The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’

The latest travesty in consensus ‘enforcement’, published by Nature.

.
Abstract. We juxtapose 386 prominent contrarians with 386 expert scientists by tracking their digital footprints across 200,000 research publications and 100,000 English-language digital and print media articles on climate change. Projecting these individuals across the same backdrop facilitates quantifying disparities in media visibility and scientific authority, and identifying organization patterns within their association networks. Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out of professional mainstream sources by the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale. These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians.
.
This ranks as the worst paper I have ever seen published in a reputable journal.  The major methodological problems and dubious assumptions:
.
  • Category error to sort into contrarians and climate scientists, with contrarians including scientists, journalists and politicians.
  • Apart from the category error, the two groups are incorrectly specified, with some climate scientists incorrectly designated as contrarians.
  • Cherry picking the citation data of top 386 cited scientists to delete Curry, Pielke Jr, Tol, among others (p 12 of Supplemental Information)
  • Acceptance of the partisan, activist, non-scientist group DeSmog as a legitimate basis for categorizing scientists as ‘contrarian’
  • Assumption that scientific expertise on the causes of climate change relates directly to the number of scientific citations.
  • Assumption that it would be beneficial for the public debate on climate change  for the ‘unheard’ but highly cited climate scientists to enter into the media fray.
  • Assumption that scientists have special authority in policy debates on climate change
The real travesty is this press release issued by UC Merced:
.
“It’s time to stop giving these people visibility, which can be easily spun into false authority,” Professor Alex Petersen said. “By tracking the digital traces of specific individuals in vast troves of publicly available media data, we developed methods to hold people and media outlets accountable for their roles in the climate-change-denialism movement, which has given rise to climate change misinformation at scale.”
.
Etc.
.
Here is the list of ‘contrarians’ identified in the paper [link]
.
I am included prominently on the list, presumably arising from the DeSmog hit piece on me.

From the press release: “Most of the contrarians are not scientists, and the ones who are have very thin credentials. They are not in the same league with top scientists. They aren’t even in the league of the average career climate scientist.” “giving them legitimacy they haven’t earned.”  Some of the prominent, currently active climate scientists on the list whose work I have learned from:

  • Roy Spencer
  • Richard Lindzen
  • John Christy
  • Roger Pielke Jr
  • Roger Pielke Sr
  • Richard Tol
  • Ross McKitrick
  • Nir Shaviv
  • Garth Paltridge
  • Nicola Scafetta
  • Craig Loehle
  • Scott Denning
  • Nils Axel Morner
  • William Cotton
  • Vincent Courtillot
  • Hendrik Tennekes

Note that this list of climate science ‘contrarians’ is heavily populated by experts in climate dynamics, i.e. how the climate system actually works.

The most comical categorization on this list is arguably Scott Denning, who strongly supports the IPCC Consensus, and gave a talk to this effect at an early Heartland Conference.  Ironically, Scott Denning tweeted this article, apparently before he realized he was on the list of contrarians.

The list also includes others (academic or not) with expertise on at at least one aspect of climate science (broadly defined), from whom I have learned something from either their publications or blog posts or other public presentations:

  • Sebastian Luning
  • Michael Kelly
  • Bjorn Lomborg
  • Christopher Essex
  • Alex Epstein
  • Fritz Vahrenholt
  • Scott Armstrong
  • Willie Soon
  • Steve McIntyre
  • Anthony Watts
  • Patrick Michaels
  • Edward Wegman
  • Matt Ridley
  • Patrick Moore
  • David Legates
  • Craig Idso
  • Chip Knappenberger
  • William Happer
  • Henrik Svensmark
  • Steven Goddard
  • Madhav Kandekhar
  • Jennifer Marohasy
  • William Briggs
  • Hal Doiron
  • Freeman Dyson
  • Iver Giaver
  • JoAnn Nova

I would not seek to defend everything that each of these individuals  has written or spoken on the topic of climate change, but they have added to our knowledge base and provide interesting perspectives.  Why shouldn’t they get media coverage if something that they write about is of general interest and stands up to scrutiny?

