Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen — 13 September 2023
The reputation of the entire scientific enterprise has been sullied by the recent scandal regarding a paper whose opinions so offended the ClimateGate Gang that they, the climate bullies, pressured one on the world’s leading publishers of scientific journals to retract a peer-reviewed paper – not because it was wrong; not because it was methodologically unsound; not because other researchers countered the paper with scientific arguments – no, simply because “some people didn’t like the conclusions” in the paper. Those offended, the ClimateGate gang, appearing in this round of scandal are Greg Holland ; Lisa Alexander ; Steve Sherwood ; Michael Mann ; Friederike Otto ; Stefan Rahmstorf, took their tears of outrage to the climate-collusion mass media and cried: “How dare they disagree with us!”
Springer/Nature’s editors and publishers shamefully caved in to the pressure and retracted the paper after a messy and irregular additional review.
[ Why is this essay titled “The Wolf and the Lamb”? The explanation is at the end. ]
The whole story has been previously covered here at WUWT over time:
A Critical Assessment of Extreme Events Trends in Times of Global Warming
Team Climate Crisis Resorts to Bullying, Again
The Climategate Gang Rides Again! (see the update at the end)
Roger Pielke Jr. concurrently ran coverage at his substack site:
“Think of the Implications of Publishing”
THREAD: Extended peer review of the “No Climate Emergency” paper. Should it be retracted?
During this time, I have been communicating with Gianluca Alimonti, lead author, about the retraction attempt (at first) and the final retraction by Springer. Alimonti et al. writes today: “We, the four authors, have just written a report that clarifies the whole issue.”
The entire document (hereafter ‘Brief History’) is available from the WUWT servers as a .pdf at the above link.
Please be aware that English is not the author’s first language, they speak and write Italian, so some of the sentence structures and word choices read a little uncomfortably.
Here are some excerpts from the Brief History document::
Since Alimonti et al. 2022 deals with the concept of a “climate emergency”, their Brief History includes a helpful definitional footnote:
“1 This is what IPCC AR6 says on the climate crisis: “Also, some media outlets have recently adopted and promoted terms and phrases stronger than the more neutral ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’, including ‘climate crisis’, ‘global heating’, and ‘climate emergency’. Google searches on those terms, and on ‘climate action’, increased 20-fold in 2019, when large social movements such as School Strikes for Climate gained worldwide attention” [p. 173].”
The chronology begins with:
“1. 30 Sep. 2022: approximately nine months after the publication of our article in the international scientific journal EPJ Plus (European Physical Journal – Plus), which took place after having passed a regular peer review process, in September 2022 the article was placed “under dispute” (with a message of caution to readers reported on the EPJ-Plus website), on the base of personal opinions expressed by some scientists to a journalist of The Guardian newspaper – (which constitutes a rather anomalous procedure in the scientific field)” .
Then onto:
“6) including the original article reviewer, two out of three reviewers (but Prof. Pielke in his reconstruction of the story carried out on the basis of information received from a whistleblower – see the links at the bottom of this document – speaks of four reviewers out of five…) expressed a positive evaluation. Despite the majority of positive evaluations, an adjudicator has been contacted and with what we believe is a very weak and cherry picked analysis on our original article (although we had agreed that there would have been no other revisions of the original article) he/she recommended not to publish the Addendum and to retract our original article.”
And lastly, I’ll add:
“7) 13 July 2023: on the base of the evaluation of the adjudicator who, as written in his/her report, “has not been asked to comment on the original paper” (“excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta” would be natural to say…) the Editor wrote us on July the 13th that, after an in-depth consultation with the Publisher, not only our Addendum would not have been published but also that our original article would have been retracted. (and here we ask ourselves what qualification the publisher had to enter into this decision-making process)”
For the Latin-handicapped (such as I) “[Excusatio non petita accusatio manifesta (An unprovoked excuse is an obvious accusation)]” – [ source – as a title to a paper at NIH ]
As part of their comment on the retraction notice:
“Note that our conclusions are in perfect agreement with what emerges from Tab 12.12 of IPCC AR6 (attached) which summarizes the variations in the extreme events already observable today or which, according to IPCC forecasts, will become observable in the near future (between now and 2050 and between 2050 and 2100), obtained using a very drastic scenario, today considered unrealistic (RCP 8.5). In the table, the prevalence of white areas where significant confidence in the direction of change does not exist today and in many cases should not emerge even by 2100, stands out and all the extreme events considered in our article are in agreement with this IPCC table.“
The table being referred to here is:
[ click image for larger view in new tab ]
Most of you will be familiar with this table from IPCC AR6. Pielke Jr. has expounded on this table and its relation to the much-touted Climate Emergency.
Alimonti and his co-authors conclude with this:
“Conclusions In conclusion, we observe that the moral of the story is found in the ending of “The Wolf and the Lamb”, the famous fairy tale by Phaedrus: “Lupus et agnus ad eundem rivum venerant… superior stabat lupus, longeque inferior agnus.… Atque ita correptum lacerat iniusta nece. Haec propter illos scripta est homines fabula qui fictis causis innocentes opprimunt.”
The Latin is tricky to translate with an online translator, which results in “The wolf and the lamb had come to the same stream… the wolf stood higher, and the lamb was far lower… And so he tore the prey and killed it unjustly. This story was written because of those men who oppress the innocent with false causes.” The translation does not make a lot of sense to me, but it refers to this fable, found in Aesop and in both the Greek of Babrius and the Latin of Phaedrus, as “The Wolf and the Lamb”. The Wiki entry offers this phrasing:
“A wolf comes upon a lamb while both are drinking from a stream and, in order to justify taking its life, accuses it of various misdemeanors, all of which the lamb proves to be impossible. Losing patience, the wolf replies that the offenses must have been committed by some other member of the lamb’s family and that it does not propose to delay its meal by inquiring any further.”
And adds that “The morals drawn there are that the tyrant can always find an excuse for his tyranny and that the unjust will not listen to the reasoning of the innocent.”
