I'm a retired chemical engineer with a long-term interest in things climate. To answer your two questions:
1. I see no signs of misconduct in their research because they are basically interpreting the results of the research of others. Anyone with sufficient knowledge and understanding can replicate their work.
2. There might be mistakes…
I'm a retired chemical engineer with a long-term interest in things climate. To answer your two questions:
1. I see no signs of misconduct in their research because they are basically interpreting the results of the research of others. Anyone with sufficient knowledge and understanding can replicate their work.
2. There might be mistakes and/or errors which I am not qualified to judge but I see nothing which could be considered "egregious".
There are some difficulties with presentation which someone suggested might be the result of translation. I was particularly struck by this phrase: "what the figure is really showing is the evolution of the registration of natural disaster events over time”. As I read it my interpretation of this somewhat tortuous statement is that our ability to identify particular events has improved over time. But my observation of the literacy of many younger people today suggests many would not understand the quotation.
What we are observing here is a growing movement in public media and the technical/scientific press to suppress comment which runs contrary to accepted "wisdom" and political desire about climate change. It is a situation which has allowed egregious publications to influence public attitudes. But accurate evidence —fact—is slowly emerging and has the "establishment" (with vested interests) concerned to the extent it feels the need to suppress information which might undermine it. There are parallels in totalitarian politics!
I'm a retired chemical engineer with a long-term interest in things climate. To answer your two questions:
1. I see no signs of misconduct in their research because they are basically interpreting the results of the research of others. Anyone with sufficient knowledge and understanding can replicate their work.
2. There might be mistakes and/or errors which I am not qualified to judge but I see nothing which could be considered "egregious".
There are some difficulties with presentation which someone suggested might be the result of translation. I was particularly struck by this phrase: "what the figure is really showing is the evolution of the registration of natural disaster events over time”. As I read it my interpretation of this somewhat tortuous statement is that our ability to identify particular events has improved over time. But my observation of the literacy of many younger people today suggests many would not understand the quotation.
What we are observing here is a growing movement in public media and the technical/scientific press to suppress comment which runs contrary to accepted "wisdom" and political desire about climate change. It is a situation which has allowed egregious publications to influence public attitudes. But accurate evidence —fact—is slowly emerging and has the "establishment" (with vested interests) concerned to the extent it feels the need to suppress information which might undermine it. There are parallels in totalitarian politics!