Opinion by Kip Hansen — 26 August 2023 UPDATED See end of post.
The renewed and reinforced Climategate Gang has risen once more, bullying Springer Nature Publishing into retracting a peer-reviewed paper by colluding with the climate crisis news cabal, featuring The Guardian, AFP, and the UK’s Sky News. The Climategate Gang complained and vilified the paper and its authors in the public press rather than the scientific standard of writing to the publishing journal with a Response and Comment or submitting a new paper for publication in opposition to the paper they found objectionable. It is a stain on the reputation of Springer Nature and the Editors of the publishing journal, The European Physical Journal Plus, and reflects badly on the entire scientific enterprise that half a dozen activist scientists could try and convict a published peer-reviewed journal paper in such obvious collusion with biased campaigning mass media outlets.
This was the subject of Team Climate Crisis Resorts to Bullying, Again published here at WUWT ten days ago. At that date, the paper was simply “under dispute”. Now, as of 23 August the publishing journal, The European Physical Journal Plus, has officially retracted the paper with this statement:
“Retraction Note: A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming
The Original Article was published on 13 January 2022
Retraction Note: Eur. Phys J. Plus (2022) 137:112
The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Concerns were raised regarding the selection of the data, the analysis and the resulting conclusions of the article. The authors were invited to submit an addendum to the article, but post publication review of the concerns with the article and the submitted addendum concluded that the addendum was not suitable for publication and that the conclusions of the article were not supported by available evidence or data provided by the authors. In light of these concerns and based on the outcome of the post publication review, the Editors-in-Chief no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions reported in this article.
- The authors disagree with this retraction.”
That, my friends, is a very sorry version of a much darker and insidious truth.
Tony Thomas writes in Quadrant-online, How Science is Done These Days, a much fuller and far more honest rendition of the story which has also previously been covered by Roger Pielke Jr. in his substack piece: “Think of the Implications of Publishing“. Retraction Watch has published a dishwater-thin version of the story: “Paper that found ‘climate crisis’ to be ‘not evident yet’ retracted after re-review“. Re-review is not a normal journal practice – as far as I know — but the Retraction Watch piece reveals a new piece of information:
“A spokesperson for Springer Nature, the publisher of the journal where the paper appeared, told us: The Editors-in-Chief of the European Physical Journal Plus have retracted this article. When they became aware of concerns, the Editors — with advice and assistance provided by Springer Nature Research Integrity Group — launched a thorough investigation following an established process in line with best-practice Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. This process included a post-publication review by subject-matter experts of the article and an addendum submitted by the authors during the investigation.After careful consideration and consultation with all parties involved, the Editors and publishers concluded that they no longer had confidence in the results and conclusions of the article. The addendum was not considered suitable for publication, and retraction was the most appropriate course of action in order to maintain the validity of the scientific record.”
And what were the “concerns” they became aware of ? As Reviewer 1 of the addendum submitted by Alimonti et al. said in his review of the addendum: “I think editors should seriously consider the implications of the possible publication of this addendum.” [ source ]
Yet another version of Phil Jones’ Climategate email: “I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” So, it is not just on the shoulders of the editors of the small and rather obscure journal The European Physical Journal Plus but the corruption of science seems to extend all the way up the ladder at Springer Nature.
I have been in touch with Gianluca Alimonti, lead author on the now-retracted paper, via email. I asked several days ago if he would make their proposed Addendum available so the public could see what was being rejected by Springer Nature’s “re-reviewers”. As of the 23rd August, he said “… we are still requesting the Editor to publish our Addendum and in this situation, we think it is not appropriate to have it made public.” [ personal communication] I have responded asking if now that the Editors have retracted the paper, and we assume will not then be publishing the Addenum, if he will now provide us with a copy. And as Alimonti concluded in his email to me: “Let’s see how it goes….”
UPDATE: 26 August 2023 Alimonti responds via email: “I’m leaving for sailing and I may not have internet connection for a week but….stay tuned!” [This was and is often my own solution to troubled times….Kip]
UPDATE on UPDATE:
Roger Pielke Jr. has supplied links to many of the important documents that are the subject of this story, including the text of the Addendum:
- Alimonti et al. original paper – PDF
- Alimonti et al. Addendum – PDF
- Reviewer 1 of the Addendum – PDF
- Reviewer 2 of the Addendum – PDF
# # #
Author’s Comment:
An absolute appalling violation of scientific publishing standards. As they shout in the halls of UK’s House of Commons: “Shame! Shame! Shame!”