A fable and moral thus proven once again by the ClimateGate Tyrants in the story of Alimonti et al. 2022.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
I had hoped that with climate science had gotten beyond this sort of tragic misbehavior. The silence of other scientists in the field has been even more appalling that the original offense. But the same bad actors just don’t seem to be able to restrain their lesser natures. Shall I name them? Michael Mann, Greg Holland, Lisa Alexander, Steve Sherwood, Friederike Otto, Stefan Rahmstorf. Others may have been involved in this incident, names unknown.
Nonetheless, Gianluca Alimonti and Luigi Mariani subsequently published another paper, “Is the number of global natural disasters increasing?”. They answer, as I and many others have concluded: “No, the number of natural disasters is not increasing!”
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
Yes, if you think it wrong, publish a response showing that. No excuse for this kind of attempted suppression. Which seems to be running into the Streisand effect, in any case.
This is just a repetition of Jones from the Climategate emails, we will keep it out of publication, if necessary by redefining the peer review process.
They do not think it is wrong.
The reviewers acknowledge that the paper agrees with IPCC AR6 and as such is in accordacne with the current mainstream science.
The problem is that the mainstream understanding of climate change is not very alarming. This is why after 27 COPs the world’s governments have all agreed that no real emission cuts are needed yet. It’s the logical policy based on the state of the science.
If the activist scientists want to keep their high profile (and funding) the mainstream sceince must be sidelined in the media in favour of loony extremism. This is actually quite easy as, for the media, “If it bleeds, it leads”. No-one wants to report on “The End of the World is NOT Nigh but the weather will still happen”.
The BBC and the Guardian did this over the MMR vaccine as well. They knew that mainstream scienc said the vaccine was safe. But a lone nutty scientist said it caused autism. Now we have measles outbreaks caused by the media’s mis-representation of the science.
That is a technicality, isn’t it? The reviewers say that the IPCC agrees with Alimonti et al. that no global trend emerges for some of the metrics Alimonti et al. review, but Alimonti et al. fail to recognize that many changes occurring to such metrics are not globally homogenous, even though they are responding to global forcing. Precpitation, for example, isn’t expected to uniformly increase globally – some regions of the world will become drier, others will become wetter. Such changes will not produce a global trend, and their impacts can only be understood through careful by-region analysis. So what Alimonti et al. are doing is omitting critical context that does not support their conclusion. This seems to be one of the largest criticisms the reviewers and other scientists have raised.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Alimonti et al. should have been retracted, but only because it never should have been published in that state to begin with. It is an embarrassment to the reputation of the publisher.
No. The reviewers acknowledged the paper was in agreement with mainstream science.
If you were right, and there were legitimate complaints to be made, the objections would have been made in a rebutting paper.
The proof that you are wrong is that no-one; not you, the reviewers or the objectors, could write such a paper that disagrees with this paper that was retracted.
Because there was nothing wrong with it.
The reviewers explicitly say this. From reviewer 1:
Thus what Alimonti et al. is technically true and in line with the IPCC (no global trend), but it does not support their conclusion (no climate crisis).
The silly line keeps playing amongst the contrarian crowd that “nobody has actually disagreed with the Alimonti et al. paper,” and it’s just a lie. The entire IPCC report stands in opposition to Alimonti et al’s conclusion.The author’s problem is that they didn’t do due diligence, didn’t provide a thorough literature review, didn’t explain why their conclusions are at odds with other such reviews like the IPCC, and draw conclusions that are unsupported by their analysis. It’s not a good paper, whether you believe climate change is a threat or not.
Seriously?
The objection is that, just because there is no evidence for something, does not mean that we shouldn’t asume it’s real.
This demonstrates why there was no possible way to rebut the paper. It’s the same argument as “Just because we have no evidence of unicorns does not mean that they do not exist”.
It’s technically true. I must admit.
But a paper saying that, “After thirty years of looking for evidence we have found no such evidence thus we can conclude that there are no unicorns” is hard to rebut with, “After thirty years of looking for evidence we have found no such evidence thus we can conclude that there are probably unicorns”.
Secondary point: The paper was about global climate, not local weather. So the objection was irrelevant anyway – as well as superstitious.
Well, apart from the bits where the IPCC discusses observations and predictions of the global climate – see the article above for a reference.
As I pointed out, the reason that the political consensus is to do nothing now is that the scientific consensus (as defined is IPCC reports) demands no such action right now.
There have been 27 COPs and 6 IPCC ARs that have all come to a different conclusion to you.
Maybe you ought to go back and look at the evidence?
That’s not the objection at all. The objection, one among several, is that Alimonti is citing the lack of a global trend as evidence against a “climate crisis” using metrics that are not expected to exhibit global trends. Again, looking at precipitation, if climate change is causing some places to become more drought prone while causing others to become more prone to heavy precipitation, the net result is not a global trend one way or the other with precipitation, but these are both climate-change related risks in precipitation events. You would be correct to point out the absence of a global trend (in line with the IPCC), but you would be wrong to say that this means there is no change in precipitation extremes (what Alimonti says).
Ok… global trends aren’t the only relevant metrics for understanding the risks of global climate change. The criticism is highly relevant. Trying to blithely dismiss it reeks of desperation.
You give an interesting example Alan J. by offsetting one extreme weather condition, drought, with another, heavy precipitation. I assume you appreciate that the place that is now more drought prone need not also be a place that now has less heavy precipitation. Place A, now experiencing more drought, but that has always had infrequent heavy precipitation, does not do the work of your example. In that case, for consistency with the global trends, you need a Place C that now has less heavy precipitation to balance the hypothetical Place B that you describe as now having more heavy precipitation. You need that that is if you want to take the Alimonti et al study seriously, rather than simply point out that there are other matters still to study.
Come on AlaJ.. Where is this “climate crisis”?
Alimonti et al are correct…
It doesn’t exist anywhere in the IPCC real data…
Your comments reek of desperation.
You have been brainwashed by propaganda that characterizes every anomalous weather event as being climate related. There is ZERO empirical evidence for the fictional climate crisis. Multiple lines of real world evidence shows that it is fraud.
