Disturbing research about the use of ‘narratives’ in climate science papers
Summary: A new paper provides valuable information about climate science — evidence of the politicization that helped collapse the public policy debate. The authors conclude that narratives are “used to positive effect” in peer-reviewed papers. It puts science on the slippery slope to becoming propaganda (or, in today’s jargon, “fake news”). Scientists achieve career success but destroy the public’s esteem accumulated over centuries.
“Narrative Style Influences Citation Frequency in Climate Change Science“
By Ann Hillier, Ryan P. Kelly, and Terrie Klinger.
From PLOS ONE, 15 December 2016. Red emphasis added.
Climate change is among the most compelling issues now confronting science and society, and climate science as a research endeavor has grown accordingly over the past decade. The number of scholarly publications is increasing exponentially, doubling every 5±6 years. The volume of climate science publications now being produced far exceeds the ability of individual investigators to read, remember, and use. Accordingly, it is increasingly important that individual articles be presented in a way that facilitates the uptake of climate science and increases the salience of their individual research contributions.…
Michael Sununu: Manipulating climate data right before our eyes
THE RECENT ELECTIONS have caused the climate alarmists’ heads to spin. Without a liberal President to force green policies on America, there is little chance their agenda will move forward. Regardless of policy preferences, what elected officials need to focus on is what is actually going on in our climate and what steps need to be taken to address them. It’s the data that count. The real data.
On this point, let’s all agree that the world is warming. It has been since the 1800s when the world started to emerge from the Little Ice Age. We have had periods of warming, periods of cooling and periods when global temperatures didn’t do much of anything.
The bigger question is “Are we seeing recent temperature trends that are out of the ordinary of what we have seen in the past?” Alarmists tend to scream that temperatures are rising out of control, in an unprecedented manner, and that we are reaching a tipping point beyond which we are doomed.
That is all a lie, but I am sure they believe it.
Let’s look at the data, and just as importantly what alarmists have been doing to the data.
If you look at raw global surface temperatures, you see the rate of increase in the early part of the 20th century is the same as what occurred from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. No one has argued the first rate of change was anything but natural. So why must the more recent warming be manmade? In addition, we saw a flat/downward trend in global temperatures from the 1940s to the 1970s and we saw, at least up until recently, another almost 20 year flat temperature period to start this century. – See more at: http://www.unionleader.com/article/20161121/OPINION02/161129918/1004#sthash.MdhgSLLz.dpuf
…
When you look at how temperatures have been manipulated you start to wonder if we have any idea what the global temperature is. Over the past decade or so, the keepers of the data have cooled temperatures in the pre-1910 period the equivalent of -0.52 degrees per century. They warmed temperatures from 1980 to the early part of this century by the equivalent of +0.11 degrees per century.
Those two changes represent half the warming since 1900! And this was before the “pause buster” sea surface temperature manipulation took place.
– See more at: http://www.unionleader.com/article/20161121/OPINION02/161129918/1004#sthash.MdhgSLLz.dpuf…
EU MEP Roger Helmer: ‘The Lessons of Lysenko’ & ‘climate change’
Following the death of Fidel Castro, it’s perhaps a good time to think about the malign impacts of totalitarian government, and the damage that political agendas can do to science.
I was recently discussing Lysenko with a friend (as you do), and naturally we turned to Wikipedia to clarify a point. And I came across a quote that hit me between the eyes (figuratively speaking);
“The term Lysenkoism can also be used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives”.
Dear Reader, you’re way ahead of me. Yes of course, I was struck immediately by the read-across to climate science. The parallels are remarkable.
You’ll be familiar with the story of Lysenko. He was a Russian biologist and agronomist who rejected Darwinian evolution and the rôle of genes, and preferred instead the Lamarckian concept of “inheritance of acquired characteristics”. Of course that concept is difficult to accept – especially when you reflect that a man who has lost a leg is perfectly capable of fathering a child with two legs. With the benefit of hindsight, it is difficult to believe that Lamarckism was once regarded as a credible alternative to Darwinian theory – but so it was.
And Lysenko, in the late 1920s, took that view, and built a whole theory of plant breeding on it. More than that, he had the ear of Stalin, and Lysenkoism became official Soviet doctrine. The theory was imposed rigidly. More than 3000 mainstream biologists were fired, imprisoned or executed for challenging it.
Lysenkoism held sway in the USSR until the sixties, with dire consequences for Soviet agriculture. Again with hindsight it is difficult to credit the fact that it survived so long, when plainly it did not work. But worse than that, not only did it fail in the field (literally), it also totally blocked proper academic study and research in Russia in the area of plant breeding and Mendelian genetics for decades.