The ‘real’ scientists on their list with heaviest media impact include:

  • Donald Wuebbles
  • Ramanathan
  • Stephen Schneider
  • Thomas Stocker
  • Noah Diffenbaugh
  • Miles Allen
  • Kerry Emanuel
  • Phil Jones
  • Chris Jones
  • Stefan Rahmstorf
  • Andrew Weaver
  • Kevin Trenberth
  • Michael Mann

Does anyone think these scientists don’t get enough publicity in the MSM?

Katherine Hayhoe (with HUGE MSM presence) doesn’t make this list; is anyone concerned about her outsized Kardashian Index?

Comparing elephants and peanuts

The most ridiculous thing that this article does is compare the media hits of contrarians that are politicians or journalists with that of ‘consensus scientists’.  In the list of contrarians, the following are politicians and journalists that I regard as being generally knowledgable of climate science:

  • Marc Morano
  • Rex Tillerson
  • David Rose
  • Mark Steyn
  • Matt Ridley
  • Nigel Lawson
  • Christopher Booker
  • Ronald Bailey
  • Andrew Montford
  • Rupert Darwall

Lets face it, these individuals are relatively small potatoes in terms of climate change main stream media. Compare the media impact of the above list with

  • Al Gore
  • Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez
  • Greta Thunberg
  • Etc.

The ignorance of climate change of AOC and Greta is rather shocking.   Why isn’t anyone concerned about this?

JC reflections

Apart from the rank stupidity of this article and the irresponsibility of Nature in publishing this, this paper does substantial harm to climate science.

Climate science is a very broad and diffuse science, encompassing many subfields.  Each of these subfields is associated with substantial uncertainties, and when you integrate all these fields and attempt to project into the future, there are massive uncertainties and unknowns. There are a spectrum of perspectives, especially at the knowledge frontiers.  Trying to silence or delegitimize any of these voices is very bad for science.

Scientists who are effective in the public communication of climate change can speak about topics beyond their own personal expertise.  This requires a different set of skills from basic research: ability to synthesize and assess a broad body of research and communicate effectively.  Scientists on the ‘contrarian’ list bring something further to the table: fact checking alarming statements; concerns about research integrity; thinking outside the box and pushing the knowledge frontier of climate science beyond AGW – issues that are important to the MSM and public communication of climate science.

The harm that this paper does to climate science is an attempt to de-legitimize climate scientists (both academic and non academic), with the ancillary effects of making it more difficult to get their papers published in journals (stay tuned for my latest engagement with the journal peer review process, coming later this month) and the censorship of Nir Shaviv by Forbes (hopefully coming later this week).

 

 

 

378 responses to “The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’

  1. Judy,

    I’m kind of offended I didn’t make the ‘enemies’ list.

    As I said earlier this summer, this was the logical next step for the field of climate studies (it is no longer worthy of being called science).

    Further thoughts: http://www.mikesmithenterprisesblog.com/2019/08/big-climate-publishes-its-enemies-list.html

    Best wishes,
    Mike

    • Nic Lewis didn’t make it either :)

      • The Nature authors have clearly hit a nerve by stating the obvious, but what seems to trigger the high-media profile Climate Science Contrarians most is their deadpan staistical observation that a hefty majority of the CCC’s have published no science whatever.

        Here you will money quote, and the response to Nature of the elephant in the contrarian room, whom Judy wisely neglects to mention – Willie Soon coauthor Christopher Monckton

        https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2019/08/yes-fearless-jeerleader.html

      • Previous comment in the wrong place. Here it is again.

        More irrelevancies from Russell. The study is just so flawed that no objective conclusions can be drawn. It is also the largest and most massive political smear since the McCarthy era. A shameful exercise in witch hunting.

      • As dpy is unable to draw any objective conclusions from this report, , I can but repeat the authors, own :

        Understanding Earth’s coupled human–environmental systems requires broad and deep knowledge of processes occurring across a range of scales—from microscopic chemical processes to macroscopic thermodynamic flows and human consumption and land-use trends that span the entire global system. The monumental task of drawing together and integrating expertise across numerous research domains will require intense trust-based collaboration across disciplinary, organizational, and political boundaries…

        We see this collaborative pattern in the structure of citations within the broader Climate Change Science community documented here but not within the Climate Change Contrarian community, which is too small to encompass the complexity required to grapple with the fundamental issues of CC science.