My fellow Courtney: Thanks for playing whack-a-mole with Mr. J., I learn from it just as much as he fails to learn. I think the finale should be to tell Mr. J that he can still write the paper, and totally crush us, by showing places where climate change caused drought (where there wasn’t drought); and floods (again, where climate change caused increased precip). It should shut him up, but……
Sure, but Alimonti had a right to state that, no? That is, it was his conclusion- not proven, maybe, like most of climate science. So he should say anything not in the dogma?
A conclusion needs to follow from the arguments – Alimonti’s doesn’t. He’s free to believe any nonsense thing he wants to believe, that doesn’t mean the journal has to think it’s worth publishing.
If after 30 years, the oft claimed trend still can’t be found, that is pretty good evidence that it will never appear.
While it’s technically true that the trend might magically appear tomorrow, but at some point in time you have to give up ignoring reality.
Yeah, such as the Hot Spot and the Positive Feedback Loop predictions that haven’t appeared outside of models and 30 years thus the cornerstone of the AGW conjecture is dead.
Yes, climate change alarmists are reduced to claiming any extreme weather event is evidence that CO2 is causing harm, when there is absolutely no connection established between weather events and CO2. Absolutely no connection other than in the fevered minds of climate change alarmists who have nothing else to use to promote their scary CO2 climate doom narrative.
Alimonti found no climate crisis, BECAUSE THERE ISN’T ONE !
You also are free to believe all the fakery and nonsense you want.. just a pity you can’t back anything thing up with any but whinging.
Journal thought it was worth publishing.
Mickey Mann and his cohorts did not want the facts to be raised for discussion… and bullied the journal into retracting it.
“Mickey Mann and his cohorts did not want the facts to be raised for discussion”
Exactly right.
Another hole shot in Michael Mann’s theory of everything. He can’t refute it, so he tries to silence it.
Mann has no problem attributing every extreme weather event to there being more CO2 in the air. Everybody in the know, knows it is absurd to make this connection since there is absolutely no evidence supporting this claim. It is a blatant unsubstantiated assertion. Nothing more, and everyone knows it, yet Mann still makes this claim every time he is asked. Mann is a fount of climate change misinformation, which has done great harm to humanity. And the misinformation continues.
“A conclusion needs to follow from the arguments – Alimonti’s doesn’t”
Well actually, YES IT DOES.
There is NO CLIMATE CRISIS in any global data..
That is exactly what the IPCC data shows.
You just can’t accept the truth.
Climate alarmists claim the weather is different now and more extreme because of CO2.
Alimonti shows the weather is no more extreme today than in the past, which refutes that unsubstantiated claim by the climate change alarmists.
The statement that the data does not make a climate crisis evident is not a scientific conclusion, so why does it matter if it follows from the scientific content of the paper? Plus, it seems like a pretty reasonable conclusion even if one accepts the obvious proposition that local trends may differ from global trends. The paper was opposed and withdrawn because the authors expressed wrong think. Why are you ok with that?
The paper’s abstract reads:
That sounds like it is intended as a scientific assessment made on the basis of observational data, no? It is the singular conclusion of the study.
The paper was withdrawn because the publisher felt it was not up to their standards and should not have been published to begin with. It is expressing “wrong think” only in the sense that it is, well, wrong. I am ok with a paper that distorts and misrepresents the research it is based on being withdrawn.
If WUWT readership really wants to find a banner for their crusade against imagined scientific censorship, they really need to try waving a paper that isn’t trash.
There is no climate emergency as the data makes clear in this article posted 2 years ago right here in WUWT:
Where is the Climate Emergency?
LINK
This supports the papers contention a paper and the link YOU never read as your stupid opinions are full of prevaricating bullcrap!
“a paper that isn’t trash.”
We have one here by Alimonti et al.
It concurs fully with the IPCC.
Or are you saying the data in the IPCC is trash ?
No, the paper was withdrawn because the publisher got bullied by a pack of rabid anti-science alarmists who didn’t like the totally logical conclusion based on IPCC data.
After 30 plus years of looking for the increase, no increase can be found.
That categorically refutes the claims of a looming crisis.
AlanJ is just mounting plaintive platitudes, pertaining to nought..
It is hilarious to watch the twisting and turning.
The science in the IPCC reports AGREES with Alimonti.
The politically based garbage that are the SPMs, don’t..
It is the opinions and fakery in the SPMs that is being shown to be garbage…
That is the real problem that Mickey Mann and his cronies has.
Forgive this student of English for interfering but “if no global trend emerges from the data we have” then what conclusion can be drawn from that other than that “no climate crisis is evident”?
If data do not show a trend then where is the evidence of a trend?
Or are we — and not for the first time — in Humpty Dumpty territory?
When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said … ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.” And that has been the problem from the beginning, hasn’t it?!
One man eats two meals, another man goes hungry. Two men, two meals consumed. “All is right and well,” Alimonti would say.
But something else happened, and such broad strokes conceal the underlying meaning.
You poor desperate little child.
There is NO EVIDENCE of a CLIMATE CRISS in the IPCC.
That is a fact.. Alimonti is absolutely correct.
No amount of your pitiful squirming and slithering will change that.
When you are reduced to creating pitiful little analogies… as opposed to actual science…
… you KNOW you have lost the plot !!!
Why are you trying so hard to convince people that you are full of empty and worthless opinions that only stupid people normally produce, I am convinced that you are STUPID thus stop trying to convince everyone of this reality.
The paper actually has support by this article you have already ignored because you are not here to learn.
LINK
It’s not a good paper, whether you believe climate change is a threat or not.
The question is not whether its a good paper. The question is whether a paper which has passed peer review and made it into publication should be withdrawn by the publisher on account of a storm of complaint made by some individuals and a certain section of the media including, among others the Guardian.
It should not be. The right thing in these circumstances is for the dissenters to write, and the journal to publish, a rejoinder.
The episode shows that nothing has changed since Climategate and Jones’ remark about suppressing and denying publication to a paper even if it took redefining the peer review process to do it.
The suppressors don’t seem to realize that they are destroying the credibility of their cause. No good cause needs defending by these methods, publication denial, personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, attacks on motivation of the dissenters rather than on the case itself.
