{"id":275208,"date":"2023-08-23T19:20:55","date_gmt":"2023-08-23T17:20:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=275208"},"modified":"2023-08-23T19:21:11","modified_gmt":"2023-08-23T17:21:11","slug":"a-whistle-blower-details-how-scientists-conspire-to-depublish-non-consensus-papers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=275208","title":{"rendered":"A Whistle-Blower Details How Scientists Conspire To Depublish Non-Consensus Papers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From climatechangedispatch.com<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0TONY THOMAS<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s nothing new about mainstream climate scientists conspiring to bury papers that throw doubt on catastrophic global warming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Climategate leaks showed co-compiler of the HadCRUT global temperature series Dr. Phil Jones emailing Michael \u201cHockey Stick\u201d Mann, July 8, 2004:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

I can\u2019t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth, a colleague] and I will keep them out somehow \u2014 even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Thanks to a science whistle-blower,\u00a0there\u2019s now documentation of a current exercise<\/strong>\u00a0as bad as that captured in the Jones-Mann correspondence. [emphasis, links added]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This\u00a0new and horrid saga<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 again involving Dr. Mann \u2013\u00a0sets out to deplatform and destroy<\/strong>\u00a0a peer-endorsed published paper by four Italian scientists.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Their paper in\u00a0European Physical Journal Plus<\/em>\u00a0is titled\u00a0A Critical Assessment Of\u00a0Extreme Events Trends In Times Of Global Warming\u00a0<\/em><\/a>and documents that\u00a0extreme weather and related disasters are\u00a0not generally increasing<\/a><\/strong>, contrary to the catastrophists feeding misinformation to the\u00a0Guardian<\/em>\/ABC axis and other compliant media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The witch-hunt has Australian elements. Last September,\u00a0The Australian<\/em>\u2019s environment writer, Graham Lloyd,\u00a0highlighted the paper<\/a>\u00a0[archived here] and its conclusion that\u00a0the \u201cextreme events emergency\u201d was overblown.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sky News Australia<\/a>, which twice\u00a0reported the study,<\/a>\u00a0picked up more than 400,000 views and thousands of comments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\u00a0green-left\u00a0Guardian<\/em><\/a>\u00a0countered\u00a0with a hit piece<\/a>\u00a0by in-house catastrophist Graham Readfearn featuring professors Lisa Alexander and Steve Sherwood, both of NSW University. They alleged cherry-picking and misquoting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Their main specific complaint was that the Italians\u2019 paper had drawn on the 2013 Fifth IPCC Report rather than the recent Sixth Report. (The Italians say they submitted the paper before the Sixth Report emerged).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Guardian<\/em>\u2019s fuss caught the attention of\u00a0Agence France-Presse\u2019s<\/a>\u00a0(AFP) Marlowe Hood, who modestly styles himself\u00a0\u201cSenior Editor, Future of the Planet\u201d<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0\u201cHerald of the Anthropocene<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He penned his diatribe for\u00a0The Australian<\/em><\/a>[archived and also\u00a0<\/em>here<\/em><\/a>]<\/em>\u00a0against the Italians\u2019 paper. Jumping the gun on any editorial inquiry,\u00a0AFP branded the study \u201cfaulty\u201d and \u201cfundamentally flawed\u201d<\/strong>, involving \u201cdiscredited assertions\u201d and \u201cgrossly manipulated data\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This abuse was normal since\u00a0AFP<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0The Guardian<\/em><\/a>\u00a0are\u00a0leaders of the\u00a0Covering Climate Now<\/a>\u00a0(CCN) coalition<\/strong>\u00a0of some\u00a0500 media outlets with a reach of a 2 billion audience.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

These outlets\u00a0signed the CCN pledge to\u00a0hype catastrophism<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0rebut and censor any skepticism<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0about our\u00a0planet\u2019s forecast fiery fate<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\u00a0whistle-blowers\u2019 documents reveal<\/a>\u00a0how this media pile-on<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 as distinct from reasoned scientific complaint \u2014\u00a0led the journal\u2019s owner, Springer, to demand \u201caction\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Springer aimed to\u00a0force the editor to publish at least an erratum<\/strong>\u00a0and, preferably,\u00a0retract it altogether, restoring climate right-think.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\u00a0publishers have now decided on the retraction<\/strong>\u00a0and the\u00a0axe will fall any day now<\/strong>. But the process was ratbaggery in place of the normal rigorous and honorable protocols.