September 28, 2022
By Paul Homewood
Leading climate scientists told AFP that a flawed study that essentially claimed there was a lack of scientific evidence of a climate crisis should be withdrawn from the peer-reviewed journal it was published in. .
Appearing earlier this year in the European Journal of Physics, published by Springer Nature, the study looks at data on possible changes in the frequency or intensity of rain, tornadoes, and tornadoes. , drought and other extreme weather phenomena.
It has been viewed thousands of times on social media and cited by several mainstream media, such as Sky News Australia.
“On the basis of observational data, the climate crisis, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not clear,” reads the 20-page abstract of the study.
Four prominent climate scientists contacted by AFP all said the study – without their knowledge – crudely manipulated the data, picking out some facts and ignoring others that conflicted with the data. their credible claims.
Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impact Research at the UK Met Office said: “The paper appears to have been written specifically to demonstrate that there is no climate crisis, rather than to present an objective assessment. relevant, comprehensive and up-to-date. .
The authors ignore the authoritative report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published months before their study was submitted to Springer Nature, Betts noted.
“Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region of the globe,” the IPCC concluded in that report.
The report said: “Evidence is on for observed changes in extreme events such as heat waves, heavy rainfall, droughts and tropical cyclones, and in particular for their impact on the effects of climate change. People”.
“They are writing this paper with malicious intent,” said Friederike Otto, a senior climatologist at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and Environment.
“They don’t have the heatwave section” —referred to in passing — “where the observed trends are extremely clear,” says Otto..
https://phys.org/news/2022-09-scientists-urge-publisher-faulty-climate.html
Richard Betts, more than most people, should definitely realize that this is not how you do science. If you disagree with a particular scientific study, you challenge it on the basis of fact and point out exactly where it goes wrong.
There is a well-established method to do this, which is to ask the Print Journal to respond to the original article. Usually the authors of the paper will of course have the right to reply. That is how facts are established.
Simply asking the Journal to retract an article is the worst kind of censorship, and reminds us of the dark days of Climategate, when such activities were rampant whenever anyone dared to challenge the program. climate establishment agenda.
The research they complained about, Alimonti et al., was covered by me hereand actually a fairly equal, non-confrontational assessment of the actual data:
Betts mentions the IPCC, but despite the summary’s hyperbolic headlines for Policymakers, there’s practically nothing AR6 over the years that contradicts anything in this latest study.
Friederike Otto would be silly to highlight heatwaves, but fail to acknowledge a corresponding reduction in extreme cold. Why do more heat waves cause a climate emergency, while more cold spells do not?
Let’s look at some other “emergencies,” which Betts seems to be envisioning:
1) Heavy rain
The IPCC generally accepts and emphasizes that global rainfall has increased since 1950, and this is confirmed by the new paper:
IPCC AR6
But far from this is a bad thing, in many parts of the world it has really helped reduce droughts, for example in the US, India, China and Central Asia.
In terms of floods, however, the IPCC found no evidence that they are getting worse, merely the usual changes in the area that we expect to see over time:
2) Drought
As you might expect from an increase in global rainfall, Alimonti et al. found no evidence of an increase in drought, actually the opposite is true:
3) Tropical Cyclone
According to the IPCC itself, there are no long-term trends in TC activity, which most hurricane experts agree.
The bet is incompatible with science, if he maintains otherwise.
.
4) Weather distribution model
With all the data contradicting the declaration of a climate emergency, what should Betts and colleagues do? None other than highly regarded weather distribution models, curated by Otto himself! (By the way, Otto works for the Grantham Climate Change Institute, known for his climate alarm, and even wrote a book, “Angry weatherpurposefully “linking” bad weather to global warming!)
Trust who? Is the computer model or the data lying?
What climate emergency?
Alimonti and his colleagues do not deny that the world is a little warmer than it was a century ago, just as the climate has changed.
But after analyzing official data, they found no evidence of a climate crisis. Here is the abstract of the article:
“On the basis of observational data, the climate crisis, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not clearly shown”
Betting and co-workers may disagree, that’s their prerogative. But if they do, they need to present the truth why, instead of blackmailing European Physics Plus to withdraw the paper.
Related