Over the years the arguments have made me a skeptic. But the thing that started me down the road of questioning was the conduct of the activist scientists. Tamino’s site is a great recruiting sergeant for skepticism. The defences of MBH, the refusal to supply the base data and algorithms. Tamino’s bad faith defence of so called ‘short centered PCA’… Climategate. Mike’s Nature trick. Its a long list.
You yourself are engaged in one of the usual sleights of hand. You are trying to move the debate from the question of the legitimacy of the retraction demands and conduct, to the question of whether its a good paper. It doesn’t matter if a lot of people think it isn’t. It passed peer review, its not fraudulent. so it should stand and be rebutted, if it can be, by publication of critical arguments in the same or comparable journals.
Another excellent comment from michel.
Well, that isn’t why the paper was withdrawn. The outcry by scientists against the flaws and distortions in the paper was the catalyst for the journal launching an investigation, but the paper was withdrawn after an internal review established significant methodological errors, omissions of relevant data, and distortion of cited research. As the retraction adendum reads:
It was a failure of the journal’s editorial standards that allowed the manuscript to be published in the first place, so there is no “right” answer after the fact, but withdrawing the obviously garbage paper is at least an omission of the lapse in standards that helps somewhat preserve the integrity of the publisher.
Of course Phil Jones never made such a remark. His comment in the leaked email had nothing to do with keeping papers from being published. He was referring to already published papers being cited in the IPCC report. And both papers he referenced were cited in the IPCC report. So much for claims of censorship.
Your ignorance and lies are worse than ever, why are you to keep making a fool of yourself with stupid replies?
Sunsettommy shouted into the mirror, as the mirror shouted back.
Mr. J: Thanks for taking the conversation down to the level of schoolyard prattle. You keep saying the paper misrepresented something when it didn’t, the article demonstrates this. Your side admits at the outset it didn’t, or it would not have passed the first peer review. The underlying data AS REPRESENTED is not in dispute, yet your string of comment pretends that the data is misrepresented when it isn’t. Once again, you have made your ignorance the topic of the string. Intentional?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You are truly dumb as you completely supported my claim about you.
You keep ignoring what I linked to an article over and over because it supports the paper under discussion here and this is what the IPCC stated from the link you keep ignoring:
Let’s be clear about this. The following are the areas where the IPCC itself, in the graphic above, says there is no scientific evidence for a “global warming” signal:
When are you going to wise up?
The paper was NOT flawed or distorted.
It said exactly what the IPCC data showed.
It is your highly biased and worthless understanding and meaningless opinion that is flawed and distorted.
You still haven’t told us where this “climate crisis” is, that no-one else can find, even in the highly political IPCC reports.
The failure of the editor was to allow themselves to be bullied by a bunch of predatory activists.
> It said exactly what the IPCC data showed.
So the authors must of course have concluded that it was <strong>virtually certain</strong> that there were increases in frequency or intensity of warm spells/heatwaves over most land area, Mr. Nice Guy?
Perhaps the authors “forgot” to look at that.
Oh, and there’s no such thing as “IPCC data”:
https://climateball.net/but-data/#ipcc
Thanks for that one!
Fact: The WEATHER is NOT getting worse.
Choke on it.
Mr. Science: Mr. J will tell you that it wasn’t expected to, just bad weather moving around. He is capable of an auto-Heimlich maneuver, which helps him avoid even well-deserved choking.
Bad weather being in one place one year and someplace else next year is just plain old every day weather. It is not a crisis.
If CO2 was doing anything, there would be a global trend.
“It is not a crisis.”
It is CLIMATE NORMAL !!
It’s not that precipitation is not increasing globally monotonically. It’s that precipitation isn’t increasing at all, anywhere.
well, it’s been a very wet summer here in Wokeachusetts- but so what- a few years ago, here, the climatistas said we were going to have perpetual drought- all the lakes will dry up!
It’s New England- the weather is extremely undependable and unpredicatable and it’s always been that way. Ergo, it’s normal!
besides, all that rain and warmth and extra CO2 means my lawn, garden, flower beds and half acre forest has never grown so fast nor looked so good- aside from some vieggies which prefer drier weather- I notice that the oaks are so loaded with acrorns it looks like the extra weight is going to break some branches- the one downside regarding plants is a particular invasive species, Oriental bittersweet, which is having a banner year- maybe because of the extra rain or something else- this invasive came from Asia, so it’s prevelance isn’t due to any hypothetical climate change
and the lakes are full- and so far not much flooding since it hasn’t all come at once- it’s been a steady higher than average rainfall and the rivers can handle it- some farmers haven’t liked it though because they’re growing crops that just prefer less water- so they gambled on the wrong crops- that’s life for a farmer- it’s not an emergency for the rest of us- the extra rain is also tough on all outdoor workers like construction and the logging industries, but they’re also used to weather related problems- it’s normal!
As I and many others have been saying for a very long time, you can’t average the effects of the hundreds of climates around the world and produce any meaningful real world information.
Poor AlanJ, still trying to defend the indefensible, just so he can keep his cult-based religion alive in his little mind.
The reviewers acknowledged the paper was in agreement with mainstream science.
They just didn’t want the actual REALITY published.
“Precpitation, for example, isn’t expected to uniformly increase globally – some regions of the world will become drier, others will become wetter.”
Oh dear.. AlanJ has been playing with his crystal balls again.
Please keep such activity private, no-one wants to know.
I’ve got to remember this one, bnice2000.
AlanJ,
Your analysis is wrong.
The authors have the word “global” in the title and in the paper.
Therefore you should restrict your analysis to a “GLOBAL climate emergency”, not your selected argument term “climate catastrophe”.
I sent this letter to one of their USA editors…As expected, no reply.
To:eseohe.yamasaki@springernature.com
Mon, Aug 28 at 6:48 PM
Dr. Yamasaki,
I have for decades respected Springer as a purveyor of top quality science information. Your journal recently retracted this paper
Alimonti, G., Mariani, L., Prodi, F. et al. A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 112 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9
due to political pressure.
While I understand the contentious area of research, using big names to force a retraction of the paper because the authors do not like the conclusions is totally unacceptable. Those with opposing views should publish a rebuttal with their own data, citations and analysis, not suppress an already reviewed paper. This is simply NOT how science is done. This is another example of the kind of scientific corruption displayed in the climategate scandal, 14 years ago, where scientists were caught conspiring to keep papers out of journals. That is a saga you do not want to be associated with !