Alimonti has teamed up with Luigi Mariani and published a new paper “Is the number of global natural disasters increasing?” Their answer? No, they are not increasing. We will wait and see if this paper is targeted by the Climategate Gang as well.
# # #
When this behavior happens it is a sign that they know they can’t dispute the papers research which is why they go the gutter route to deprive it proper examination by the science world through the means of harassing the publisher over it to force a withdrawal which means the paper remains unaddressed thus the authors can submit elsewhere.
We saw from the peer reviews that were leaked by a whistle-blower… they do not dispute the paper’s research.
They acknowledge that the paper reflects the IPCC findings and mainstream science.
The paper was retracted because they don’t want the public to know about the IPCC findings and mainstream science.
Well, we do know and we must ensure others do
Would you mind providing the full, unedited text of those leaked reviews?
The same rules and guidelines have been followed with this as with peer reviews. There is no further requirement for full disclosure beyond what has been revealed already. Why do you need to know more?
He wants to know the names of the whistleblowers so they can be punished.
Yep.
His main task is to inject noise.
AlanJ ==> You have already addressed this issue with Roger Pielke Jr. who has explained that he cannot make the full texts available without exposing the whistleblower — which, in accord with the norms of journalism, he will not do.
You must take your demand to the journal’s editors or their superiors at Springer Nature. No one here can possibly have them, which you already know.
If Alimonti sends me a copy of the rejected Addendum, I will make it available,either posting it in full (unlikely to be short enough for this) or making it publicly downloadable.
Oh right, yes, I do recall that Pielke refused to make those available. So would you then agree that saying “We saw from the peer reviews that were leaked by a whistle-blower… they do not dispute the paper’s research.” is misleading at best, given that no one has seen these reviews?
Alan,
There is an error of logic in your post. You say it is misleading to say that the peer reviewers did not dispute the paper’s research, but the paper was published after being reviewed. So the reviewers clearly did not “dispute the paper’s research.” If there were parts of the paper that they did dispute, those parts were corrected prior to publication.
“We saw from the peer reviews that were leaked by a whistle-blower… they do not dispute the paper’s research.”
I made that statement. You are accusing me of being misleading. And I politely suggest that you are wrong by accident, due to a poor understanding of logic.
If a leak says, “I accept this is in agreement with the IPCC and mainstream science” then the fact that other parts of the review may repeat that agreement or ignore it is irrelevant. The agreement is made in the relevant part.
Perhaps an illustration will help. Consider a rainbow. If I look up and say “That rainbow, part hidden by a chimney pot, contains the colour green” am I being misleading? No. Not if the part of the rainbow I can see contains the colour green. It is not good logic to say “But you cannot see the rainbow behind the chimney pot which may be a different colour so that rainbow may not contain the colour green”.
The error you have made is think that you must know all of the facts before you can asses any one fact. Context is important. But the facts themselves do not change.
And what do we actually see?
Reviewer 1 is quite clear:
The paper is accepted as reflecting the position of mainstream science, as defined by the IPCC, including the latest IPCC report, AR6, which was published after this paper.
If that’s not proof enough for you then you need to have a long hard look at yourself and beware at traffic lights.
The reviews have been published, and they tear the manuscript apart. I recommend you give them a read. Claiming that they do not dispute the author’s conclusions is flagrantly false.
The reviews are opposed to the conclusion of the paper.
The reviews agree with the evidence presented in the paper.
The chief criticism is that “Climate Crisis” is not defined and thus the evidence could support it even when no trends are detected.
This is true… if the “Climate Crisis” is accepted as axiomatic, a matter of faith.
But alternative conclusions can be drawn from there being a lack of evidence. The obvious alternative conclusion is that of the original paper:
No evidence of climate trends (as the IPCC and the reviewer agree) is no evidence of a “Climate Crisis”.
PS. I quoted the reviewers to prove they say what I say they say. You do not.
Why not?
That is not the chief criticism, that is merely the first criticism described. And it is an important one – you cannot claim that the climate crisis is not observed unless you precisely define what you mean by “climate crisis.” The authors never discuss why they’ve chosen the metrics they’ve chosen to identify a climate crisis, or why they’ve chosen to ignore dozens of other potential metrics.
Another key criticism is that the authors focus inappropriately on global trends, ignoring the importance of regional patterns:
The reviewers also point out a profound logical error made by Alimonti et. al in declaring a paucity of observational evidence in some cases to be evidence of the absence of a trend:
I would say the reviews unquestionably do dispute Alimonti et. al’s methodology. Maybe you shouldn’t have encouraged me to quote the review?