        Anyone who has heard the underwhwlming performances of the dozen CCC’s who do most of the contrarians talking talking heads who do most of the climate talking on Fox TV, and in Heartland’s echo chamber events can but nod in agreement with the impact factor statistics they have compiled.

        Their failure to recruit enough bona fide climate scientists to do and publish interdiscipliary scienc,e or run and intercompare state of the art GCM”s is their fault, not the Nature Communications author’s.

        About the only point of light the usual Anthropocene conspiracy theorists can take away from this one is that the paper’s middle author works down the hall from Bruno Latour at Sciences Po.

      • Russell, You quote a couple of paragraphs that lack quantification and as such are not really science. That’s just the first problem with the paper. Their method for counting media references (fundamental to the conclusions) is totally unreliable and the numbers of references are wildly inaccurate. So any conclusions are not valid.

      • That is not true, dpy– If you can bear to look at them, Figures 3 and 7 show a performance gap between the contrarians and those who actually do the science so staggeringly ( 660% is a lot of sigmas) wide that the authors have no need of statistical shenanigans-, and I suspect they know better than to try, for the Nature Group methodology editors are vigilant . Have you forgotten that they famously made Mike Mann and his coauthors publish a corrigendum,?

        So here’s what passed peer review:

        “Likewise, we tallied the total citations received by each publication set. Figure 3b shows an even larger disparity in citation impact, with 224CCS collecting roughly 7.6 times as many citations (992,206) as the 224CCC (130,833). We analyzed the degree to which this difference is larger (or possibly smaller) than what could be obtained by random chance by performing a random bootstrap sampling of the underlying productivity and citation distributions. Our simulation results show that the disparities are robust to statistical fluctuations arising from finite sample sizes and further demonstrate that the 224CCC productivity and citation impact tallies are indistinguishable from a group of CCC (see Supplementary Fig. 3).

        Moreover, from a methodological perspective, the citation tally for 224CCC is likely to suffer from generous overestimation relative to the 224CCS tally (see “Methods” for further detail). To be specific, because leading researchers tend to have net citation tallies in the range of 103–105 WOS citations44,46, i.e., orders of magnitude greater than the citations accrued by the average papers in their field, the misattribution error associated with name ambiguity only marginally increases the citation tally Ci for elite scientists belonging to the 224CCS group; contrariwise, misattribution error could significantly increase Ci for the majority of the 224CCC group members. Thus the 660% difference in group-wise citations is a lower-limit estimation of the disparity in scientific authority between these CCS and CCC.”

        Only four out of the 224 CCC authors account for the entire high volume end of the contrarian citaation spectrum– that’s one high decibel echo chamber !

      • Russell
        The study compares two groups, those who publish in climate science but who we have no idea about their view on key climate uncertainties (eg attribution, sensitivity), and those who have been active in publicly drawing attention to the uncertainties, only a small minority of whom publish.

        None of the inferences you draw can be concluded from a comparison between these two populations. Nor can the conclusions that the authors draw.

        Depending on what they wish to show they would need to compare apples with apples. For example an appropriate comparitor group for the CCC group would start with those that are prominent in Green Peace, active in their conferences/blogs etc etc. I strongly suspect they would have equally low representation in the top publishers, but would more than hold their own in the web/bloggersphere (i.e. invalidating the authors conclusions and yours).

        Those conclusion are a product of an experiment designed with an outcome in mind and when clearly stated become trivial (e.g. a group selected in part by the bloggersphere will have greater profile in it than those in a group that isn’t selected that way).

      • Russell

        Elephant in the room? Do you really believe that Monckton is seen as a key figure in the contrarian world?

        tonyb

      • Russell

        You really need to up your game. Whilst your link to last weeks cartoon in your extremely popular blog was amusing the current one falls short.