My trust in the objective quality of what I read in Springer journals is now diminished, and I am certainly less inclined to seek Springer papers in my research. I must now consider political bias in your journals as a factor not just science.
Sincerely
scientist ==> Nicely done.
It is just human behavior. It won’t stop until no humans left. Individuals may be well-behaved, but humankind will always have a mixture of good and bad behaviors, quite often both present in the same individuals at different times.
Any human activity, including science, will always be about power and money, if not for everyone certainly for those that become powerful and rich.
I’ve seen all sorts of behaviors in my scientific career, so I don’t have high expectations and I am not negatively surprised by these types of things. It is those who believe scientists are a better subgroup of humans who are quite wrong.
What makes you think that the gang are humans?
They don’t behave that way.
How is the climate on your planet?
The sound that you can hear is Richard Feynman revolving in his grave…
the same thing happened with COVID, masks, lockdowns, ivermectin, vaccine mandates, dissenting doctors losing their licenses to practice, but eventually the truth comes out and cannot be suppressed
It’s still being suppressed, innit? It will be interesting to see how the public reacts to the reported increases in C-19 infections and hospitalizations. Will the public fight new mask mandates, refuse to observe lockdowns and reject the booster shots?
On a related note, 3 passengers on the previously Greenland run aground cruise ship have come down with covid.
https://apnews.com/article/greenland-cruise-ship-aground-mv-ocean-explorer-c487b66a2cfc8f2adcd4893a63a82be6
According to John’s Hopkins, the present US COVID incidence rate is about 3.4/100. The ship has 206 passengers, so its incidence is about half of the US at present.
The common cold is caused by about 95 different rhinoviruses and 4 coronaviruses. That is why there is no lasting general cold immunity—you catch a different one every time. COVID 19 followed the expected evolutionary path. At the beginning it caused deep lung X-ray ‘broken glass’ diagnostic. That is why ventilators were needed.
It has evolved to be much more contagious but much less virulent. Now just another URI—so now there are basically 5 corona viruses causing common colds along with all the rhinoviruses. The new variant vaccine is an expensive and fairly ineffective (doesn’t prevent infection or transmission, myocarditis side effect) response to what has evolved to become a non-problem except in the elderly for whom URIs (colds and flu) are always potentially a problem.
As I said on your ‘Hot and Cold’ thread a couple of days ago, Kip, Dr Friedereke Otto supposedly specialises in the impact of climate change and seems somewhat of an extremist
“What were concerns over the impact on (sic) climate change are understood realities, it is costing thousands, perhaps millions, of deaths globally every single year ”
“37% of deaths from heatwaves over the last 30 years have been caused by climate change. And that is a conservative estimate ”
She apparently knows these ‘truths’ based on “hundreds, thousands of simulations of models”
(By the way, once you get to know her you can call her Fredi)
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news-and-events/oxford-people/fredi-otto
dve ==> Yes, Otto is a dedicated alarmist-in-action, but it is impossible to know if she really believes what she says publicly.
Her truth exists only in her model pseudo-Earth where everything occurs just as the Climate Fascist Bible says.
The journey from using soft language, climate changes, to hard language “global boiling” have been long, 28, 32, 35- years and a series of “shell-shocks” creating the “bomb-shock” they are trying to protect.28 years, Benjamin Santers paper, 32, The First Global Revolution and 35 the IPCC was established etc etc… !!
Taken inspiration in Billy Joels song, We Didn´t Start The Fire … it goes something like this, IPCC, James Hansen, Maurice Strong, half truths, first revolution, climate change, Club of Rome, Santer, AGW, climate crises, hockey-stick, Michael Mann, Climategate, Al Gore inconvenient truth, The Grifter, 97%, Lewandowsky, climateskeptics, cook, mis- and disinformations …. drought, faminine, acid rain, Guterres, hottest ever year, global boiling, King Charles, climate clock … we didn´t start the fire, no, we didn´t light it, but we try to fight it.
Okay I could propably improve it, but I think you get my “drift” interpreting the wolfpacks behaviour.
Best Regards … !!
Kip, thanks for the Wolf and Lamb Fable. My other favorite fable, revalent to climate Change, is Goldilocks. When you watch a weather report on TV, it is common to see the reporter show a Heat Alert, due to Climate Change. Then they pan out to show cooler than normal areas. In between the two zones, one too hot and one to cold, it’s normal. The average is normal. Never mind. Goldilocks.
Ron ==> Human nature does not change much … thus the fables and moral stories meant to remind us and teach us.
What’s the difference between a parable and a fable?
A fable is a story that can’t be true (talking animals) to make a point, “the moral of the story”.
A parable is a story that could be true (a shepherd finding a lost sheep) to make a point, “rejoicing in heaven”.
Gunga Din ==> Nice done, exactly correct. Both are meant to be instructional.
So is a talking snake a parable or a fable?
Are you thinking of Genesis?
Well, I’m not a Sadducee.
Acts 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.
(That’s why not so Sad. You see?) 😎
So whether that is the event or a fable or a parable, the point, the instruction is True.
(That’s why I’m not so Sad. You see?)
Edit function, I miss you!
This is a great article, but the Author’s Comment is hilarious gallows humor.
”I had hoped that with climate science had gotten beyond this sort of tragic misbehavior. …But the same bad actors just don’t seem to be able to restrain their lesser natures.”
Losers enjoy pearl-clutching and insulting winners, but winners rightly ignore them. Climate alarmists dominate most western governments, the UN, schools (from kindergarten to academia), the press, and the major NGOs. They face little organized opposition as their power slowly grows.
”The silence of other scientists in the field has been even more appalling that the original offense.”
Yes, scientists are reasonably afraid to annoy the powers that rule their field. If they put their livelihoods at risk, who will defend them? People that won’t defend their society, their nation, shouldn’t demand courage and self-sacrifice from others.
To be a successful climate sceantist you have to be a sociopath
There should be a storm from the scientific community at large hit these editors. Do the silent majority of scientists not see that this event sullies any paper from them that gets published in this pulp journal?
