How Science is Done These Days
By Paul Homewood
There’s nothing new about mainstream climate scientists conspiring to bury papers that throw doubt on catastrophic global warming.
The Climategate leaks showed co-compiler of the HadCRUT global temperature series Dr Phil Jones emailing Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, July 8, 2004:
"I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth, a colleague] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Thanks to a science whistle-blower, there’s now documentation of a current exercise as bad as that captured in the Jones-Mann correspondence. This new and horrid saga – again involving Dr Mann – sets out to deplatform and destroy a peer-endorsed published paper by four Italian scientists. Their paper in European Physical Journal Plus is titled A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming and documents that extreme weather and related disasters are not generally increasing, contrary to the catastrophists feeding misinformation to the Guardian/ABC axis and other compliant media
.
Full story here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
For the most part, “science” is no longer based on investigation to discern truth. Rather, is is based on the coercion of the those of weak integrity, by tyrannical authoritarians.
I have been stunned by some once thought trustworthy. They have been convinced to “sing from the page”. Much like the media, apparently the “page” goes out at 4:00 am.
It goes like this.
Sing from the page:
–or you won’t be hired
–or you won’t be promoted
–or you won’t be tenured
–or you won’t receive grant monies
–or you won’t be published
–or you will be shunned by colleagues
Do you want to trust anything from these “cowardly lions?”
I love that expression, “sing from the page”. It’s a tool used in politics although its called “talking points”. Don’t ever stray and add nuance, stay united. It ruined politics and now science.
” I love that expression, “sing from the page”. It’s a tool used in politics although its called “talking points” ”
Believers generally recognise the importance of staying “on message” when promoting a belief.
The blobs climate alarmism is based on a small consensus (opinion) of scientists, most of no specialism in climate related topics, however, they have bent the knee to their political masters who reward them with grants & funds to keep peddling the same, debunked deceit
When you see great academics like Clauser etc being dismissed and cancelled by idiots who frankly couldn’t lace their boots wrt climate related , you know some sections of our scientific community have been politically infected
And coming so close to Genghis Khan’s dolly demanding value for the £800m of taxpayers money given by TfL to Imperial College to drum up some ‘scientific’ justification for the ULEZ when some honest research showed it had failed to achieve its aim.
The alarmist shills peddling doom, masquerading as climate scientists, harassing and vilifying good, decent people who don’t buy into the unsettled consensus (opinion) deserve nothing less than being struck off from every noble body or institute they are a part of – they shame science and humanity
Their deceit and malevolence, not only toward the general public, but to their fellow scientists and academics, in the name of the politicised climate heresy, is unforgivable and I hope one day they are heavily sanctioned for their crime against humanity and science
They have sold their souls to their political puppet masters for 30 pieces of silver, I hope it brings them misery
Tony Thomas also contributes to Cliscep, where his piece can also be found:
I recently came across the work of Hermann Harde, a physicist who has devoted his later years to exploring topics in climate physics. He has an excellent exposition of the radiation physics of the atmosphere that goes into greater detail that is presented by Wijngaarden and Happer, with his main work predating theirs by some years and giving similar conclusions.
He also produced this questioning of the assumptions about CO2 balances in the atmosphere:
http://hharde.de/climate%20d.htm
And here’s Gavin Schmidt organising the pile-on to suppress the paper:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/02/something-harde-to-believe/
Some really unpleasant attitudes there.
“Some really unpleasant attitudes there.” Understatement of the year!
The Censorship and fact bending extends into Social Media and beyond, Wikipedia is being gradually purged of anything that contradicts the Truth.
Twitter is a joke.
“Wikipedia is being gradually purged of anything that contradicts the Truth.”
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/jimmy-wales
What a surprise!
As predicted, Springer has now retracted the article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/26/scientific-journal-retracts-article-that-claimed-no-evidence-of-climate-crisis “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 journal said. “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.” A retraction note appearing on the article says concerns were raised “regarding the selection of the data, the analysis and the resulting conclusions of the article”. The note says the article’s conclusions “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 note adds. The article is still available for download, but the manuscript now has the words “RETRACTED ARTICLE” stamped over each page. According to the journal’s website, the article was accessed 92,000 times.