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meanwhile, unabashed Italian authors Alimonti and Mariani successfully published last week\u00a0an updated version of their paper<\/a>, also\u00a0peer-reviewed and in a different scientific journal.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chapter and verse on the controversy are available at\u00a0The Honest Broker,\u00a0<\/em>the blog of Dr. Roger J. Pielke Jr.,<\/a>\u00a0a world-leading expert in monetary loss trends from extreme events.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Noted\u00a0climatologist Dr. Judith Curry tweeted<\/a>,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Reprehensible behavior<\/strong>\u00a0by journal editors\u00a0in retracting a widely read climate paper<\/strong>\u00a0(80,000 downloads) over\u00a0politically inconvenient conclusions<\/strong>. Journal editors asked me to adjudicate, and\u00a0my findings were in favor of the author<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The controversy turns on how the IPCC Sixth Report is interpreted, as it seems to place [two bobs each way]\u00a0on trends in extremes<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In all fairness, you can read a detailed argument here<\/a> by an advocate for the paper\u2019s retraction. But even Andy Revkin, a leading US journalist of warmist persuasion, has explained<\/a>,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Despite headlines and spin, it\u2019s still tough to disentangle global warming and natural variability in long-term heat wave patterns in the United States. That might seem surprising but was a clear conclusion of both the last U.S. National Climate Assessment and IPCC reports.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ll now background the Italian defendants in this politicized fracas. They enjoy prestigious reputations, but that doesn\u2019t mean, of course, that they\u2019re right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2666\u00a0Professor Gianluca Alimonti, Milan University<\/a>, and senior researcher, Italy\u2019s National Institute of Nuclear Physics. Many of his papers\u00a0involve work on the 7000-tonne ATLAS detector<\/a>\u00a0at CERN\u2019s Large Hadron Collider. He lists 300+ publications and presentations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2666 Renato Angelo Ricci, Padova University, Padua. He\u2019s worked with Legnaro National Laboratories, one of the four major research centers of the Italian\u00a0National Institute for Nuclear Physics<\/a>\u00a0(INFN). He\u2019s of such prestige that INFN\u00a0dedicated to him<\/a>\u00a0its\u00a0tenth annual Varenna Conference on nuclear reaction mechanisms<\/a>.\u00a0[1]<\/a>\u00a0The corrupted\u00a0Wikipedia Italy<\/a>\u00a0dismisses him as a climate skeptic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2666 Luigi Mariani, Milan University, also of INFN. He\u2019s with the Lombard Museum of Agricultural History and has\u00a0published 137 papers<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2666\u00a0Franco Prodi,<\/a>\u00a0National Academy of Science, Verona and\u00a0Italian National Research Council<\/a>\u00a0\u2013\u00a0<\/strong>Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. 193 publications, 2300 citations:\u00a0\u201c<\/strong>Main fields of interest are physics of clouds and precipitation, hail and precipitation growth, aerosol physics, atmospheric radiation, severe storm studies, and radar-meteorological investigations, satellite meteorology and nowcasting [very short term weather forecasting].\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Guardian<\/em>\u00a0noted that three of the four Italians had signed a \u201cno emergency\u201d\u00a0skeptic declaration<\/a>\u00a0last year as if that disqualified them from proper research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Guardian<\/em>\u00a0didn\u2019t mention that the\u00a0same declaration<\/strong>,\u00a0with its 1,600 signatories<\/a>,\u00a0was led by two Nobel Laureates in Physics,\u00a0John Clauser (2022<\/a>) and Ivar Giaever (1973).<\/strong>[2]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The comments of Michael \u201cHockeystick\u201d Mann, of Pennsylvania University, about Alimonti and Ricci are illuminating. He described their journal article as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u2026another example of scientists from totally unrelated fields coming in and naively applying inappropriate methods to data they don\u2019t understand. Either the consensus of the world\u2019s climate experts<\/a> that climate change is causing a very clear increase in many types of weather extremes<\/a> is wrong, or a couple of nuclear physics dudes in Italy are wrong.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Mann himself is a\u00a0connoisseur of wrong<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(and self-evidently in need of remedial courtesy classes). His notorious\u00a01999 Hockeystick paper<\/a>\u00a0purportedly proved\u00a0unprecedented 20th-century global heat<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His\u00a01,000-year graph was used as a corporate logo by the IPCC<\/strong>\u00a0in its 2001 Third Report\u00a0[3]<\/a>,\u00a0which subsequently\u00a0downplayed it to near-invisibility<\/a>\u00a0in its Fourth Report six years later<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mann had committed the scientific no-go of\u00a0furtively patching measured global temperatures from 1961<\/strong>\u00a0to his\u00a0proxy-reconstructed temperature graph<\/strong>\u00a0derived from\u00a0tree-ring sampling<\/strong>.