We are talking about RETRACTION not scientific dispute. To counter a paper with another paper is normal scientific practice. The difference here is that the paper was not (or could not be) disputed and so it was retracted instead.
In the course of our discussion, you have made several concessions that endorse my position. This is not due to my skill in debate, rather it is due to the facts not supporting your case.
1) You concede (with the reviewers) that the term “Climate Crisis” is not defined. As the paper’s conclusion is that the IPCC case is that there is no “Climate Crisis” this a big concession. “Climate Crisis”, the end of the world. Is an extraordinary position to hold. That the IPCC, the paper in question nor you define it is very good evidence that the paper is correct. When the paper argues there is no “Climate Crisis” to counter with, “Well, no-one has said there is one, so the term is undefined… It’s a big concession.
2) You concede (with the reviewers) that the metrics chosen by the paper support their conclusions and are endorsed by the IPCC. The counterargument that other metrics might support other conclusions is fair but not cause for retraction. It is a cause for another paper to dispute the findings. Another big concession.
3) You concede (with the reviewers) that the paper discusses global metrics. And counter with regional effects may vary and overwhelm global trends. This is fair but not cause for retraction. The paper’s conclusion is that there is no global crisis. And regional effects are not global. A very big concession.
In short, while trying to oppose the paper’s conclusions you have accidentally conceded that the paper’s argument is sound and not worthy of retraction.
Again, I do not think your mistakes are due to malice on your part. It is clear, by the fact that you’re arguments were self-defeating, that you are not as clever as you thought you were.
1) This is not a concession because it is not an argument that you have made. The IPCC does not use the term “climate crisis.” It is a term used by Alimonti, et al. They are the ones who need to define it. It is not the job of the IPCC to define their terms for them. There are ten thousand potential definitions of the word under which a “climate crisis” could indeed be said to exist (and equally as many definitions under which it does not, such as your definition of “the end of the world”), so it is incumbent upon the unhorse f the manuscript to carefully define exactly what they mean by this term.
2) That is the nature of cherry picking. You pick out true fact that endorse your conclusion while omitting and ignoring all other facts that might contradict it. Cherry picking is absolutely a cause for retraction, especially in a paper such as this that is meant to be an assessment of the existing body of literature rather than original research. You can’t claim to have assessed the body of literature if you’re ignoring most of it.
3) Alone is not cause enough for retraction merely substantial rewriting. It is in concert with 1 and 2 above that retraction is warranted. i.e. all things considered the paper is completely unfit for publication. The paper’s conclusion of there being no global crisis is again victim to the
fact that the authors fail to define what a “global crisis” would be. As the reviewer notes, you might have an increase in extreme precipitation in one region and an increase in desertification in another place, both phenomena a result of climate change, whose net result would be no global increase in either metric, but when considered on their own would certainly constitute some measure of “climate crisis.”
I think you are doing your very utmost best to twist everything to fit your narrative, but it is an impossible position you have chosen to defend, and I do not envy you of it. No one could be clever enough to defend the Alimonti paper, so the deficit here is not in your intellectual acuity.
AlanJ writes “you cannot claim that the climate crisis is not observed unless you precisely define what you mean by “climate crisis.”
Change often comes with Pros and Cons. There is no section in AR6 that deals with Pros. So the crisis is manufactured in all the assessment reports however you look at it.
Did you actually read them? They don’t dispute the claims on the whole. They attempt to temper them at best. And there is a lot of unecessary shouting in R1’s response. Most of the issue is around the simple claim that the same data from AR6 shows no crisis.
This is why you are increasingly despised as you want the Dr. to break confidentiality whistleblower laws which exist for a reason that clearly flies over your small head.
Pielke has now published the reviewer’s comments in full, so you can dispense with the hand-wringing about protecting the identity of his leaker. It was never about that at all. I’ll await you and Kip’s apology for my treatment in previous threads where I pointed this out, particularly where you both found it appropriate to abuse you moderator powers and silently edited my comments to things I never said.
Now you are just LYING and Hansen moderation decisions remains unchanged in that thread.
So you’re claiming that Kip did not silently edit my comments in that thread to things I never said? Because I can see a graveyard of edited comments of mine there. And only my comments were targeted, despite my comments being good faith responses to other users with genuine interest in engaging with me. My point at the time was that Pielke had no genuine interest in protecting his source, and had no valid reason whatsoever for withholding the documents he had. And I was absolutely correct.
I didn’t edit comments I deleted them about 3 of them and Kip deleted about 6 after YOU were being warned in not thread bombing anymore my few deleting started after that.