        Can I recommend you aspire to the very high standards of cartoon satire as illustrated by jonova with the superb Nature take off

        http://joannenova.com.au/2019/08/skeptics-get-49-more-media-and-other-fairy-fantasy-stories-from-nature-gossip-mag/#comments

        tonyb

      • Tony B,

        Thanks for pointing to Jo Nova’s cartoon. Here it is for those who may not have clicked on the link:

      • Tony B
        Monckton has been a conspicuous contrarian keynote speaker at events arround the world including the most recent Heartland conference.in Washington.

        climatereason
        Those who can do science publish it in Nature,
        those who can’t judge science journals by parodies of the covers.

        Contrarians who invested Jo and David’s Global Cooling Hedge Fund aren’t laughing much these days.

      • “Those who can do science publish it in Nature”

        corrected

        Those who can do science used to publish it in Nature

      • Russell

        Sorry, but Heartland doesn’t figure on my radar.

        I am afraid that on this occasion Nature has become the parody. You are surely not supporting this dross, which might even be withdrawn?

      • “Sorry, but Heartland doesn’t figure on my radar.”

        They need to improve their approach. They need to screen more. Build a strong defensible position and minimize without hesitation and with follow through the loons. It’s about winning.

      • Richard S Courtney

        Russell Seitz,

        You say,
        “Anyone who has heard the underwhwlming performances of the dozen CCC’s who do most of the contrarians talking talking heads who do most of the climate talking on Fox TV, and in Heartland’s echo chamber events can but nod in agreement with the impact factor statistics they have compiled.”

        Your point may have had some merit if the blacklist did not include people who died years ago (e.g. Freeman Dyson, Bob Carter) and if what you imply as being your overwhelming performance did not pale to insignificance compared to that of e.g. the late Freeman Dyson.

        It is the antithesis of scientific discourse to call for blacklisting of opposing views.

        Richard

      • Freeman Dyson is alive and well at age 95

      • richardscourtney

        curryja,

        Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding that Freeman Dyson is deceased. Such an error harms the point being made. However, at 95 Dyson has not made public writings or comments for some years and – as I said – Bob Carter certainly is dead having died on 16 January 2016.

        I cited them as being scientists who are no longer active participants in science or the mass media. These gentlemen were great scientists whose performances when they were active clearly do NOT warrant censorship of their views.

        As I said,
        “It is the antithesis of scientific discourse to call for blacklisting of opposing views.”

        Richard

    • Ryan Maue didn’t make it either :)

    • What, no Berkeley Earthlings?

    • If that may console you, Mike, you’re in my Contrarian Matrix list.

      • Why are they dragging the deceased into popularity contests? Stephen Schneider? How long has he been gone? Maybe they’ll start referring to Abraham, Martin and John….

      • It actually *is* a popularity contest, Ted.

        Contrarians love their champions. They abide by Mike Hulme’s doctrine, as written in the emails.

      • This whole exercise sounds like the post mortem by the campaign manager for a losing homecoming queen. It was especially reassuring that they applied the Louvain modularity maximizing algorithm to cluster the co-visibility matrix into communities of individuals. No post mortem would be complete without that.
        Knowing this will allow me to sleep tonight.

      • Quite a post-mortem we’re having:

        Risk perceptions influence individual and collective action related to climate change, and there is an important gap between public and expert perceptions of climate change risk, especially in the United States. Past studies have found that on average 40% of the American public believe climate change will affect them personally. We contribute a study of climate change risk perceptions in the metropolitan areas of three western U.S. cities (Denver, Colorado; Las Vegas, Nevada; Phoenix, Arizona), assessing overall patterns and drivers. A representative mail survey (N = 786) of the general public in these cities revealed that 60% of respondents identified climate change as personally risky, with the perception that it will impact either their family or their city in the next 30 years. Our results indicate that the gap in risk perceptions between the public and experts may be decreasing, although we discuss several limitations and reasons why this result requires further investigation. Using regression models, we analyze factors that are hypothesized to drive risk perceptions and discover that pro-environmental worldview and perceived personal responsibility are the most influential predictors. We discuss the implications of our results for fostering collective action to address climate change in dry, western U.S. metropolitan areas.