So how close are the parallels with climate theory? Of course Lysenkoism was restricted to the USSR. And it was imposed by a totalitarian régime that could, and did, shoot dissenters. Climate alarmism, on the other hand is broadly speaking global (even if some countries merely pay lip-service to the orthodoxy). It is imposed not …
Watch & Read: 7th anniversary of Climategate – The UN Top Scientists Exposed – See Morano debating in 2009 & 2010 –
Flashback summary of Climategate from 2010 SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal — which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists — detonated upon on the international climate movement. “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,” said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.” Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been “captured” and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.” Tol also publicly called for the “suspension” of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]
Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a “worthless carcass” and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in “disgrace”. He also explained that the “fraudulent science continues to be exposed.” Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. “‘I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded…There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!” See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! ‘Climate change – RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence…Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives’ [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming — As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: “The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit …
Skeptical scientists crash UN climate summit, praise Trump for ‘bringing science back again’
MARRAKECH, Morocco — A team of international scientists crashed the UN climate summit in Marrakech and welcomed the election of Donald Trump as a way to bring positive reforms to climate science. The three scientists from Paraguay, Norway and Sweden, were granted a presentation by the UN to present the skeptical climate change view and they praised Trump for rejecting the UN “global warming” claims. The three scientists were also hopeful that Trump’s presidency will help end the politicized UN climate agenda.
Agro-Biologist Dr. Albrecht Glatzle of Paraguay was especially encouraged by the election of the climate skeptic Trump to the presidency.
“I have very much hope that his election will be the initialization of a turnaround in science relating to climate change,” Glatzle, the Director científico de INTTAS inParaguay, told Climate Depot at the UN summit.
Glatzle advice for Trump is simple: “Go straight ahead with your plans to this end the politicized climate agenda and bring the science back again to its place.”
“If someone like Trump is prepared to cut off the endless climate change funding promoting fear, I am very in favor it,” Glatzle said.
“I hope Trump withdraws the United States from the UN climate agreement. The UN climate treaty is based on an illusion,” he explained.
“You cannot adjust the climate just by turning the CO2 button. It’s an illusion to believe the UN can adjust the climate to a desired temperature,” he added.
Glatzle warned that money has corrupted climate science and the agenda.
“Even in my country of Paraguay, ministers see a lot of money from climate agenda. They are prepared to accept the UN climate claims because they will get money,” he explained.
“Actually the UN is promoting distorted science. There are plenty of scientists — I know quite a number around the world — that do support a contrary position to what the UN claims,” Glatzle added.
Prominent Swedish Geologist Dr. Nils Axel Morner is very encouraged by Trump’s presidential victory.
“Trump is a clever guy. And he has picked up on the fact that something is basically very wrong with the media and the UN’s global warming claims,” Morner, who headed the Department of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University, told Climate Depot following his scientific presentation at the UN on November 17.
Morner is hopeful that Trump can free climate science of from only the UN “consensus” view.…
NASA Lead ‘Global Warming’ Scientist Threatens To Resign If Trump Cuts Funding
NASA’s top climate scientist urged President-elect Donald Trump to keep paying for global warming programs, but threatened to resign if Trump censored his science.
Dr. Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told the Independent he and other government scientists are “not going to stand” for any funding cuts or other interference in their work.
“The point is simple: the climate is changing and you can try to deny it, you can appoint people who don’t care about it into positions of power, but regardless nature has the last vote on this,” Schmidt, told The Independent Thursday. “It’s something we’re going to have to deal with sooner or later, and it’s better sooner rather than later. We don’t have a choice if we’re going to deal with it.”
#
More reaction from Tony Heller of Real Climate Science: ‘NASA’s Gavin Schmidt has been producing meaningless temperature data sets in support of President Obama’s attempt to seize control of the energy supply, and now promises to resign when his work is independently analyzed by the Trump Administration.’
…
As Many As Half Of Global Warming Alarmist Research Papers Might Be Wrong
…Donna Laframboise: Peer Review — Why Skepticism Is Essential
…Top University Stole Millions From Taxpayers By Faking Global Warming Research
By Andrew Follett
A global warming research center at the London School of Economics got millions of dollars from UK taxpayers by taking credit for research it didn’t perform, an investigation by The Daily Mail revealed.
The UK government gave $11 million dollars to the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) in exchange for research that the organization reportedly never actually did.
Many papers CCCEP claimed to have published to get government money weren’t about global warming, were written before the organization was even founded, or were written by researchers unaffiliated with CCCEP. The government never checked CCCEP’s supposed publication lists, saying they were “taken on trust,” according to the report.
“It is serious misconduct to claim credit for a paper you haven’t supported, and it’s fraud to use that in a bid to renew a grant,” Professor Richard Tol, a climate economics expert from Sussex University whose research was reportedly stolen by CCCEP, told The Daily Mail. “I’ve never come across anything like it before. It stinks.”
Researchers whose work was misrepresented were furious. One professor said CCEP’s actions were “a clear case of fraud – using deception for financial gain.”
CCCEP tried to falsely claim credit for research it never did while attempting to get another $5.4 million of government cash. That money would have covered its operations until 2018.
“Our paper had no relationship to the CCCEP,” Tol said. “At the time, the CCCEP did not exist, and it only came into existence after the paper was published. Fraud means deception for financial gain. That is what this is.”
Government and private grants have made CCCEP one of the most lavishly funded institutions of its kind in the world, as it has raised and spent about $37 million since 2008.
‘Electricity prices fudged now – just like temperature’
by Warwick Hughes
AEMO daily Regional Reference Price for South Australia clearly fudged – if this carries on their data will be meaningless. 4th Oct RRP was originally minus $387.
Full size table