Posted on 08/26/2023 1:37:36 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
A perfectly reasonable and peer-reviewed paper by four Italian scientists is now being retracted by the European Physical Journal Plus, which is owned by scientific media company Springer. What, exactly, was wrong with the paper? It came to the unthinkable conclusion that, despite breathless media reports, it’s simply far too early to declare that we are currently in the midst of a climate crisis.
The New American covered the paper’s release last September. Among its conclusions was that it is irresponsible to hyperventilate about climate emergencies when there is no clear evidence that we’re experiencing such a thing yet.
“Leaving the baton to our children without burdening them with the anxiety of being in a climate emergency would allow them to face the various problems in place (energy, agricultural-food, health, etc.) with a more objective and constructive spirit, with the goal of arriving at a weighted assessment of the actions to be taken without wasting the limited resources at our disposal in costly and ineffective solutions,” the authors stated.
Unfortunately, such a conclusion was far too reasonable for the climate cult, which is deeply invested in the narrative that a climate crisis is happening right now and that, unless we panic and do away with everything that makes human thriving possible immediately — namely fossil fuels — we are dooming future generations to a planet destroyed by our own shortsightedness.
The study was widely read, and was intended to be read and understood by laymen as well as scientists. And such a thing is not allowed by the cultish gatekeepers of climate change dogma. All narrative points must be disseminated (or at least approved) by them. So, of course, they went into full attack mode.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
How did the climate cult acquire this much power and influence???
It’s very simple. Money. Join the cult, and you’re going to get paid. Speak out against the cult, and all your funding is going away.
Because climate cultists are just stalking horses for the far more powerful and evil communists.
Not to mention that there is far too much money at stake in Scientific Grants and government subsidies.
Traitorous Demonicrats and gutless coward RINOcrats.
Never let the truth get in the way of the agenda.
Shame on Springer. They have forsaken peer-reviewed science for political correctness.
......“The authors … did little original work, but instead reviewed selected papers from other scientists. This was an article, not a study,” Readfearn concluded......
If that is true, then the paper is a meta-analysis. That is a perfectly legitimate kind of scientific study. And the peer reviewers confirmed the legitimacy of the study, and recommended its publication.
Climate jockeys have NO right to censor scientific studies, and get them thrown out just because they don’t agree with the climate-jockey narrative! If they don’t agree with a paper, they can publish letters to the editor stating their position. The authors of the original paper can then publish replies rebutting the letters to the editor.
Then the scientific community and the general public can make up their own minds as to the validity of both the original paper, and the letters to the editor.
It is good that the original paper was published in another journal. Then the scientific community and the general public can still decide which narrative makes the most sense.
By the way, I am a scientist and published author with a Ph.D. from Harvard, so I know what I am talking about.
The climate-extremist lobby is a blot on both the scientific community and on humanity in general. They are working to destroy civilization, and the lives of most people!!
At least the people of that era were not ignorant by choice.
Addressing this purely from a 'science' community perspective, science is and has always been political to some extent - at lessor and greater degrees. It's hard to do science without funding, and it's hard to get funded unless you are connected somehow. That's just the reality of it.
Those climate scientists who ARE connected and part of the funded crowd are not going to embrace any position or scientific data that doesn't support what their entire careers are predicated on. They are not going to say, "Wow, that's really good data! Our modeling must have been wrong. Good job!" That would require a level of altruism and integrity that is difficult to find anywhere in the world, at any time, let alone now in a time of extreme narcissism.
Even mention of the term “scientific method” is a crime these days.
Thanks.
I don’t know how climate studies are funded. I suspect that there is less funding available for climate studies than for biomedical research.
I hope that legitimate atmosphere physicists, climatologists, etc. get more funding than “climate scientists”, but I don’t know if that’s true.
In every scientific paper, the authors acknowledge the sources of their funding at the end. So if one has the time and the interest, one can find out about the funding issue.
Moreover, “climate scientists” can spew their propaganda in the popular press, without the need for science-based, peer-reviewed funding. Leftist politicians and magazine/newspaper editors also support them in these efforts.
Government gets more power if they have to “fight climate change”, including the ability to decide which companies do well, and which get buried under regulations.
This translates into money.
My understanding from other reading is that Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, the famously debunked “climate scientist” from Penn State, has his fingerprints all over this.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/25/the-climategate-gang-rides-again/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/25/how-science-is-done-these-days/
Because there are much higher margins and stock values on “renewable energy” than old energy investments. Compare Tesla stock vs GM.
- This was an article, not a study,” Readfearn concluded...... -
Readfearn is former Murdoch Australia climate alarmist, now with The Guardian. Skeptics have been calling him out forever:
2018: WattsUpWithThat: Graham Readfearn jumps the shark, goes full alarmist calling natural feedback processes “climate monsters”
by Anthony Watts
Sometimes, I think journalists that work for the Guardian have mental health issues. This is one of those times...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/06/graham-readfearn-jumps-the-shark-goes-full-alarmist-calling-natural-feedback-processes-climate-monsters/
Now see that’s how you do CONSENSUS SCIENCE;
GET A MOB TOGETHER AND SCREAM
“BURN THE WITCH”!
covid nazis, climate nazis all riding the scam 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.