I have only just gotten to this post, and I must say: Thank you thank you thank you for writing about this. My great fear is that the unscientific shenanigans perpetrated by too many "climate scientists" are destroying the reputation of science itself. Respect for and confidence in science coming out of the US is essential for our future. American citizens cannot make wise election choices if we cannot be sure that our scientists are telling us the truth and treating one another with respect especially when there is disagreement among those scientists. I appreciate your concern about this and I am grateful for your integrity.
It is a very sad history. People who don’t have solid arguments to debate the thesis of the original article they resort either to personal offenses or to critics related to “context” a typical Marxist technique to undermine facts. Very depressing climate in climate change debate
If you want to see the sickening corruption of the Peer Review process, regarding the Lancet HCQ Hydroxychloroquine fraud study, check this video out. Probably over a million people died because of this fraud. Lancet deserves far more than the $billion lawsuit over the junk Dominion Scam Voting machines. Listen here for the sordid story @38m12s in this video:
DR. PETER MCCULLOUGH - IMPORTANT, COMPLETE AND GREAT INTERVIEW MAY 19, 2021:
Stefan Rahmstorf is an interesting case. He wrote a tweet thread ruling fusion power out as an energy source, because if it made up 100% of a 10x increase in primary energy it would increase temperature directly by .3 degrees from its own thermal energy. Of course if fusion displaced all other forms of energy the general outlook would be just fine
Rahmstorf is a wind and solar advocate with scientific credentials. The integrity of the science is incidental to him as he promotes the disaster narrative yet unequivocally opposes nuclear, even fusion
Thank you for this information. This is another example of the corruption of the scientific process. I was especially concerned with the personal references made in the attack, the negative reference to "Nuclear Physics dudes" by Michael Mann. If I understood the thread, there were no specific statements in the original paper that were disputed with a rebuttal backed up with facts. It is disturbing to me that science now looks so much like politics. How is it that people seeking "truth" resort to attacks without factual substance?
I was reading a story on the Titanic submersible that blew up, and ran across a statement fitting the subjects of Dr. Pielke's most recent posts (Covidgate and this article of peer pressure on peer review). An interview subject was asked about safety, and he said "If someone raised a safety concern[...] they were not only not listened to, they were silenced...That is such a toxic culture" Evidence of this sort of toxic culture has spread across all aspects of our society.
The ultimate paragraph of the Alimonti et al paper reads thus:
We need to remind ourselves that addressing climate change is not an end in itself, and that climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing. The objective should be to improve human well-being in the twenty-first century, while protecting the environment as much as we can and it would be a nonsense not to do so: it would be like not taking care of the house where we were born and raised.
It is sad that some believe this statement to be too radical for publication! It is commentary, considering the title of the paper, but nonetheless a reasonable representation of common sense.
Interesting, but "small potatoes" in the grand scheme of things. If you want to see just how broken the "science community" is, read posts on Substack today by Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger.
Seems to me the critics are unhappy with an “Inconvenient Truth” that does not fit the narrative they religiously promote. Hard to read this stuff and not get angry.
The governor of NY just stated the bad weather in NY is the new normal. I guess until it’s not?
Thank you, Roger, for sending this posting...nothing surprises me anymore. I've seen 'the ways' of Michael Mann and Greg Holland for quite awhile (and was especially hurt how Greg could so viciously attack his own (and my) advisor, Bill Gray for several years on this subject), talk about personal interest. What is wrong with a scientific discussion? Now-a-days, I see signs on the front lawns saying 'I believe in the science'...purely political to naive people. Recently I had a 'discussion' with our tropical bulletin board where I just pointed out some of the concerns of the dataset that was used to determine some long term trends (not the conclusions, which I have no ability to judge)---I got some nasty remarks. I guess I am also no longer a 'scientist'! Keep up the great postings (at least, I think you have some influence)! Another, Roger
I think you always have to look at the motivations underlying these actions. Why would a group of climate scientists go to this length to silence those who publish articles disagreeing with them? After all, there are debates in the scientific literature all the time, and they don't lead to outcomes like this.
Climate is special because of the resources being allocated to it. For politicians, an existential threat, a true emergency, gives them the rationale to do what they've always wanted to do, which is centralize power. They can allocate vast resources to favored industries, restrict unfavored industries, and more importantly, they can "help" the many people immiserated by their policies by riding in to the rescue with subsidies and other interventions in an attempt to ease the consequences of the problems they themselves create with their energy policies. Encouraging large populations of people to believe themselves to be victims and then catering to them has been a successful strategy for accumulating reliable blocs of voters, unfortunately. In this regard, one need look no further than the timely article in today's Wall Street Journal entitled "Europeans Are Becoming Poorer". This actually helps a significant subgroup of politicians accumulate more votes.
What does any of this have to do with climate scientists? The resources politicians assert control over for this emergency allow them to allocate substantial grants to scientists and institutions, mainly those who provide the rationale for the politicians to continue to accrete more power and resources to themselves. When money and prestige and ultimately careers come into play, it is no longer a mere scientific disagreement. When the stakes are that high, it's not enough to have a scholarly discussion. In fact, the more credible the viewpoint expressed by those who disagree with you, the more important it is to crush them.
Its been 10 months, any reply on this?
Or do they simply continue to ignore uncomfortable questions, science at its worst?
Still no reply from the journal or Fraboni?