Editing an existing comment is very different from fully deleting comments.
Pielke gave you the answer you didn’t like but you then run off at the mouth over and over attacking him on it despite his reasonable answer and that you were told he was following basic whistle blower law to protect the source.
That became the basis of your THREAD BOMBING behavior afterwards that Kip and I warned you on.
You are trying to mislead people.
He didn’t delete my comments. My comments are still there, with my name attached, and the content has been replaced with words that are not mine. Are you suggesting that I wrote this, and not yourself and Kip?
Because I assure you I did not.
His answer was a lie, that’s why I didn’t like it. He’s now posted unredacted copies of the reviews, no protection of his whistleblower needed. He could have told me, “I just don’t want to give you the reviews,” but he didn’t, he made up a silly lie about protecting his source. Of course we now see that the reviews also make a lie of his claim that there was no justification for redaction given by the reviewers, so that’s probably the real reason Pielke was reluctant to provide them.
Now you are flat out LYING since Kip did delete some of your comments as shown HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE,
Here is the Kip Hansen post where he WARNED you to stop thread bombing:
LINK
Oh, I don’t deny that he did delete some of my comments, but he also edited a bunch of others to things I never said. Are you denying that the comment I posted above as edited by yourself and Kip? Everyone reading this should be aware that moderators on this site can and do brazenly edit people’s comments who they personally disagree with (in the midst of a debate with that person, no less).
What’s equally fascinating about this episode is that I was not “thread bombing” under any possible definition of the word. I made a single top level comment, and then replied in good and earnest faith to the dozens and dozens of readers who decided to pile onto my comment. What Kip did was to try and prevent me from replying to people because he didn’t agree with me. Pure censorship. If he really cared about “thread bombing” he would have censored the dozens of identical comments readers were making toward me, many of which were packed full of personal insults and inflammatory language (actual trolling). Elsewhere in this very comment thread, Kip himself engages in actual thread bombing by going around my comments and repeating a message to other posters not to reply to me. That actually seems like targeted abuse against an individual, something I find difficult to believe the site administration is ok with.
What did they change?
He is LYING I deleted them not edited what he wrote Kip also Deleted them after he warned him to stop thread bombing.
My LINK explains his lies:
My, how whiny you are.
The big question is why?
It can’t be for the good of science or the scientific process.
Absolutely!
News services, including major newspapers have been reaching out to Manniacal for opinions regarding many things outside of his expertise.
Like wildfires, strong storms, natural disasters and whatnot.
It’s like he’s earning money from his opinions or he is desperately seeking relevance.
The subject-matter experts need to be revealed and their reasons for dismissing the paper should be published. I believe this is the TRANSPARANCY needed to make the process operate properly. If papers can be retracted by the publisher working in secret, then one must also wonder about what published papers conclude.
“The subject-matter experts need to be revealed and their reasons for dismissing the paper should be published.”
Yes, let’s review the reviewers.
The paper confirmed what the IPCC says about severe weather: That it is no more severe today than it was in the past.
Do the publishers think the IPCC is wrong, too? They need to get their subject-matter experts on it.
This lack of transparency and the forced retraction of the paper is a massive insult to the science community who are being deprived the opportunity to properly assess the papers veracity via the replication process and other observations that are derived from examination.
It is a sign they have lost – lost reputation, lost science, lost the room, lost trust, lost integrity, lost honesty, lost humanity
Lost ethics, lost morality – on the plus side, they get to keep the money.
And this is exactly what ‘science’ has come down to with the climate change scam – it’s just about the money to them.
Correct, greed is their new god
They lost those before the first Climategate.
Pigs in a wallow.
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/08/26/shock-retraction-of-climate-science-paper-showing-no-climate-emergency-draws-comparisons-with-climategate-scandal/
Energywise ==> Thanks for the link to further coverage!
It might be useful to post a link to the new publication on a WUWT reference page. Make it easy to find for anyone needing to reference the paper.
Hopefully this will be a massive Streisand Effect moment for the climate clowns.
Proving they cannot argue with actual science, so have to resort of underhanded censorship means to hide from reality.
It was already proven many times in the past, climate gate just being one of many. Situation normal, FUBAR.
Let’s hope they don’t use run-on sentences.
Which means that everyone that reads or cites anything from that journal should write them a letter raising Cain over their submitting to alarmist jerks.
Disgusting!
Anthony should ask if they want to publish via WUWT. 🙂
It is, afterall, “The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change”
And probably has more reach than most journals.
Though your comment has merit and a valid point respect to readership I have a few points to suggest.