        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/WCAS-D-18-0068.1

        Contrarians seldom play to win.

      • This study is emblematic of the entire AGW debate. They use an oversimplified, binary categorization of contrarians. They are or They aren’t. In reality, their views could be greatly dispersed. In terms of attribution they could be widely different if forced to use a specific percentage. They could have differing views in terms of mitigation and adaptive policies. They could have different views on level of terminal threat.
        There is no gradation of level of skepticism. Just an arbitrary assignment into the contrarian category. But I’m sure AOC would be on board.

      • And so everything conspires to confirm what you knew all along, Kid. With so much winning, we need to wonder how contrarians can ever lose:

        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/01/11/can-contrarians-lose/

      • “Contrarians seldom play to win.”

        Then they play not to lose.

        What did we not win? Alternatives to fossil fuels. We didn’t win batteries or power lines, we didn’t win nuclear power plants. We didn’t win cheaper electricity. We didn’t win mitigation. We didn’t win better watersheds or more flying apex predators. They had a convention and the United States said bleep off and burn more coal. That was the win. We got a banner headline of it’s the right’s fault again so now we feel superior and will not bring in children into the world. Who cares? In the win column, I added it all up and they won a zero.

        The lot of them ought to fired for not winning and being so feeble. At least the Koch brothers gave us cheap and reliable electricity didn’t they?

      • > Then they play not to lose.

        Doing science implies you can lose.

        If you can’t lose, you’re not doing science.

        Contrarians always win.

        What does it tell you, Ragnaar?

      • Throw me a softball. They’re not doing science.

        Now what if we switch to economics instead of science? Or the limits of renewables or any other power generation.

        I’ll say it, cede the science. We can look silly at that.

      • “Past studies have found that on average 40% of the American public believe climate change will affect them personally.”

        I am surprised that only 40% believe they would be affected by climate change. No matter to what degree or for good or bad it has to affect me. It will affect me if rains tomorrow or if it is 2 degrees warmer or cooler. Maybe a more detailed question has to asked.

      • > Maybe a more detailed question has to asked.

        I doubt it would be possible to create a question that could not be misunderstood by parsomatic artists like the ones we can find at Lucia’s.

      • “Past studies have found that on average 40% of the American public believe climate change will affect them personally.”

        I was listening to a popular radio show and they had a save the planet young women on. I think the GND inspired her. When asked how climate change had affected them, they said the loons had moved their range North. Loons are a treat. I’ve heard them call at least 5 times this year from my lake. But it was the perfect answer. She was inspired and had a cause. The loons had unfriended her and friended someone else.

        How has climate change affected you? Now look at the quote above. Will affect. Collusion with Russia will affect me. Facebook memes will affect me. A payroll tax cut will affect me. Age will affect me. Jordan Peterson will affect me. Facebook has affected me. My track coach affected me 40 years ago. My dog affects me.

      • > My dog affects me.

        Indeed. And climate always changed, so how can it be a problem?

      • “Indeed. And climate always changed, so how can it be a problem?”
        That almost gets the question in proper perspective and particularly if the surveyed question is to be used for policy purposes: Climate always changes so how can it be a problem for you personally? Please list those problems for our survey.
        This avoids the prompting that providing a list of problems would present and could also be used to gauge the understanding of the survey participant. It would take loads of work to analyze and summarize a survey of this type if it used a reasonably large number of participants, but it would inform.

      • > This avoids the prompting that providing a list of problems would present and could also be used to gauge the understanding of the survey participant.

        So you say from the comfort of your armchair.

        How many chemists have you surveyed, Ken?

      • Willard: Contrarians seldom play to win.

        I guess it depends on what you mean by “seldom”, or how you assess “playing to win”. My assessment of the (quite effective, imo) Contrarian Marc Morano is that he always plays to win.

      • > My assessment of the (quite effective, imo) Contrarian Marc Morano is that he always plays to win.

        I guess it depends on what you mean by “assessment,” “quite,” and “always,” MattStat.

        Where’s Marc’s theory to replace AGW?

      • Willard, I do not think that innuendo will further the discussion of this issue even if it is almost poetic.