” “were not supported by available evidence or data provided by the authors”. ”
The obvious counter being “where is the available proof that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change? “
There is more than overwhelming proof that climate change is being driven by human activity. Not enough room to list it all the evidence here but here is one article:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide#:~:text=Without%20carbon%20dioxide%2C%20Earth's%20natural,causing%20global%20temperature%20to%20rise.
That’s not how the internet works, Bailey.
Present your evidence. We are not going to chase off on a link somewhere to search for your alleged evidence.
You search. We don’t.
Hi Gamecock. Thank you so much for your response. I’m sure my ecologist professor daughter would have been mortified by my glib response. Let me present more evidence, or at least my reasoning:
On 20/3/2023 Secretary General of the United Nations, António Guterres’ video message included: “As today’s report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) details, humans are responsible for virtually all global heating over the last 200 years. In short, our world needs climate action on all fronts — everything, everywhere, all at once.”
This is authoritative and conclusive.
” There is more than overwhelming proof that climate change is being driven by human activity. ”
Where is the published scientific theory which confirms that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change? There is no such scientific theory, which is one of the reasons why the believers attempt to rely on a “consensus”, where “consensus” means a shared belief.
And models, don’t forget models. The high altar of the climate cult.
Stephen Bailey, are you really that naive? From your own link
“Carbon dioxide is Earth’s most important greenhouse gas:”
Really? Never heard of the dominant greenhouse gas i.e. water vapour?
And then it links to a graph annotated ” Annual Greenhouse Gas Index—reports the combined warming influence of all long-lived greenhouse gases ” So they made up a graph deliberately omitting the dominant greenhouse gas (water vapour) to scare you.
Utter tripe and you fell for it.
Hi Ray Sanders.
Thank you so much for your response.
Just to confirm, I do not believe I am being naïve. I take your point about water vapour, it is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas and it is responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effects. It is also increasing as the climate warms at about 1 to 2% per decade.
But increased water vapor doesn’t cause global warming. Instead, it’s a consequence of it. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases. I hope this clarifies matters for you.
“There is more than overwhelming proof that climate change is being driven by human activity.”
Name me one climate that has changed in the last 100 years.
Keep sawing on that limb.
Define “climate change,” Mr Bailey.
“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” – Voltaire
Hi Gamecock,
Thank you for asking for a definition of climate change and for an example of it:
Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Such shifts can be natural, due to changes in the sun’s activity or large volcanic eruptions. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.
One country that has been severely affected by climate change is Bangladesh. Located in South Asia, Bangladesh is highly vulnerable to the impacts of global warming due to its low-lying geography, densely populated coastal areas, and exposure to extreme weather events. Here are some key reasons why Bangladesh is considered one of the countries most affected by climate change:
1. Sea-Level Rise: Bangladesh is situated in the delta region of the Ganges, Brahmaputra, and Meghna rivers, making it highly susceptible to sea-level rise. As global temperatures increase, glaciers melt, and ocean waters expand, Bangladesh’s coastal regions are experiencing significant inundation, leading to land erosion, salinity intrusion, and displacement of communities.
2. Cyclones and Storm Surges: Bangladesh is prone to frequent cyclones and storm surges, which are being intensified by climate change. These natural disasters cause widespread destruction, including loss of lives, damage to infrastructure, and disruption of livelihoods. The country’s coastal areas, particularly the Sundarbans mangrove forest, act as a natural buffer against storms, but they are also under threat due to rising sea levels.
3. Flooding: Climate change has contributed to more frequent and severe flooding in Bangladesh. Heavy rainfall, combined with the overflow of rivers and increased water runoff from neighboring countries, leads to devastating floods that affect millions of people each year. Flooding damages agriculture, destroys homes, contaminates water sources, and triggers outbreaks of waterborne diseases.