1. I am sure the Climategate Gangsters check in to see what is being posted.
2. They don’t post as they know they will get more negative points per post, than old griff or TBN can get in a week.
3. If something as this paper was published here, I suspect the Gangsters will do their hardest to have the site closed down.
4. Failing point 2, the Gangsters will try to make sure this site is not available on any Internet carrier.
5. I doubt they like WUWT but at present they can not do a thing about it, yet.
The only gangsters I can possible think that made sense were those running alcohol during probation, even that may be debated.
The Climategate Gangsters make the mafia look mild.
You do seem in awe of the gang.
They don’t control everything, just what they have already captured.
The real difference is we can no longer expect an Eliot Ness to fight on behalf of the citizenry, because the Government is the mafia. While the prohibition gang delivered goods and services to meet a demand, the Climategate Gangsters are leeches working for the government to bleed the middle class dry and deliver authoritarian control to the Bureaucrats they work for.
All the while, their co-conspirators in the field of education are brainwashing our children into blind obedience. In fact, here in the States, we can see by COVID and all this transgender compliance insanity that the government believes they have all the pieces in place for complete authoritarian takeover. The various Justice Department’s Trump assaults and the Jan6 response is them completing their coup. Resistance is futile.
“Resistance is futile.”
Not yet. One Trump supporter on his jury might foil the plans of mice and men.
The radical Democrats don’t have it nailed down yet. They are trying their best, but now people are starting to wake up to what they are doing, and are starting to take action.
I heard an interesting thing yesterday. It seems some parents, fed up with public schools, are opening up neighborhood schools for a limited number of students and are teaching the kids themselves or with people they hire.
I think allowing the public money to follow the student to any school they want to attend will be a big factor in offsetting the harm done to children in our schools by the Teachers Unions and the radical Democrats.
We have a big cultural/political fight in front of us, but we haven’t lost it yet. And don’t have to lose it if we are smart. We’ll find out if we are smart enough to govern ourselves properly in November of 2024.
Voting participations rates in areas like shown in the video below approach 90- 100%, sometimes more. It’s nice to see such civic dedication.
I tried to edit my comment but was unable to do so.
Even though voting participations rates in Philadelphia have reached historic highs recently, you have to go to areas around Milwaukee, Detroit, etc., for rates to exceed 90-100%. Who would have thought mail-in voting and drop boxes could boost civic involvement/dedication so much?
WordPress comment editing is fubared.
Truly shocking video!
I’ve seen voter turn out exceed 100% a few times.
Kensington used to look and smell like a tough city neighborhood. But, people would still help if you ask for help.
The Kensington area resident were darn proud of their neighborhoods.
Current deterioration level looks terrible.
Great mental attitude Tom – when the fight is hard, fight hard, I’m with you
Which is why these cases are being tried in deep blue cities. The kind of places that routinely vote 80 to 90 percent Democrat.
I’m sure the prosecutors will have access to the voter lists during jury selection. If a stray Republican or two does make it into the jury pool, they will be eliminated before the trial starts.
I saw a lot of black people lining the streets as Trump was leaving town yesterday and they were cheering Trump.
They say the polls are showing Trump gaining support among black voters. One of them may slip by Biden’s guard.
All it takes is one.
Those setting up the kangaroo courts intend to block any potential Trump supporter. To the point that I believe they will only invite potential jurors that they have already extensively researched.
Hope for all of these cases lie with higher courts.
In which case, poisoned fruit of the vine should have the majority of cases dismissed.
Hopefully, they will also forward names of prosecution and jurors for investigation and prosecution.
Gangsters throughout history, have always come to a sticky end, it is the way
If the only way truth can survive is by being silent and unnoticed, then we have already lost.
Given the state of science in general, maybe WUWT should look at publishing papers. The comments here can be quite incisive….
strativarius ==> There has been more than one journal paper that saw its origins here on the pages of WUWT.
At the end of the day, protagonists including Lisa Alexander and her well-funded mates at the University of New South Wales are both spin-doctors and arbiters of what gets published in mainstream journals. In order to maintain their gatekeeping role they only regard ‘peer-reviewed’ journals are legitimate sources of propaganda.
Hissing into the tent is simply not allowed. More to say on this in the months ahead.
Cheers,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Great idea Strativarius – the captured journals are little more than comics these days, decreasing numbers take them seriously or subscribe – I want to read the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth – the fact they don’t want me to, makes it even more delicious
bnice2000 ==> I have asked Alimonti if he will make the Addendum available, now that there is no possibility of the journal publishing it.
We will see what the authors decide on that.
