Posted on 09/27/2022 4:54:01 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Paris (AFP) – A fundamentally flawed study claiming that scientific evidence of a climate crisis is lacking should be withdrawn from the peer-reviewed journal in which it was published, top climate scientists have told AFP.
Appearing earlier this year in The European Physical Journal Plus, the study purports to review data on possible changes in the frequency or intensity of rainfall, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts and other extreme weather events.
“On the basis of observation data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, in not evident," reads the summary of the 20-page study.
The study is written "by people not working in climatology and obviously unfamiliar with the topic and relevant data," said Stefan Rahmstorf, Head of Earth Systems at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
"It is not published in a climate journal -- this is a common avenue taken by 'climate sceptics' in order to avoid peer review by real experts in the field."
"They simply ignore studies that don't fit their narrative and have come to the opposite conclusion."
All four of the experts consulted by AFP suggested that the study should never have been published in the first place, and two of them called for it to be withdrawn.
(Excerpt) Read more at france24.com ...
If the study does not fit the narrative, it must be dismissed.
FTA-
“fundamentally flawed study”
“They simply ignore studies that don’t fit their narrative and have come to the opposite conclusion.”
“All four of the experts consulted”
This reads like what a Middle School kid running for Lunchroom Monitor might write to promote a campaign based on the common sense Lunch Box concept of “No More Homework!”
“It is not published in a climate journal — this is a common avenue taken by ‘climate sceptics’ in order to avoid peer review by real experts in the field.”
The “real experts” have been caught committing scientific fraud so many times with regard to this subject that little, if anything, they produce can be believed. Basic science and “accurate” history supports almost none of what the climate change crowd pushes. It’s the greatest scam in recorded history, and on a global scale.
This is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
"It is not published in a climate journal -- this is a common avenue taken by 'climate sceptics' in order to avoid peer review by real experts in the field."
This is also appeal to authority, and it neglects to mention the possibility that climate journals might have a policy of outright rejecting skeptical papers irrespective of their scientific merit, forcing such papers to seek publication elsewhere.
"They simply ignore studies that don't fit their narrative and have come to the opposite conclusion."
[Citation needed]
“Scientists”
Grant whores, more like.
Exactly, and what is the worst of the joke is Michael “hockey stick” Mann who helped popularized this crap has still not realized his methodology because people might try to discredit it.
There you go folks, that is the state of climate (religion), science today!
Faulty = suggests that massive Global Warming can’t be proven.
released, not realized
The Dark Horse podcast has talked about the peer review process. It’s done in secret. There is no appeal and no ability to address or counter the questions raised because no one knows what those questions are.
I would argue that the fact there is warming can’t be attributed humans and greenhouse gas emissions
They simply ignore studies that don’t fit their narrative Ah irony lost on them.
Who would that be?
They aren’t even subtle about their insistence on “the narrative”.
Mars is warming, ain't no people on Mars...
"Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever. Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto.
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-intermediate.htm
The journalists at AFP are qualified enough to proclaim that the paper is “fundamentally flawed”. And they contacted 4 climate scientists. Contact William Happer, Richard Lindzen, Steven Mcintyre and William Briggs and you have 4 scientists who will say the study is excellent.
Top. Men.
We are a pimple on the ass of a flea, in comparison to the big yellow fusion reactor in the sky. It hiccups, and we either roast or freeze.
Post of the day! You are right on with your statement.
You must adhere to the science gravy train.
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.