Posted on 05/10/2021 5:56:19 AM PDT by MtnClimber
As readers at this site are well aware, the field of climate “science” and alarmism is subject to an extraordinary degree of orthodoxy enforcement, where all information supporting the official narrative gets enthusiastically promoted, while all information disagreeing with the official narrative gets suppressed or attacked. For just one recent example of the latter, see the Wall Street Journal editorial in the current weekend edition reporting on a bogus Facebook “fact check” of the Journal’s recent review of Steven Koonin’s new book “Unsettled.”
In this context, an article just out on May 6 in the journal Science is truly remarkable. The article is titled “Does ocean acidification alter fish behavior? Fraud allegations create a sea of doubt.” It has the byline of Martin Enserink, Science’s international news editor. Science has a long history of publishing every sort of climate alarmism, and of being an unreceptive forum for anything expressing any sort of skepticism, let alone alleging fraud in claims of climate alarm. Something serious must be going on here.
To get the significance of the recent developments, it is important to understand where assertions of “ocean acidification” fit into the field of climate alarm. The use of fossil fuels by humans generates CO2 that goes into the atmosphere. CO2 is a “greenhouse gas,” and many models project that increasing levels of CO2 will warm the atmosphere in some significant amount. Activists then assert many harmful effects from the hypothetical warming — not just hot days and heat waves, but everything from melting ice, rising seas, droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, you name it. All of these asserted effects arise from the initial step of atmospheric warming.
But what if the warming doesn’t happen, or turns out to be far less than the fear-mongers have projected? That’s where “ocean acidification” comes in. “Ocean acidification” is the one allegedly harmful effect of rising atmospheric CO2 that does not stem initially from warming temperatures. Instead, the idea is that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will somewhat increase the level of CO2 dissolved in the oceans, which in turn will lower the pH of the oceans. How much? Some projections suggest at the extreme end that average ocean pH may go down from a current 8.1 or so, all the way to maybe about 7.75 by 2100. If you know anything about this subject, or maybe took high school chemistry, you will know that pH of 7 is neutral, lower than 7 is acidic, and above 7 is basic. Thus a pH of 8.1 is not acidic at all, but rather (a little) basic; and a pH of 7.75 is somewhat less basic. The fact that anyone would try to apply the scary term of “ocean acidification” to this small projected shift toward neutrality already shows you that somebody is trying to manipulate the ignorant.
And besides, what’s wrong with a pH of 7.75? After all, pH of 7 is completely neutral — even if ocean pH went all the way down to that level (and not even the worst alarmists are claiming that it will), how could that possibly be harmful to any living thing?
Into this mix then jumped a group of researchers at James Cook University. JCU is an Australian university known as a center for studying marine biology. It is located at a fairly remote place along the coast in Northeast Australia, near the Great Barrier Reef. In about 2009, JCU researchers — led by Philip Munday and Danielle Dixson — began publishing a series of papers asserting that ocean acidification was causing a wide range of striking and detrimental effects on fish behaviors. Among other claimed results of the research were that fish subjected to somewhat less basic water would lose their ability to smell predators and become attracted towards the scent of predators; would become hyper-active; would loose their tendency to automatically swim either left or right; and other such things. As to the significance of their research, in a 2014 report for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Munday and Dixson warned that their work showed that projected “ocean acidification” could have “profound consequences for marine diversity” and fisheries.
If you have any bullshit radar at all, I assume that it has already been set off with loud alarms and flashing red lights. But of course, all of the Munday/Dixson papers sailed through peer review and were quickly published at the most “prestigious” journals.
Yet somehow the Munday/Dixson work was so preposterous that it eventually attracted the interest of a group of young scientists who thought that the results just could not possibly be right. Over the period 2016 to 2019 a group of seven researchers led by Timothy Clark and Fredrik Jutfeld attempted to replicate the principal results of Munday and Dixson on fish behavior. Clark, Jutfeld, et al., published the results of their work in January 2020 in Nature, with the title “Ocean acidification does not impair the behaviour of coral reef fishes.” The bottom line: they could not replicate the claimed effects on fish behavior at all. From the abstract of the Clark, Jutfeld, et al., article:
Coral reef fishes are predicted to be especially susceptible to end-of-century ocean acidification on the basis of several high-profile papers that have reported profound behavioural and sensory impairments—for example, complete attraction to the chemical cues of predators under conditions of ocean acidification. Here, we comprehensively and transparently show that—in contrast to previous studies—end-of-century ocean acidification levels have negligible effects on important behaviours of coral reef fishes. . . .
The “high profile” papers referred to are some of the Munday/Dixson works.
The dueling results have apparently created quite the schism among marine biologists, at some point leading the journal Science to put its own international editor on the job of reporting on the controversy. The Science piece is fairly long, but well worth a read. Among much else, there is this:
[I]n August 2020, Clark and three others in the group . . . asked three funders that together spent millions on Dixson’s and Munday’s work—the Australian Research Council (ARC), the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH)—to investigate possible fraud in 22 papers. The request, which they shared with a Science reporter, rests on what they say is evidence of manipulation in publicly available raw data files for two papers, one published in Science, the other in Nature Climate Change, combined with remarkably large and “statistically impossible” effects from CO2 reported in many of the other papers. They also provided testimony from former members of the Dixson and Munday labs, some of whom monitored Dixson’s activities and concluded she made up data.