The original paper can be downloaded at Research Gate.
Thomas and bnice2000 ==> Yes, the link is in the main essay. The entire paper is still available at the publishing journal online, along with the retraction notice.
In email conversation with Alimonti, he was waiting to see if the journal would publish the Addendum after all as the authors were requesting…but now that it is retracted officially, he [reviewing I see this comment has been truncated] may change his mind.
Leopards don’t change their spots
No, but they are occasionally eaten by something bigger
Time for a new journal: ‘The journal of retracted or rejected but perfectly good climate papers’. The first issues will be overflowing with high quality stuff.
I think the editors should seriously consider the implications …’ Is a threat to the editors. Because something that will be misconstrued as bad for the journal is also bad for your job.
Exactly – it’s a clearly stated threat to their funding.
And that funding is what drives the whole climate alarmism hoax
Billionaires are funding climate alarmism.
Demanding billionaires that expect performance for their funds, and apparently a despotic government that shuts down ordinary people and favors elites.
I am horrified that the editors allowed themselves to be bullied like that. The first thing they should have done was to make it clear that no paper would ever be retracted without due process, namely that a properly-written and -submitted document must first be received by the journal. The journal would then consider the document purely on its scientific merits. If it had any merit then it would be published, but if there was still any doubt at all then the original paper would not be retracted.
Appeasement never works. The editors may think they have saved their skins, but it is more likely that they will one day discover that they actually put the journal on the slippery slope to oblivion.
Like a cliff edge slippery slope.
I’ve just written to Alimonti to express my support.
It won’t make any difference, but it’s important to let people know you support them
Me too
Peer reviewed publishing is a political process first established in 1973 by Nature, it has nothing to do with the scientific method. The purpose of science is to expose error and only thereby establish the possible (but not certain) truth.
Peer review is suffocating science
In all traditional published scientific discoveries, there were exactly zero peers available to do any review.
1973? My first publication was in 1974 in what was regarded as a second tier journal (many hundreds of citations). Reviews by other anonymous scientists was routine.
A sweet little conundrum from WUWTs pin-up girl…
GB News
IOW These climate clowns are threatening to trash everything.
No Fossils = No Arts
They do wanna be careful, Climate Science and Computers Models are more imaginative, ‘creative’, and fantastical than anything (say) Lewis Carroll or Salvador Dali ever produced…
Woke has already killed the Edinburgh Fringe
That’s the joke.
It is all the alarmists have left to secure their grants and funding – the have deceit, opinions and principles and if they don’t bring the cash in, they also have others
It is all the alarmists have left to secure their grants and funding – they have deceit, opinions and principles and if they don’t bring the cash in, they also have others, like goal posts on wheels
The paper was retracted because it was bad science, not because the journal was bullied into retracting it. The narrative that WUWT and some other outlets are trying to spin is flagrantly false.
This is one of the scientists who work was cited by Alimonti, et al., saying they explicitly misrepresented her own work. How anyone on this site can defend the paper and pretend they’re acting in good faith is way beyond me.
Apparently you didn’t read the full original article posted some days ago.
Alexander’s paper on precipitation extremes states:
To then use her paper’s discussion of uncertainties in rainfall extremes as support for the notion that extreme precipitation has not significantly increased is extremely misrepresentative. We actually see a secondary misrepresentation in the very same section of the paper that cites Alexander’s work. Alimonti et al. write:
Those brackets indicating an omission are doing an awful lot of work. Libertino, et al. actually say in full:
They go on to say:
So Alimonti et. al are misrepresenting the work of these authors as well. You guys should be cautious in encouraging me or anyone else to dig too deeply into Alimonti et. al, the house of cards utterly collapses the moment anyone puts eyes on the paper.
The sheer dishonesty expressed by WUWT editors and contributors around the paper is quite astonishing.
To … use her paper’s discussion of uncertainties in rainfall extremes as support for the notion that extreme precipitation has not significantly increased
is
extremely misrepresentative[to practice honest, bona fide, science.]For all the time you spent on the August 24th Patrick Frank thread, you remain implausibly ignorant of the implication of uncertainties in data analysis.
Your writing shows that you are not stupid. So, it is clear that you are ONLY here to attempt to deceive.
Amen!, Janice!
AlanJ writes “Those brackets indicating an omission are doing an awful lot of work. Libertino, et al. actually say in full:
Concerning the frequency, the outcomes show that all the observed trends are nonsignificant, that is, are compatible with the hypothesis of stationary climate. Despite this, a continuous increase in the positive RB anomalies in the last decade emerges.”