Kip, you are right to name and shame Michael Mann, Greg Holland, Lisa Alexander, Steve Sherwood, Friederike Otto, Stefan Rahmstorf. I’ve been advocating blaming and shaming Dark Side characters in the WEF, corrupt academemes and institutions, politicians, etc… who have wrought deadly harm to society, civilization, economies, education. There are already countless victims (I wish someone would count them).
To the silent majority of real scientists, please speak up here. If you don’t, you too, have cancelled yourselves from this honorable pursuit.
AlanJ
You wrote :
“many changes occurring to such metrics are not globally homogeneous, even though they are responding to global forcing. Precipitation, for example, isn’t expected to uniformly increase globally – some regions of the world will become drier, others will become wetter. Such changes will not produce a global trend, and their impacts can only be understood through careful by-region analysis.
That reminds me of a discussion I had with a warming alarmist. I asked, what were the supposed dangers of global warming. He trottedd out the usual, increased sea leve rise, droughts and flooding etc.
Easy to debunk that seal level stuff, then I asked how do you have droughts AND flooding as an effect?
He answered at different times and different places.
To the laughter of those standing around, I said ah, weather, just like it has always happened.
Yes flooding and droughts at different times and places around the world, this is just history.
If it’s not global, it’s not global warming, just selective attention to weather by a media trying to reinforce the government agendas.
That’s the thing about global warming. It’s happening, that’s what the models tell us, however the way it’s happening makes it impossible to measure in the real world, that’s what the activists tell us.
Trust us, we’re from the government.
Decarbonizing…Faster….Together…join us in conference in Dubai.
what time do the wild parties start? 🙂
Dunno, it’s Dubai though. The phrase “most inclusive COP ever” is darkly humerous given everyone they’re excluding!
This will have a Streisand effect. Retracting a main stream paper because ‘usual suspect’ climate alarmists don’t like the conclusions is NOT a good look.
Steisand is known by everyone so most people heard of that effect. I suspect extremely few people, even in the science community, will hear about it or care about it. It might be disturbing to them so they’ll just block out. So these journals have nothing to fear. Hope I’m wrong!
Thank you for shrieking from the top of your lungs, Kip.
In return, here’s my take on scientific shenanigans:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/09/14/scientific-shenanigans
Nobody is interested in the opinion of a low-IQ child when it comes to science… except alarmist, of course.
There is that link…… then there is actual physics. They are mutually exclusive.
Hey, Mister Nice Guy –
Hunter Biden gained 41 trademarks in China, made $640 million while “working” in daddy’s administration, and received $2 billion from the people behind 9/11.
Now that I got your attention. That was actually Jared and Ivanka.
Oh ! so you have TDS as well as an incredibly low IQ.
OK !
You’re such a nice guy, Mister Nice Guy.
Why can’t you win any argument here, even against such a low IQ kid like me?
Yawn. !
You haven’t made any argument…
Certainly not on the topic in hand…
Just some deranged nonsense fuelled by your TDS..
Go play in the kiddies pool.. or on the road. !
Oh, Mister Nice. I actually did. And you brag about not having read them.
By contrast, here’s what you claimed so far: (1) I’m a kid; (2) I have a low IQ; (3) I have TDS.
Is that the best you got?
Poor Willard is still working well and truly in the negative. !
Has absolutely NOTHING to add to the discussion, otherwise he would say it here,…
… not on some decrepit and juvenile anti-science blog.
And he knows it. !
Pathetic and sad, .. but still worth a laugh at.
ps I did read the first sentence of that link.
It is some of the most ignorant, incoherent, self-aggrandising, anti-science, anti-reality garbage I have ever read…. anywhere.
Low-IQ…. Looks like I was being very generous..
Single digit is more like it, unless they register negative IQs.
You’re just spitting, Mr. Nice Guy.
Spite can only get you so far.
Spite? I am laughing at just how mindless and cretinous a child like you can be.
Whatever you were on when you wrote that load of demented, moronic tripe…
… you really need to find another substance to abuse, that doesn’t cause so much mental damage.
HAW HAW HAW, you haven’t made any counterpoint to his post thus your contribution in the thread remains ZERO!!!
A counterpoint to what, Tommy Boy?
You didn’t learn your lesson last time, didn’t you?
You mean when you ran away with your n**s tucked between your legs ?
When was that, Mr. Nice Guy, perhaps here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/09/02/new-study-suggests-global-warming-could-be-mostly-an-urban-problem/#comment-3778375
?
You left the food fight you yourself created a bit early.
With another worthless, idiotic non-contribution, saying absolutely nothing.
As is your MO.
I’m amazed you have even got passed the grunting stage.
I repeat since your stupidity needs to be highlighted:
HAW HAW HAW, you haven’t made any counterpoint to his post thus your contribution in the thread remains ZERO!!!
Oh, Tommy boy. You’re such a nice chap.
Do you not realize that you’re poisoning your own well?
” And ten there’s physics.”
Please use your deep understanding of physics to explain how climate change has caused more rain, less flooding, flash droughts, extended droughts, fewer hurricanes, more wild fires, more flooding, less wildfire, more hurricanes and all fine weather. Thanks!
Mike,
Thank you for your sammich request.
Here you go:
ipcc.ch
Many thanks!
Comprehension difficulties?
Mustard or mayo?
Another moronic incoherent yap from the dullard. !
Another great contribution from the peanut gallery!
Little chihuahua behind a fence.. yapping away… poor thing !
Even greater contribution from the peanut gallery!
More than you are ever capable of contributing !
Unless the sewer backs up !
Where’s Waldorf?
The AR6 cycle of IPCC reports goes from the SR1.5 special report in 2018 to the “Full volume” version of the Synthesis Report (AR6 SYR) released just last month, and totals roughly 9800 pages worth of PDF files.
The WG-I assessment report, “The Physical Science Basis”, is 2409 pages long on its own.
Replies similar to “It’s all on the IPCC website, go and dig out the relevant pages for yourself” aren’t helpful.
_ _ _ _ _
On page 169 of the AR6 WG-I report you will find “Box 1.1 : Treatment of uncertainty and calibrated uncertainty language in AR6”.