Science also took the step of asking multiple independent scientists not affiliated with Clark to review the allegations and comment. The result:
[M]ultiple scientists and data experts unconnected to the Clark group who reviewed the case at Science’s request flagged a host of problems in the two [Munday/Dixson] data sets, and one of them found what he says are serious irregularities in the data for additional papers co-authored by Munday.
Over at the Global Warming Policy Foundation, they publish a piece on May 7 by Peter Ridd commenting on this situation. Have you heard of Peter Ridd? Ridd was a professor at James Cook University, and among other things head of the Physics Department and head of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at that institution. He was known for work on the Great Barrier Reef, particularly for challenging the prevailing narrative that the GBR was in serious decline due to global warming. In 2016 Ridd was disciplined and then fired by JCU, which cited critical comments he had made about the work of colleagues. The comments at issue included telling Sky News that bodies like the Australian Institute of Marine Science "can no longer be trusted" and saying that many scientists examining the health of the Great Barrier Reef were "emotionally attached" and "not objective". Ridd sued JCU over the firing, and recovered a judgment of A$1.2 million at trial. That judgment was then reversed on appeal. On February 21 Ridd’s case was accepted for review by Australia’s High Court (equivalent to our Supreme Court).
It’s now looking like Ridd’s prior remarks may turn out to be a severe understatement as to the level of scientific corruption at JCU.
And then there is the level of corruption in climate science more generally. There is plenty more to be found if researchers like Clark et al. get sent to the right places. I have called the alterations of temperatures in the historical records kept by the U.S. government “The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time”; yet somehow, the manipulation of those data have so far escaped any kind of thorough independent examination or audit, even during the four years of the supposedly skeptical Trump administration. The day will come, but it may be a while.
Again, a thank you to Francis Menton. He allows use of full articles as long as attribution and a link are provided.
Thank you.
AGW is not science. If it were science there would be one model and it would be predictive. It would be falsifiable.
The mere fact AGW cannot separate human activity from planetary activity in ANY of its models disqualifies it as a Scientific Theory.
Just providing a quick unassailable argument. I have posed this on many lefty boards and it has NEVER been successfully challenged. A couple of times some have posted “yes there IS a single model.” My response: “point me to it.”
Where there is money to be had, there is fraud..................
A good resource for those not yet acquainted with it:
https://realclimatescience.com/
I think the word you are looking for is “psyience” which sounds a lot like “science”, but has no bearing on true “science” at all.
“Psyience” is a series of made up facts, that support any hypothesis you have, and allows you to throw away any samples that don’t support your hypothesis.
“Psyience” is fixed, unchangeable and cannot be questioned, because .... psyience says so.
If they a redefine male/female to suit their needs; let’s create a new word to suit their definitions.
Wow. Very good. Should be headline news, all over the world.
>>“Psyience” is fixed, unchangeable and cannot be questioned, because .... psyience says so.<<
Ah, yes. And do remember the methodology:
Draw your lines, then plot your points.
Keep in mind that if they poll “psyentists” and a majority (aka “consensus”) decides that pi is 3.2 then that is now the value of pi.
Has Prophet Gore offered a comment yet?
When you offer grant money to scientists they quickly devolve into money-grabbing liars and propagandists.
Scientists are human—flaws and all.
The Climate Scam is similar to Beria’s crime philosophy: show me the climate change concept and I will find you a
supposed proof for it.
You are correct. I have followed this subject closely for 30 years beginning in college when I bought the premise as a naive’ young person.
I remember the predictions and alarmist statements that never came to pass. On top of that, I became fascinated with the politics of the subject. The premise allows for centralized control of people and their activities. The funding is only given to those who promote the hypothesis.
The hypothesis has failed repeatedly, but they do not abandon it and say the “science is settled.” Real science is never settled.
AGW is a political idea wrapped in pseudoscience. The climate is constantly changing and history shows this to be true absent any influence from man.
I happen to like Pi, I like Pi a lot; more than my MD thinks is healthy. Perhaps this is due to gluttony - but, cutting my Cherry Pi into 3.14159267 pieces is difficult, and cutting it into 3.2 pieces isn’t much easier.
Thus, Pi should be 4. That’s how Psyience works, not a lot of reason, thought or even consideration of how Pi is actually used. But it “feels” good, and that’s all that matters to Psyientists all over the world.
What’s even better about Psyience, if you can fog a mirror; you are qualified to speak as a Psyientist. And take my word on this, you will hear a lot from liberal Psyientists.
Ever let science get in the way of a good narrative to manipulate people
USA Today. /s
I sense a shift away from AGW. I’m reading Koonin’s book and it may bring out more truth from the silent scientists who know better.
Mars carbon dioxide is 95% and as cold as Nancy during a Trump speech , LOL
Great article, thanks for posting it. (If I wasn’t on FR, I would have missed it completely)
Peer review is a joke now across the entire spectrum of scientific and medical papers now, and everyone knows it is a joke.
And interesting enough back in the late 70’s and early 80’s when the new ice age was upon us many of the same scientist were calling for exactly the same measure to fight it. More centralized government, less freedom, higher taxes, reduced lifestyle. Funny how that works.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.