I have only just gotten to this post, and I must say: Thank you thank you thank you for writing about this. My great fear is that the unscientific shenanigans perpetrated by too many "climate scientists" are destroying the reputation of science itself. Respect for and confidence in science coming out of the US is essential for our future. American citizens cannot make wise election choices if we cannot be sure that our scientists are telling us the truth and treating one another with respect especially when there is disagreement among those scientists. I appreciate your concern about this and I am grateful for your integrity.
It is a very sad history. People who don’t have solid arguments to debate the thesis of the original article they resort either to personal offenses or to critics related to “context” a typical Marxist technique to undermine facts. Very depressing climate in climate change debate
If you want to see the sickening corruption of the Peer Review process, regarding the Lancet HCQ Hydroxychloroquine fraud study, check this video out. Probably over a million people died because of this fraud. Lancet deserves far more than the $billion lawsuit over the junk Dominion Scam Voting machines. Listen here for the sordid story @38m12s in this video:
DR. PETER MCCULLOUGH - IMPORTANT, COMPLETE AND GREAT INTERVIEW MAY 19, 2021:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/vM0Yr1uCQoL0/
Stefan Rahmstorf is an interesting case. He wrote a tweet thread ruling fusion power out as an energy source, because if it made up 100% of a 10x increase in primary energy it would increase temperature directly by .3 degrees from its own thermal energy. Of course if fusion displaced all other forms of energy the general outlook would be just fine
Rahmstorf is a wind and solar advocate with scientific credentials. The integrity of the science is incidental to him as he promotes the disaster narrative yet unequivocally opposes nuclear, even fusion
Good engagement on this!
Thank you for this information. This is another example of the corruption of the scientific process. I was especially concerned with the personal references made in the attack, the negative reference to "Nuclear Physics dudes" by Michael Mann. If I understood the thread, there were no specific statements in the original paper that were disputed with a rebuttal backed up with facts. It is disturbing to me that science now looks so much like politics. How is it that people seeking "truth" resort to attacks without factual substance?
I was reading a story on the Titanic submersible that blew up, and ran across a statement fitting the subjects of Dr. Pielke's most recent posts (Covidgate and this article of peer pressure on peer review). An interview subject was asked about safety, and he said "If someone raised a safety concern[...] they were not only not listened to, they were silenced...That is such a toxic culture" Evidence of this sort of toxic culture has spread across all aspects of our society.
The ultimate paragraph of the Alimonti et al paper reads thus:
We need to remind ourselves that addressing climate change is not an end in itself, and that climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing. The objective should be to improve human well-being in the twenty-first century, while protecting the environment as much as we can and it would be a nonsense not to do so: it would be like not taking care of the house where we were born and raised.
It is sad that some believe this statement to be too radical for publication! It is commentary, considering the title of the paper, but nonetheless a reasonable representation of common sense.
Interesting, but "small potatoes" in the grand scheme of things. If you want to see just how broken the "science community" is, read posts on Substack today by Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger.
I find this very discouraging, corruption of the academic process is really disappointing.
Seems to me the critics are unhappy with an “Inconvenient Truth” that does not fit the narrative they religiously promote. Hard to read this stuff and not get angry.
The governor of NY just stated the bad weather in NY is the new normal. I guess until it’s not?
Thank you, Roger, for sending this posting...nothing surprises me anymore. I've seen 'the ways' of Michael Mann and Greg Holland for quite awhile (and was especially hurt how Greg could so viciously attack his own (and my) advisor, Bill Gray for several years on this subject), talk about personal interest. What is wrong with a scientific discussion? Now-a-days, I see signs on the front lawns saying 'I believe in the science'...purely political to naive people. Recently I had a 'discussion' with our tropical bulletin board where I just pointed out some of the concerns of the dataset that was used to determine some long term trends (not the conclusions, which I have no ability to judge)---I got some nasty remarks. I guess I am also no longer a 'scientist'! Keep up the great postings (at least, I think you have some influence)! Another, Roger
The arc of this story was set as soon as Piltdown Mann was mentioned.
Maybe Roger can get the deadbeat to pay the court ordered costs to Tim Ball.
I think you always have to look at the motivations underlying these actions. Why would a group of climate scientists go to this length to silence those who publish articles disagreeing with them? After all, there are debates in the scientific literature all the time, and they don't lead to outcomes like this.
Climate is special because of the resources being allocated to it. For politicians, an existential threat, a true emergency, gives them the rationale to do what they've always wanted to do, which is centralize power. They can allocate vast resources to favored industries, restrict unfavored industries, and more importantly, they can "help" the many people immiserated by their policies by riding in to the rescue with subsidies and other interventions in an attempt to ease the consequences of the problems they themselves create with their energy policies. Encouraging large populations of people to believe themselves to be victims and then catering to them has been a successful strategy for accumulating reliable blocs of voters, unfortunately. In this regard, one need look no further than the timely article in today's Wall Street Journal entitled "Europeans Are Becoming Poorer". This actually helps a significant subgroup of politicians accumulate more votes.
What does any of this have to do with climate scientists? The resources politicians assert control over for this emergency allow them to allocate substantial grants to scientists and institutions, mainly those who provide the rationale for the politicians to continue to accrete more power and resources to themselves. When money and prestige and ultimately careers come into play, it is no longer a mere scientific disagreement. When the stakes are that high, it's not enough to have a scholarly discussion. In fact, the more credible the viewpoint expressed by those who disagree with you, the more important it is to crush them.