NB : Compare how easy it is to find what follows using my “Title + page number” version of “a reference” compared to your “What you are looking for is somewhere on ipcc.ch … full stop, end of post” option.
There the IPCC has the following to say about what “low confidence” is, and is not, supposed to mean for the AR6 assessment reports :
By the time the IPCC’s “coalface worker / grunt” scientists had got to chapter 12, however, their outlook had subtly shifted.
Attached is a “zoomed in” version of the caption at the top of Table 12.12, on page 1856 (1687 pages after the above qualifier was inserted into the WG-I report).
The relevant part is the sub-clause after the colon, which reads :
“white cells indicate where evidence is lacking or the signal is not present, leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal”
This means that by the penultimate chapter of AR6 WG-I the IPCC’s scientists had determined that “low confidence” actually meant either :
1) There is no data, or
2) There is some (limited or patchy) data, but there is no trend, or
3) Mathematically the (best-fit linear) trend is non-zero, but it is not statistically significant.
Both Alimonti et al and Roger Pielke Jr. highlighted that all of the white cells in Table 12.12 were equivalent to my summary (though they obviously did not use my exact wording).
There is no empirical evidence that a full-blown climate “crisis” (or “emergency”) has either existed in the (recent, since 1750 / 1850) past or exists today.
All of the frantic searching for such evidence has, so far, come up empty.
You don’t have to take my, or any other semi-anonymous Internet poster’s, word for it.
All you have to do is read what “The (Climate) Science / Scientists”, i.e. “The IPCC”, actually wrote in the main body of the AR6 WG-I report.
Such a good post, Mark BLR! As always.
You just blew Michael Mann and his supporters out of the water with this comment.
This comment should be repeated every time some climate change alarmist claims CO2 is causing extreme weather.
I’m going to make myself a copy. Thanks!
Good call, Tom.
Try to understand the comment before repeating it, for you might get responses you won’t like and then you’ll have to run back here to ask Mark for help.
Best of luck!
Little Willy has no counter.. of course not.. just yapping.
> go and dig out the relevant pages for yourself” aren’t helpful.
Please spoon feed me on ten different topics that have little to do with the comment to which I respond isn’t helpful either, Mark.
Also, on conclusions surrounding “But CAGW” have nothing to do with the irrelevant questions being asked. You won’t find many “crisis” can you find in that document. And that’s not what’s being at stake in the retraction anyway.
Besides, your gloss on uncertainty defeats the point you’re trying to make. Uncertainty is nobody’s friend, certainly not contrarians who want to minimize risks. Imagine if you bought your home insurance with that sloppy reasoning.
Is there anything else I can do for you?
You responded to a comment by “Mike”, which I copy below (with minor editing) :
It was “the comment to which you initially responded” that included “ten different topics”, not my reaction to your response.
Your latest post would indicate that you have no idea whatsoever of “the point(s) I am trying to make”.
So far the only thing you have “done for me” is make me question your level of English comprehension …
Mark,
What I did is to underline how irrelevant and absurd was your armwaving. This armwaving does not even answer Mike’s questions. You presume that uncertainty is contrarians’ friend, which is more than silly. It’s dangerous. I really hope you don’t manage anyone else’s money.
You have no idea why Alimonti & al has been retracted, have you?
Alimonti et al was retracted because the editor got bullied by a pack of rabid AGW activists.
There was nothing wrong in the actual paper…
It said exactly what the IPCC data showed.
That was the problem for the rabid activists.
You seem to be utterly clueless about basically everything.
> There was nothing wrong in the actual paper…
You do like to assert stuff, Mr. Nice Guy.
The editor disagrees.
Should we retract the retraction because of Junior’s rabid activism?
The paper past peer-review and was only withdrawn because of pressure from climate slime like you.
There was nothing wrong with the paper.
IPCC concurs completely with the data in it.
You have nothing to offer except your moronic idiocy…
You never have had.
… and you presume to “just know” what other’s peoples deepest beliefs and motivations are.
Spoiler alert : You don’t.
_ _ _ _ _
Uncertainty isn’t necessarily the friend of contrarians … it can be a friend or an enemy, depending on the exact circumstances … but it is the constant companion of Real Scientists (TM).
“If you thought that science was certain … well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard P. Feynman
_ _ _ _ _
PS : Carl Sagan said the following many moons ago now, but it can probably be applied to the Alimonto et al saga …
“A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues (or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment. Arguments from authority are unacceptable.”
> you presume to “just know” what other’s peoples deepest beliefs and motivations are.
Not really, Mark:
<blockquote>
On page 169 of the AR6 WG-I report you will find “Box 1.1 : Treatment of uncertainty and calibrated uncertainty language in AR6”.
</blockquote>
I only believe that you mean what you write.
Another mindless incoherent yapping comment from little willy.
Says nothing, means nothing.
Which comment is that, Mr Nice Guy – the one to which you just responded?
Do you often respond to mindless incoherent comments like that?
So, you ADMIT straight out, that you have NOTHING to offer to any rational scientific dialog..
Yes we know that.
> you ADMIT straight out
Where do I do that, Mister Nice Guy?
“Which comment is that, Mr Nice Guy”
Every comment you make.
I suspect you know that.
You really are a low-level mindless troll.
It is how you jolly yourself. !
[MNG] Another mindless incoherent yapping comment
[W] Which comment is that
[MNG] Every comment you make.
You’re a gift that keeps on giving, Mister Nice Guy!
Hilarious that you link to AR6 which actually shows there is not climate crisis.
In fact , shows that basically nothing untoward is happening with the climate at all.
Face-plant.. much !
Funny that you think I cited the AR6, Mr. Nice Guy.
It’s as if you did not click on the link once again!
You wrote
Where’s your link.
Your comments have degenerated to those of a two-year-old.
> Where’s your link.
Here it is:
ipcc.ch
You don’t have much contact with kids, Mr. Nice Guy, and it shows.
Poor little dullard.
Can’t even provide a workable link… pathetic. !
The ipcc actually says there is no global trend in anything..
… you do know that , don’t you.
Such a moronic and pathetic little child. !