If it’s not significant then it’s not a scientific result. It’s commentary. So removing it is of no scientific consequence.
AlanJ’s job is to defend the team, not make sense.
He’s also enlisted a squad of up and down voters;
Several of the trollops show up with a cadre of pals.
To me, it shows that they coordinate elsewhere, get their topic points and alleged weak topics to hammer repeatedly.
Paid trollops.
So Alan, I go look for some of your heroine’s papers. I download a few, maybe she’s a genius, open one called:
More intense daily precipitation in CORDEX-SEA regional climate models than their forcing global climate models over Southeast AsiaI wade through a few pages of guessing and estimating and modeling, and eventually I get to the Results section, where they assert the models are very accurate, and they show, what, a dozen? My thought is; Not really usefullly accurate, but I read on, then I get to this, Alan:
Mr. Holmes is topless! No-shirt Sherlock! “…dependence of model performance on season”, really!
But I must say this for that vapid little admission to failure: It’s at least a whole sentence not marred by needless abbreviations, interjections and other obfuscations.
Your heroine has no right criticising others’ work without publishing a counter argument for comparison. Which is what your friends conspired NOT to do.
Are you really just GRiff, under a new name?
cilo ==> “AlanJ” is a repeat troll. It is unlikely that he has read either the Alimonti et al. paper or any of Alexander’s papers. He is just here “for the fight” like Europe’s football hooligans.
Hi Kip, could you please stop bombing the thread with these personal attacks? You degrade the quality of discussion for everyone. It’s completely inappropriate for someone in your position to troll their own comment threads trying to attack individual users who are engaging in substantive, good faith discussion.
Thanks.
The truth may be insulting, but it is never an insult.
Yes she writes some serious crap, or seriously crappy stuff (you pick), all based on combinations of indices and per-massaged gridded datasets, modelling etc. Allergic it seems to simply publishing analysis of individual datasets.
b
Readers ==> Please do not feed the trolls.
“AlanJ” bombed the last post on this issue with the same silliness: Quoting the attacks from the climate crisis media propaganda, over and over, as if it were facts. Never mentions that none of the Climategate Gang submitted a single piece of evidence of anything to the journal itself — they just misrepresented themselves to the compliant, complicit press.
Agree Kip – Alan has no more understanding of climate, than I do quantum mechanics, hence his habitual nonsense ramblings – he has nothing of value to add
THANK YOU!!!
I will try to do that, Mr. Hansen. Sometimes, nevertheless, we must refute the trolls’ nonsense so that they don’t deceive/mislead WUWT’s readers.
Their MAIN goal is:
shore up their “climate change is a big problem” base.
Their ancillary goal is to create just enough confusion/deception to prevent an honest seeker of truth from being persuaded by the analysis presented here.
I wish all those confused silent readers would pipe up and ask questions, but, many are just too shy or intimidated. 😕
He will wear out his welcome when his trolling becomes too much as he is NEVER wrong (Classic sign of trolls) and his deliberate deflections and misleading changes are signs he is aware of what he is doing.
Very true!
Amen to this, he’s a waste of time.
Absolute and utter rubbish. The vast majority of the paper was drawn from the IPCC AR5 report (WG1 group) are you saying that the IPCC scientists are producing ‘bad science’?
If you carefully read Lisa Alexanders work, especially the rainfall paper used, you find that her conclusions do not match up to her data – she has used an alarmist interpretation of the data, misrepresenting it in her conclusion. The authors used the data but presented a more orthodox conclusion, in line with good science and the IPCC’s own conclusions. Lisa Alexander even admitted as much in the extract you cited – “which “totally misrepresented” some of the conclusions from her own papers.” Not the data you’ll notice, just her own interpretation of what she thinks it should be.
Richard ==> I repeat: Please Please Please don’t feed the troll. They only multiple under the bridge and become even bigger pests when you do so.
The admins like this troll which is a major reason why I gave up moderating here because I was in conflict with their own moderation standards but actually conflicts with the POLICY section in a few places such as trolling……
Yeah sorry I tried to reply to him.
I missed that previous thread you referenced. Been busy lately.
Sorry Kip, I’d already posted this. I will follow your advice though. I’m tempted to suggest a further no-reply policy on this eejit as he has little or nothing to offer.
Richard ==> No problems, mate. I know it is tempting to respond to such nonsense….
Could the mods see fit to delete the reply option under his trolling or thread bombs?
Or perhaps eliminate the code under it’s the reply option?
No reply option, no food for the trollop.