\u00a0[4]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was done, in the\u00a0Climategate<\/a>\u00a0words of Dr Phil Jones (Nov 16, 1999) to \u201chide the decline<\/strong>\u201d of the\u00a020th-century proxy trend<\/strong>, which threatened to\u00a0render Mann\u2019s entire temperature reconstruction spurious<\/strong>.\u00a0[5]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Australia\u2019s top catastrophist is Macquarie University\u2019s Distinguished Professor of Biology Lesley Hughes, whose specialty is entomology, e.g.,\u00a0ant-tended butterfly ejaculations<\/a>, though more recently she\u2019s been publishing on\u00a0Lethal consequences: climate change impacts on the Great Barrier Reef<\/a>. (It\u2019s had\u00a0record coral cover<\/a>\u00a0for the past two years).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Her Climate Council colleague and\u00a0dud prophet Tim Flannery<\/a>\u00a0is a mammologist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Italians\u2019 desk review spends 20 pages arguing from 82 relevant papers.<\/strong> Their English is well expressed though the syntax is slightly unusual. It\u2019s their conclusions<\/strong> (below) that have generated such recursive fury <\/strong>[6]<\/a> among the anointed climate crowd:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

From the Second World War, our societies have progressed enormously, reaching levels of well-being (health, nutrition, healthiness of the places of life and work, etc.) that previous generations had not even remotely imagined. Today, we are called to continue on the path of progress respecting the constraints of economic, social and environmental sustainability with the severity dictated by the fact that the planet is about to reach 10 billion inhabitants in 2050, increasingly urbanized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since its origins, the human species has been confronted with the negative effects of the climate; historical climatology has repeatedly used the concept of climate deterioration in order to explain negative effect of extreme events (mainly drought, diluvial phases and cold periods) on civilization. Today, we are facing a warm phase and, for the first time, we have monitoring capabilities that enable us to objectively evaluate its effects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fearing a climate emergency without this being supported by data, means altering the framework of priorities with negative effects that could prove deleterious to our ability to face the challenges of the future, squandering natural and human resources in an economically difficult context, even more negative following the COVID emergency. This does not mean we should do nothing about climate change: we should work to minimize our impact on the planet and to minimize air and water pollution. Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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. How the climate of the twenty- first century will play out is a topic of deep uncertainty. We need to increase our resiliency to whatever the future climate will present us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

While a tad sentimental, it\u2019s not over the top compared with say, the IPCC\u2019s UN head Antonio Guterres announcing last month that\u00a0we\u2019re now suffering \u201cglobal boiling<\/a>\u201d<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And the late Professor Will Steffen<\/strong>, who steered Australian federal climate policy for two decades, alerted the Royal Society that\u00a0climate change might well\u00a0end the Homo Sapiens species<\/a><\/strong>.\u00a0[7]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Guardian<\/em>\u2019s\u00a0attack piece quoted\u00a0Professor Lisa Alexander<\/strong><\/a>, a UNSW rainfall-extreme specialist, saying that, contrary to the paper\u2019s \u201cselective and biased\u201d claims, \u201cthere is definitely an\u00a0increase in precipitation extremes<\/a><\/strong>\u201d and it\u2019s \u201cattributed to human activity<\/strong>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paper had \u201ctotally misrepresented\u201d her own papers\u2019 findings, she said.\u00a0She wanted the paper rejected or heavily revised<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So far so trenchant, but when you look up one of her two co-authored papers cited by the Italians, you discover that\u00a0it messed up Figures 2,3,4,5,7,8, and 9 \u2013<\/a>\u00a0which is all but\u00a0three of its ten Figures<\/strong>.\u00a0[8]<\/a>\u00a0The journal had to run a corresponding erratum and update.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An unkind critic might mention pots calling kettles black. Incidentally,\u00a0Alexander\u2019s UNSW team<\/strong>, led by Andy Pitman (famed for his inadvertent candor that\u00a0\u201cwarming doesn\u2019t cause droughts\u201d<\/a>)\u00a0attracted a giant Australian Research Council (ARC) taxpayer grant of\u00a0$32,134,273<\/a>,<\/strong>\u00a0no less.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Her other paper<\/strong>, with no corrections,\u00a0was supported by an ARC grant<\/strong>\u00a0of only\u00a0$356,402<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In both papers, Professor\u00a0Alexander commendably stresses the massive data uncertainties in her field of rainfall extremes<\/strong>, caused by\u00a0unreliable rain recording<\/strong>,\u00a0missing data<\/strong>\u00a0across swathes of entire continents, and\u00a0too-short records<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As she warned:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Despite our best efforts, there are still parts of the world where data are sparse<\/strong> or the temporal coverage is inadequate for a data set designed<\/strong> for long-term monitoring<\/strong> \u2026 Efforts are underway to augment current global collections of data to improve the data available for all users.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