4. Water Scarcity: Rising temperatures and changing rainfall patterns have led to increased water scarcity in many parts of Bangladesh. This scarcity affects both drinking water supplies and agricultural productivity, putting pressure on the livelihoods of rural communities that heavily rely on farming.
5. Impacts on Agriculture and Food Security: Bangladesh’s economy is highly dependent on agriculture, which is particularly vulnerable to climate change. Erratic rainfall, prolonged droughts, increased salinity, and crop diseases threaten food production, leading to decreased yields and reduced food security for the population.
The government of Bangladesh, in collaboration with international organizations and donors, has been working to address the challenges posed by climate change. They have implemented measures such as building cyclone shelters, promoting climate-resilient agriculture practices, and developing early warning systems. However, the scale and urgency of the climate-related issues in Bangladesh continue to present significant challenges for the country and its people.
There are many more examples I could give you. The effects are increasing incrementally. This is very serious and will increasingly affect our food supplies amongst other things.
” On 20/3/2023 Secretary General of the United Nations, António Guterres’ video message included: “As today’s report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) details, humans are responsible for virtually all global heating over the last 200 years. In short, our world needs climate action on all fronts — everything, everywhere, all at once.”
This is authoritative and conclusive. ”
@ Stephen Bailey : where is the published scientific theory to support Guterres’ statement ? Guterres might hold a belief re: causes of climate change, but without proof it’s just a belief.
Hi Micky
You are testing me today, thank you! I am as interested as you to know fact from fiction. I hope this helps:
Proving that climate change is solely due to human activity requires a comprehensive analysis of scientific evidence from various fields, including climate science, atmospheric physics, chemistry, and paleoclimatology. While no single study or piece of evidence can definitively prove causation, the accumulation of scientific research points strongly toward human activities as the primary driver of current climate change. Here are some key lines of evidence:
1. Greenhouse gas emissions: Human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), release significant amounts of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). These gases trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, leading to the greenhouse effect and global warming.
2. Rising atmospheric CO2 levels: Detailed measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, primarily from ice core samples, have shown a dramatic increase in CO2 levels since the Industrial Revolution. The current concentration of CO2 is higher than at any point in the last 800,000 years, and the isotopic signature of the carbon indicates that the additional CO2 is predominantly from fossil fuel combustion.
3. Correlation between GHG emissions and temperature: There is a strong correlation between the increase in GHG emissions and the rise in global average temperature. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which assesses climate science, has concluded that the observed warming since the mid-20th century is primarily caused by human influence.
4. Attribution studies: Scientists use computer models and statistical techniques to attribute observed changes in climate variables (such as temperature, precipitation patterns, and sea-level rise) to different drivers, including natural factors (such as solar variability and volcanic activity) and human-induced factors (such as GHG emissions). These studies consistently find that human activities are the dominant cause of recent climate change.
5. Consensus among scientific organizations: There is a broad scientific consensus among reputable scientific organizations worldwide, including the IPCC, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and many others, that human activities are the primary driver of current climate change.
It’s important to note that while natural factors can influence the climate, the current rate and extent of global warming can’t be explained solely by natural processes. The scientific evidence supports the conclusion that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary cause of the observed climate change.
@ Stephen Bailey. There are clearly some who hold the belief that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change, but the fact remains that there is no proof that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change i.e. there is no published scientific theory to confirm that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change.
It is possible to make a case for increasing CO2 levels to increase food production and to create a reasonable “buffer zone” to reduce the risk of atmospheric CO2 levels becoming perilously low.
@ MickyR.
I do accept that more CO2 can result in plants growing faster and some do actually become more drought resistant as a result, but too much carbon dioxide can reduce the amount of nutrients the plant produces including iron, zinc and vitamin C, meaning animals and humans would have to consume more to survive, negating any benefits.
The main problem with the faster growth argument is that our warming climate is becoming more unpredictable, making many places difficult if not impossible to grow crops in – rain, droughts, floods, fires and storms coming at the wrong time for germination, growing and harvesting.
I think there is a convincing case that increased levels of CO2 due to burning fossil fuels is the main driver of global warming. but if you think it is possible that humans are not responsible for the increased levels of CO2, then what do you think is the cause, and more importantly, what should we do about it?
