Archives par mot-clé : Nature

Shock Retraction of Climate Science Paper Showing No Climate Emergency Draws Comparisons with Climategate Scandal

by C. Morrison, Aug 26, 2023 in TheDailySceptic

Shocking details of corruption and suppression in the world of peer-reviewed climate science have come to light with a recent leak of emails. They show how a determined group of activist scientists and journalists combined to secure the retraction of a paper that said a climate emergency was not supported by the available data. Science writer and economist Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has published the startling emailsand concludes: “Shenanigans continue in climate science, with influential scientists teaming up with journalists to corrupt peer review.”

The offending paper was published in January 2022 in a Springer Nature journal and at first attracted little attention. But on September 14th the Daily Sceptic covered its main conclusions and as a result it went viral on social media with around 9,000 Twitter retweets. The story was then covered by both the Australian and Sky News Australia. The Guardian activist Graham Readfearn, along with state-owned Agence France-Presse (AFP), then launched counterattacks. AFP ‘Herald of the Anthropocene’ Marlowe Hood said the data were “grossly manipulated” and “fundamentally flawed”.

After nearly a year of lobbying, Springer Nature has retracted the popular article. In the light of concerns, the Editor-in-Chief is said to no longer have confidence in the results and conclusion reported in the paper. The authors were invited to submit an addendum but this was “not considered suitable for publication”. The leaked emails show that the addendum was sent for review to four people, and only one objected to publication.

What is shocking about this censorship is that the paper was produced by four distinguished scientists, including three professors of physics, and was heavily based on data used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The lead author was Professor Gianluca Alimonti of Milan University and senior researcher of Italy’s National Institute of Nuclear Physics. Their paper reviewed the available data, but refused to be drawn into the usual mainstream narrative that catastrophises cherry-picked weather trends. During the course of their work, the scientists found that rainfall intensity and frequency was stationary in many parts of the world, and the same was true of U.S. tornadoes. Other meteorological categories including natural disasters, floods, droughts and ecosystem productivity showed no “clear positive trend of extreme events”. In addition, the scientists noted considerable growth of global plant biomass in recent decades caused by higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

In fact this scandal has started to attract comparison with the Climategate leaks of 2009 that also displayed considerable contempt for the peer-review process. One of the co-compilers of the Met Office’s HadCRUT global temperature database Dr. Phil Jones emailed Michael Mann, author of the infamous temperature ‘hockey stick’, stating: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-reviewed literature is!”

Serious Errors In IPCC Ocean Report Revealed

by B. Peiser, October 11, 2019 in GWPF

London, 11 October: The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has called on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to correct serious errors in its recent Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.

In a letter to the IPCC, Dr Benny Peiser, the GWPF’s director, has highlighted a number of errors and misinterpretations in the IPCC’s report which are based, to a significant degree, on a flawed study which was recently retracted.

In his letter, Dr Peiser points out that the IPCC’s overall conclusion on ocean heat uptake

“is based to a significant degree on a paper by Cheng et al. (2019) which itself relies on a flawed estimate by Resplandy et al. (2018). An authors’ correction of this paper and its ocean heat uptake estimate was under review for nearly a year, but in the end Nature requested that the paper be retracted (Retraction Note, 2019).”

“While the [IPCC’s] conclusion that the rate of ocean heat uptake has increased in recent years may probably be right, the evidence you cite for there being ‘high confidence’ and ‘high agreement’ is rather doubtful due to your inclusion of flawed evidence of the retracted paper by Resplandy et al. (2018).”

What is more, there is also doubt about the IPCC’s conclusion that ocean heat uptake has been accelerating in recent years. According to its own report the overall ocean heat uptake between 0-2000 m was nearly 10% higher over 1993-2017 than over the second half of that period, 2005-2017, suggesting that OHU may have been declining slightly rather than accelerating over the last 25 years.

In light of these flaws, the GWPF is calling on the IPCC to correct the evident errors and reduce its confidence rating accordingly.

Letter to the IPCC (pdf)

Réchauffement des océans, Tchernobyl, cancer et pesticides, liste bio, QI mondial… une semaine de fake news scientifiques

by J.P. Oury, 11 octobre 2019 in EuropeanScientist

Si le sujet « vérité et connaissance scientifique » est un pilier de la philosophie classique et de l’épistémologie contemporaine, il se pourrait bien que, dans une ère de post-vérité, ce thème soit progressivement remplacé par celui de la chasse aux « fausses informations ». Pour le dire autrement, ce qui compte, ce n’est plus la quête d’un sens métaphysique ou une recherche de cohérence logique, mais qu’un énoncé tienne le plus longtemps possible à la Une de l’actualité avant d’être remis en cause.

En affirmant ceci notre objectif n’est pas de donner un blanc seing au relativisme ou d’abandonner la méthode scientifique, bien au contraire. Il s’agit de réfléchir sur la possibilité de redonner à celle-ci  sa superbe ; d’autant plus qu’elle n’est plus simplement une affaire de scientifiques : les médias, les politiques, les ONG et l’opinion s’emparent immédiatement de la moindre expérience rendue publique et se trouvent engagés de manière quasi instantanée dans le processus de « vérification » qui passe d’abord souvent par l’acceptation. Ce qui montre la nécessité d’éduquer l’opinion pour lui apprendre à détecter les différentes typologies d’erreurs scientifiques. Voici donc une petite grille de lecture que nous avons établie en classant cinq grandes typologies d’informations scientifiques qui se sont révélées fausses…


Rétractation d’un article sur le réchauffement des océans : l’erreur scientifique