the ‘climate science’ hood. What they will find despite much caterwauling to the contrary is:
The truly distressing part is that there were (and are) so many so willing to immediately be so thoroughly dishonest.
That’s the part I don’t understand: the eager betrayal.
Is it they are somehow unaware that they are supporting a religious agenda that wants to bring down the very society they live in ??
How can they NOT have woken up by now.? !
Or do they really want the consequences of things like the Net-Zero idiocies to happen.
Any sane person should be fighting this scam in any way they possibly can.
The proof that it’s all BS is that they scream “climate emergency”- I look out the window or take a walk- and see no emergency. An emergency is when the plane you’re in has an engine on fire. I see, as of today, that the environment looks greener than ever before at this time of year. Usually my lawns are turning brown by now- today, greener than in Ireland.
Your first mistake is to assume that everyone is sane, or even logical. In my experience, the difference between a member of Mensa and everyone else is that the Mensan is better at articulating their rationalizations.
It’s for “The Cause” or the Cash?
It’s enticing, particularly for those with narcissistic tendencies. Simply by going along with the “consensus”, they are showered with praise, and funding. They quickly become indoctrinated in the cult and transformed into zealots for the cause. They tell themselves that they are “saving the world” and they believe it, even while they work feverishly to justify policies that will destroy the energy and transportation infrastructure of developed countries and, if not stopped, will lead to immense suffering on scales never before seen on Earth (which is quite something given what happened in the 20th century).
Very occasionally, someone will be confronted with a situation (blatant corruption or data that irrefutably falsifies their theories) that will break them out of the cult, but this is a very rare occurrence. The more common reaction to information that does not conform to their entrenched beliefs is cognitive dissonance. They will simply put that contradictory information out of their mind, like it never existed at all. A decidedly Orwellian skill to forget that which is inconvenient to their beliefs.
Most of them are LEFTIST which is why they are wrong so often in science.
Pink Floyd has your answer.
Money, it’s a gas.
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
Money, it’s a hit.
Don’t give me that do-goody-good bullshit.
“The ends justify the means”.
The motto of Marxists since time immemorial – any lie or deception can be justified if it furthers the goals of total power and subjugation of the populace.
I’m reminded of the quote, “The easiest person to fool is yourself.” So, I’m not sure that they are all dishonest. However, I do see it all too frequently that someone will lie, apparently because they believe that ‘the end justifies any means.’ Humans are flawed creatures. The older I get, the more distasteful I find their behavior.
“The IPCC is a massive effort, and if it did not exist we’d have to invent it.”
Why?
[QUOTE FROM ARTICLE]”However, as the community comes to accept the ridiculousness of RCP8.5, efforts are being made to replace it with another extreme scenario — Right now that appears to be SSP3-7.0 which also foresees a massive increase in coal (~6x) and a world of about 13 billion people in 2100, far more than projected by the United Nations.”[END QUOTE]
Even if the world population did reach 13 billion in 2100, there is no reason why coal use would be multiplied by 6. Given that world population reached 8 billion in 2023, 13 billion people in 2100 would represent a 62.5% increase in population. For total world coal consumption to be multiplied by 6, the per capita coal consumption would have to be multiplied by 3.7, which is a totally unrealistic expectation.
The rate of world population increase peaked at about 88 million per year in 2012, and decreased to 70 million per year in 2023. If population continued to increase at 70 million per year, it would reach about 13.2 billion by 2100. But the trend for slower population increases will likely continue for some decades to come, as fertility rates have decreased, and an increasing fraction of the population is too old to reproduce, so that birth rates may drop to replacement level, causing population to level out.
There has also been a reduction in CO2 emissions per capita (on a global basis) from about 4.8 tonnes/yr/capita in 2012 to 4.5 tonnes/yr/capita in 2022. If both the population trend (+70 million/yr) and the emission per capita trend (-0.03 tonne/yr/capita) continued into the future, CO2 emissions would level off at about 42 gigatonnes/yr around the year 2060 (up from 37.2 Gt/yr in 2022).
An regression analysis of the CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa and the world CO2 emissions from 1959 to 2022 shows that the rate of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere (in Gt/yr) follows the equation
dm/dt = E + 40 – 0.14 C
where E = human CO2 emission rate, Gt/yr
C = CO2 concentration in ppm
and the 40 Gt/yr represents CO2 emissions from natural sources.
If human emission rates peak at 42 Gt/yr (E = 42), the CO2 concentration would reach equilibrium when dm/dt = 0, for a CO2 concentration of (42 + 40) / 0.14 = 586 ppm. This is only about 38% higher than the current CO2 concentration, and would not be reached until about AD 2200.
The IPCC calculations about the temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 concentrations are all futile, since CO2 concentrations will likely NEVER double from the current concentration.