As for allegedly misrepresenting her work, I don\u2019t see it. In the Italian paper\u2019s first reference,\u00a0it accepts her conclusion about rain generally increasing.\u00a0<\/strong>[9]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the second reference, the\u00a0Italians show concern \u2013 as she does \u2014 about data quality for extreme downpours<\/strong>. (The Italians mention\u00a0inter alia<\/em>\u00a0that bugs often climb into the gauges and their corpses upset the mechanism).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AFP\u2019s Marlowe in his hit piece quotes Richard Betts (UK Met Office)\u00a0bagging the Italians<\/a>. In a masterpiece of bitchy innuendo the AFP snarked, \u201cBetts stopped short of calling for withdrawal, drawing a distinction between cherry-picking data and outright fraud.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other critics quoted were\u00a0Friedericke Otto<\/strong>, of the UK\u2019s Grantham Institute, along with\u00a0Stefan Rahmstorf<\/strong>\u00a0from the dark-green Postdam Institute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Otto complained the Italians were writing \u201cin bad faith\u201d \u2014 whatever that means. Rahmstorf\u2019s gripe was that the\u00a0research<\/a>\u00a0was published in a physics journal rather than a climate one (the latter, of course,\u00a097 percent captured by the\u00a0catastrophe crowd as peer reviewers<\/a><\/strong>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI do not know this journal, but if it is a self-respecting one\u00a0it should\u00a0withdraw the article<\/a>,<\/strong>\u201d Rahmstorf said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Otto agreed,\u00a0demanding that it be withdrawn \u201cloudly and publicly\u201d<\/strong>, presumably to scapegoat the authors. An Exeter University professor said he wouldn\u2019t go that far, fearing\u00a0bad publicity about censorship<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 a good point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now for the\u00a0whistle-blower\u2019s documentation<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read rest at\u00a0Quadrant<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There\u2019s nothing new about mainstream climate scientists conspiring to bury papers that throw doubt on catastrophic global warming.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":275245,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691818056,691821437,691818087,691818381],"class_list":{"0":"post-275208","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-climate-change","9":"tag-global-boiling","10":"tag-global-warming","11":"tag-ipcc","13":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/OIG-2023-08-04T125917.237-1.jpeg?fit=1024%2C1024&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-19AQ","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":187013,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=187013","url_meta":{"origin":275208,"position":0},"title":"The Misrepresentation of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"11\/02\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Iain Aitken [Note: This essay is abstracted from my eBook\u00a0Myths: Widely Held But False Beliefs In The Climate Change Crisis, available on Amazon] In their Fifth Assessment Report the IPCC,\u00a0the \u2018internationally accepted scientific authority on climate change\u2019, gave their opinion of how much of the recent global warming was caused\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/0111495336_twitter-post.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/0111495336_twitter-post.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/0111495336_twitter-post.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/0111495336_twitter-post.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":235524,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=235524","url_meta":{"origin":275208,"position":1},"title":"Puerto Rico Greens Launch a RICO Lawsuit Against Big Oil","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"21\/12\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Big oil is accused of conspiring to deceive the public into thinking the current warming might not have been caused by Anthropogenic\u00a0CO2.