There does not currently appear to be any prospect that CO2 levels will fall too low 🙂 (We could always burn more coal or oil)
@ Stephen Bailey: you hold a belief that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change, but you can’t post a link to a published scientific theory which supports your belief.
I do not have an accurate, comprehensive, definitive, detailed knowledge of the various sources of atmospheric CO2, I would be surprised if any human has access to this level of knowledge.
“refers to” is not a definition.
What is your definition of “climate change,” Mr Bailey?
Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns.
Buy an active verb, Bailey.
Hi Gamecock
I am a little unclear from your responses, are you suggesting that climate change has not been caused by human activity or that it’s not happening? Or is it just semantics?
What is your opinion of biodiversity loss and the current catastrophic loss of bio abundance?
“Loss, catastrophic loss” , what loss? Where is your empirical evidence of these losses?
@ devonblueboy: “Loss, catastrophic loss” , what loss? Where is your empirical evidence of these losses?
Great to hear from you, I assume that you come from Devon UK, not too far from me.
I must admit that there is so much empirical evidence of catastrophic species decline that I found it hard to know where to start. But perhaps hedgehogs are a good one, these cute animals reflect the decline of many species. In 1950 there were around 36.5 million hedgehogs in the UK, today there are estimated to be less than 1.55 million.
Another example may be the horseshoe bat, in 1900 there were around 300,000 and today only about 13,000.
Need I go on? We do need to take action now if humans are not to be the last man standing, so to speak.
I think you are debating a climate chatbot, pre-programmed not to accept anything that isn’t in its database.
Nah. He’s the managing director of Outdoor Gear UK.
‘For the last 30 years or so, Oswald’s grandson, Stephen Bailey has run the business and it remains family owned and run to this day’
“What is your opinion of biodiversity loss and the current catastrophic loss of bio abundance?”
Petitio principii.
Hi Gamecock, thank you so much for your definitive Petitio principii! I haven’t studied latin since my school days (a very long time ago).
I think you must be mistaken or misled. Have you not noticed the lack of dead insects on your windscreen in recent years?
Biodiversity and bio abundance starts in the soil. This planet’s soil holds more locked up carbon than all the plants and trees growing on it combined. In addition, there is a greater number of live organisms in a healthy teaspoon of soil than humans on this planet. However, we are squandering it:
“Our most significant non-renewable geo-resource is productive land and fertile soil. Each year, an estimated 24 billion tonnes of fertile soil are lost due to erosion. That’s 3.4 tonnes lost every year for every person on the planet.”
By putting chemicals on the land, fertilizer, herbicides, and treatments for all sort ailments we are killing the soil organisms. When soil is dead, it is just dirt and the only way to grow on it is to add more chemicals. When soil is dead there are no worms or invertebrates for birds and mammals to eat causing this catastrophic loss of bio abundance.
Need I go on? We do need to take action now if humans are not to be the last man standing, so to speak.
Evidence for your wild assertions please.
If you are really interested in evidence then read “Black Ops & Beaver Bombing, Adventures with Britains Wild Mamals” by Fiona Mathews and Tim Kendall. Not just meticulous research but a really great read. Funny too.
Re. the headline – in IPCC world science is done over, not done with their so-called summary for policymakers that politicians use as an excuse to browbeat the public into swallowing their useless climate policies.
Unfortunately “Science” has long been an “all you can eat buffet” where, no matter what your cause, somebody will be backing it. “The” Science is just a joke.
Want to prove that three legged Frogs are faster than two and will take over from their regular brethren and that it’s all down to climate boiling? We have an app for that … (and a grant)
Just to add … Why has it taken “Tony Thomas” this long to work this BS out ?
Perhaps I have an untried and untested vaccine to sell him? You get exactly the “answer” you payed (paid) for Tony?
Why the “Tony Thomas”? It is his real name and he is a time served Australian journalist with conservative views. He has been exposing stuff like this for many years and is forensic in his research.
When will Michael Mann be exposed for the charlatan he is?