“You don’t have much contact with kids”
I’m sure you play with 5-year-olds all the time… they match your intelligence. (but at your age, you really ought to leave them alone )
> The ipcc actually says there is no global trend in anything..
It does?
A quote might be nice, Mr Nice Guy.
Oh, and perhaps you don’t know what’s a quote.
It looks like that:
<blockquote>
The frequency and intensity of hot extremes (including heatwaves) have increased, and those of cold extremes have decreased on the global scale since 1950 (virtually certain).
</blockquote>
You’ll never guess where I got this.
I’m reminding of the stories told by some in the fields of science, meteorology, etc. that initially accepted the idea of CAGW back in the days of Hansen because they trusted the labels “scientist” and “peer reviewed”.
But then they looked closer at the data and/or the data’s sources.
(If I’m not mistaken, Anthony was one of them when a colleague gave him a tour of some of the surface station sites that contributed to the “data”. Judith Currey would be another example though I don’t remember what woke her up. )
PS At the time they too “small fry” for “Big Oil” to start sending them checks! /sarc
With Judith I can answer since she wrote the foreword to my book. She joined Climate Audit about 2008 and was disturbed by what Steve was exposing (Mann’s shoddy hockeystick and much more). In 2010 she started her own blog, Climate, Etc. I started posting there in 2011, my first post exposing deliberate misrepresentation by NRDC to Congress, and worse scientific misconduct in the paper NRDC misrepresented. It was the accumulation of her own research plus the many contributions to her blog (like Nic Lewis on EBM ECS, me on numerous climate papers containing scientific misconduct such as illustrated in essay Shell Games in ebook Blowing Smoke) that fully converted her to skepticism.
Her scientific cover was her ‘uncertainty monster’.
Wolf & Lamb?
Try; Frog & Scorpion
I first heard it as an Indian (Native American) boy and a freezing rattlesnake trying to cross a river where it was warmer on the other side. The snake promised not to bite the boy so he agreed to take it across. Half way across the snake bit the boy.
The boy said, “But you promised not to bite me! Now we’re both both going to die!”
The snake said, “Why are you surprised? You knew what I was when you picked me up.”
The moral of the story? Those that use and trust and use “Climate Science” as a lever to power will learn soon enough.
I hope the rest of us will survive.
No, I think the Italians’ Wolf and Lamb example best describes what is occurring in climate science: The powerful are accusing truth-speakers of various crimes that the truth-speakers successfully defend themselves against. The powerful just ignore the valid defenses and convict the truth-speakers of trumpeted-up charges in front of biased observers.
I had never heard the Wolf and Lamb fable before. (I just looked it up.)
You’re right.
The boy and snake thing would apply to those who know the whole CAGW is BS but help it along for the money/power they think they’ll be allowed to keep when the reach the other side.
(Think “Animal Farm”)
Wolf and Lamb
https://read.gov/aesop/063.html
I guess the Dog in the Manger has similar application .. A doglike climate scientist came across some data of surpassing excellence refuting AGC so he pulled every stunt to hinder its publication because he either did not understand it or just wished to destroy it.
The cow like scientists who could analyze the data were not allowed into the discussion and were deplatformed , vilified and academically rendered into hamburgers. Doesn’t Aesop’s voice resonate through the ages
Or George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm.’
This is a little confusing. It appears to me that Alimonti and his team are questioning the view that we are experiencing more frequent and more violent weather caused by increased emissions of CO2. Their paper was disputed and the adjudicator used as evidence that it should be withdrawn a table from IPCC that is part of what Alimonti and crew were investigating. Isn’t that the definition of a circular argument? How can you present as evidence something that is being questioned in the first place and claim that it is proof the questioners are wrong? If that is what happened I don’t know what to say, it is so stupid and dishonest.
Bob ==> try reading my earlier essays on this and thoseby Pielke Jr. That should clear up your misunderstandings.
Junior explicitly says he does not touch Altimonti & al’s scientific output, Kip.
Bob is actually on your side here. He’s just conflating a circular argument and a petitio principii. One implies the other, but not the other way around.
More importantly, the analysis is wrong – the argument is that the authors disregarded the most obvious trends and cherrypicked the less obvious ones. Besides, trendology isn’t the only thing one can use to investigate risks.
It’s really hard to get around the fact that more water in the system means less stability. Just ask your washing machine.
Another load of incoherent babble.
How do you manage it so consistently ?
—
Alimonti et al were totally and absolutely correct.
There are no trends in global extreme weather data..,
That is what the IPCC data shows.
> That is what the IPCC data shows.
Thank you for confirming that there was no question-begging argument, Mr. Nice Guy. The authors pretend they take the IPCC data.
Perhaps you can explain why they only considered 5 types of extreme events and how these types allow us to extrapolate for extreme events in general?
Well, crickets.
I hope next time we’ll meet you’ll remember that you owe me a scientific explanation, Mr. Nice Guy.
Confer with Mark if you need help.
You wouldn’t understand any scientific explanation.
You have made it perfectly clear that you have basically zero understanding of anything remotely connected to actual science.
You are a scientific DULLARD !
> You wouldn’t understand any scientific explanation.
Isn’t that convenient, Mr. Nice Guy?
Perhaps you could actually produce some evidence.
Instead of your juvenile and mindlessly empty nonsense
Oh wait.. YOU KNOW YOU CAN’T !
Oh, Mister Nice Guy.
You wouldn’t understand the evidence even it hit you in the face.
You have made it perfectly clear that you have basically zero understanding of anything remotely connected to actual science.
SUCH A NICE GUY!
“Just ask your washing machine.”
Ah .. so that is where you get your information, from the crud and grunge that accumulates in your washing machine.
The REALITY is that there are NO GLOBAL TRENDS…. period
That is what the IPCC shows.
You prove that by your totally inability to produce any.
You are an empty sad sack, a scientific and data NON-ENTITY.
> there are NO GLOBAL TRENDS
Check this out:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2023-0-69-deg-c/
The graph on top.
You should pay us a visit over there. You’ll feel at home.
Cancel Culture exists because their ridiculous beliefs can’t survive critical examination. Self righteousness has replaced reason for these intellectual fascists.