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/0GISP-2-Warm-Periods.webp?fit=800%2C400&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/0GISP-2-Warm-Periods.webp?fit=800%2C400&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/0GISP-2-Warm-Periods.webp?fit=800%2C400&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/0GISP-2-Warm-Periods.webp?fit=800%2C400&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":276941,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=276941","url_meta":{"origin":275208,"position":2},"title":"Media Ignores Story of Unjustified Retraction of a Climate Skeptical Paper Due to Bullying","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/09\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"While many media outlets ran stories this week about a scientific paper suggesting that Penguin chicks in Antarctica are dying by the thousands (despite evidence suggesting\u00a0they aren\u2019t), the mainstream media ignored another story that shows an ugly episode of bullying of a science journal by prominent climate scientists who demanded\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0Climategate10years_scr.webp?fit=1200%2C967&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0Climategate10years_scr.webp?fit=1200%2C967&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0Climategate10years_scr.webp?fit=1200%2C967&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0Climategate10years_scr.webp?fit=1200%2C967&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/0Climategate10years_scr.webp?fit=1200%2C967&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":195586,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=195586","url_meta":{"origin":275208,"position":3},"title":"Government\u2019s Net Zero plan for tree planting may increase global warming, climate scientists\u00a0find","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/04\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Findings by an international team of climate scientists suggest that the government\u2019s Net Zero project to plant millions of tree in Britain\u00a0is likely to increase rather than decrease global temperature. In a new paper published in\u00a0Frontiers in Forests and Global Change\u00a0the\u00a0scientists\u00a0look at the climate effects of deforestation at different latitudes.\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/00Screen-Shot-2022-04-12-at-12.54.38.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/00Screen-Shot-2022-04-12-at-12.54.38.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/00Screen-Shot-2022-04-12-at-12.54.38.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/00Screen-Shot-2022-04-12-at-12.54.38.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/00Screen-Shot-2022-04-12-at-12.54.38.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":195845,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=195845","url_meta":{"origin":275208,"position":4},"title":"Government\u2019s Net Zero plan for tree planting may increase global warming, climate scientists\u00a0find","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"14\/04\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Findings by an international team of climate scientists suggest that the government\u2019s Net Zero project to plant millions of tree in Britain\u00a0is likely to increase rather than decrease global temperature. In a new paper published in\u00a0Frontiers in Forests and Global Change\u00a0the\u00a0scientists\u00a0look at the climate effects of deforestation at different latitudes.\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/0Screen-Shot-2022-04-12-at-12.54.38.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/0Screen-Shot-2022-04-12-at-12.54.38.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/0Screen-Shot-2022-04-12-at-12.54.38.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/0Screen-Shot-2022-04-12-at-12.54.38.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/0Screen-Shot-2022-04-12-at-12.54.38.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":381017,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=381017","url_meta":{"origin":275208,"position":5},"title":"\ud835\udc13\ud835\udc21\ud835\udc1e \ud835\udfd7\ud835\udfd5% \ud835\udc02\ud835\udc28\ud835\udc27\ud835\udc2c\ud835\udc1e\ud835\udc27\ud835\udc2c\ud835\udc2e\ud835\udc2c \ud835\udc0c\ud835\udc32\ud835\udc2d\ud835\udc21 \ud835\udc03\ud835\udc1e\ud835\udc1b\ud835\udc2e\ud835\udc27\ud835\udc24\ud835\udc1e\ud835\udc1d","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"31\/05\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"One of the most pervasive myths is that 97% (or sometimes stated as >99%) of \u201cclimate scientists\u201d agree that virtually all global warming since the mid-19th century is human-caused and that this warming is an existential threat to the welfare of the planet and all life on it.","rel":"","context":"In \"\u201cclimate scientists\u201d\"","block_context":{"text":"\u201cclimate scientists\u201d","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-scientists-2"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0ChatGPT-Image-31.-Mai-2025-13_13_42.png?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0ChatGPT-Image-31.-Mai-2025-13_13_42.png?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0ChatGPT-Image-31.-Mai-2025-13_13_42.png?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/0ChatGPT-Image-31.-Mai-2025-13_13_42.png?fit=800%2C1200&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/275208","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=275208"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/275208\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":275246,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/275208\/revisions\/275246"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/275245"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=275208"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=275208"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=275208"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}