The paper was not “drawn” from the IPCC report. Rather, it selectively cites pieces of research cited by the IPCC report, and it also completely ignored much the body of research published since the AR5. The arguments being made against Alimonti, et. al are primarily that it selectively cites research and misrepresents the conclusions of the research it cites. It’s a huge huge no-no in scientific research to just ignore conclusions that don’t support your own.
Alexander’s conclusions are fully supported by her research. Whether they agreed or disagreed with them, Alimonti should have acknowledged in an accurate way what her conclusions actually were, instead of ignoring them and just lifting snippets of her paper out. That is cherry picking. When I’ve been involved in writing research papers, it was standard practice to reach out to the authors whose work was being cited specifically to ensure that their work was accurately represented. Alimonti, et. al do not seem to have done this at all, an oversight even more egregious because this is not these author’s primary field. The hubris of thinking you needn’t consult the experts whose work you’re citing is pretty outrageous.
Auf wiedersehen
Rather, “Hau ab!”
Rubbish, the alarmists have become like Voldemort ‘from this day forth, you put your faith in me’ – I would ask that you read the paper, instead of quoting comments from the alarmist detractors, make your own mind up – science is empirical, not consensus
Actually, it was Dr Alexander who misrepresented her own work.
She found that rainfall extremes increased in 8% of sites..
Which mean it either remained steady or DECREASED in 92% of sites.
Saying, “Not only have we seen an increase, but it’s also attributed to human activity.”…
… is a gross misrepresentation of her own data.
And how did they “attribute to human activity”…. that is just nonsense. !
Alimonti et al did well to look at Dr Alexander’s data, rather than her rabid activist interpretation of that data.
That is not what this means, and Alimonti et. al make the same error, perhaps with the intent to deceive. The absence of a statistically significant positive trend is not equivalent to the presence of a statistically significant negative or flat trend. Only 150 stations showed a statistically significant negative trend, with >660 showing a statistically significant positive trend in extreme precipitation. The remaining stations lack sufficient observational data to distinguish the trend.
It should also be pointed out, as Dr. Alexander does, that 9% of stations showing an increase in extreme precipitation is a big deal climatologically.
And once again AlanJ is either incapable or unwilling to specify just how the work was misrepresented.
And neither is the so called author.
The fact that you mention her shows you have never cuddled-up with a paper involving Lisa Aklexander and tried to understand anything she says! Except in her own fervent imagination, there is no “increase in precipitation extremes”.
Cheers,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
Wrong.
What!? Because they didn’t publish her conclusions?
This is analogous to a teacher grading a students term paper “F”. When the student asks the teacher why did you give me an “F” the response is “no comment”. When the parents schedule a meeting with the teacher and ask “why did you grade my daughters paper “F”? Show us where she made errors in the paper, the teacher responds, “no comment”.
Imagine if it was revealed that the teacher had been coerced into giving the F by that families neighbours!
Simply demanding all climate related papers receive a nihil obstat from Phil Jones or Michael Mann would be more honest. The Blessed Church of Catastrophic Climate Change believes it has the exclusive right to approve any discussion of this blessed and fraught topic, so as to prevent the spread of heresy.
Yesterday John “Magic hat” Kerry declared that climate skeptics are like a cult and that they ignore the clear and obvious danger that CO2 is going to end civilization if don’t stop emitting it immediately.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/tyrant-john-kerry-slammed-scolding-climate-change-deniers-theyve-threatened-humanity
If John Kerry stopped using projection, he would be speechless.
If the paper is in agreement with AR6, links to the AR6 material would be if immense value.
I’ve tried to find the relevant material myself, but navigating that tomb is beyond me and most people, I suspect deliberately so. But if someone else has the right links I’d like to read the IPCC material first hand.
davidmhoffer ==> See the links supplied by Pielke Jr. right at the end of the main post. The one you want is the Addendum.
Thanks Kip!
We’ve all known for years that so-called peer review is non-existent in anything dealing with climate. All it is is really “pal review” and they clique can blackball anyone and anything they find not in line with their chosen narrative.
I see a Streisand effect arising
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Kip, you have one thing wrong in “Author’s Comment.”
Yes, in the House of Commons they did used to cry “Shame, Shame, Shame!”.
Today when discussing anything important like banning oil and gas, building more whirligigs and EVs, banning driving, pumping “Safe and Effective” gene therapy gloop into the arms of babes and sucklings, closing down the freedom of all the plebs, 97% of them cry ” Sooner! Harder! More Viciously! Longer! For Ever!
Martin ==> I stand corrected! The Voice of the oppressors is growing louder and louder.