      • In contrast to the concerns you’re currently raising, Ken, it was a direct comment and a direct question.

        Your “but they don’t know science like I do and I’m a contrarian” was loud and clear.

      • Willard: Where’s Marc’s theory to replace AGW?

        You said contrarians seldom play to win, not that everyone of them had a theory to replace AGW.

        Is Marc Morano one who plays to win?

      • > You said contrarians seldom play to win, not that everyone of them had a theory to replace AGW.

        I said doing science implies you can lose:

        https://judithcurry.com/2019/08/14/the-latest-travesty-in-consensus-enforcement/#comment-898372

        How can Marc lose exactly?

    • But I AM on the list, at the #131 spot when you dump it into a spreadsheet to separate the names into individual cells. It’s one heckuva honor to be sandwiched between #130 Sherwood Idso and #132 Paul Chesser. But when this paper resorts to using a Desmog list which includes minor political angle bloggers like me to make the case that “contrarian” science people get more media coverage than AGW scientists, it thus proves just how worthless this paper really is.

      • Paul Chesser

        They must have dug deep into the bowels of the internet because I have not specialized in this issue area for many years.

    • Mike Smith (@USWeatherExpert) | August 14, 2019 at 2:36 pm | Reply
      “Judy,
      I’m kind of offended I didn’t make the ‘enemies’ list.”

      I’m quite amazed thst I did !

  2. Simply another attempt to ostracize and shut down discussion that challenges the prevailing narrative. And more evidence that the journal Nature is corrupted.

  3. It was published in Nature Communications, but otherwise spot on.

    They compare (1) the publication record of those who publish well in climate research to (2) the publication record in climate research of a group of people selected on other criteria.

    They find that group (1) publishes better in climate research than group (2).

    If you compare cloudy days to Tuesdays, you find that cloudy days are more cloudy.

    • Richard Tol: Good one. And if you compare climate scientists to contrarians looking for a “consensus” signal, you find that contrarians don’t do consensus (!), while you can find a “consensus” signal in tree rings.

    • Richard, the meaning of words keeps changing in out times – for example “marriage” or “free speech” no longer mean what they used to mean. This paper attempts to redefine “University” as in “The University of California Merced”.

    • It occurs to me, Richard, that you, Judy, and a few hundred others are the modern day equivalents of Copernicus and Galileo in your time.

      The “consensus” against them was far greater than “97%”, I surmise. And we all know how that worked out.

      Your work is excellent, and instructive.

    • While it’s up to the editors to decide if their CCS / CCC ‘cloudy Tuesday’ category errors, and the inclusion of people too long dead to be talking heads merit a statistical corrigendum in Nature Communications,

      I suspect their overall conclusions will survive simply because their sample size and the scale of the asymmetries they report were large enough to get the paper published in the first place.

      It’s not easy to design a comparison protocol for adversary cohorts when one is an order of magnitude smaller and a half generation older than the other. it will be interesting to see if Bruno Latour weighs in behalf of his Sciences Po colleague, or writes a Sociology of the Sociology of Science essay on the fracas.

    • Russell, Your comment shows an ignorance of the scientific method. The quality of the evidence is what determines whether a paper is valid or should be retracted. In this case, the evidence is totally wrong. Willis Eschenbach has done an analysis. Most of the citations are wrong or meaningless. The paper is worthless. You would better spend your time learning something about science or reading Willis’ well documented post and stop trying to distract with silly comments.

  4. Excellent response to this post-normal pseudo-science, Judith. Nature is in serious decline.

  5. The Informed Consumer

    Astonishing!

    Laughable.

    Sorry Jen, and all the decent honest scientists out there. Science in general is getting a kicking thanks to the replication crisis, and who would have thought a layman would even know of it? You guys really don’t need this type of negative publicity, no matter which side of the climate street you walk along.

    Seriously? You guys have to get your heads together and figure out a means of using blogs, or better perhaps, blockchain as peer review platforms rather than being a slave to the editor of a magazine. I understand Ethereum has the platform and the will to achieve something like this. https://ethereum.org

    Just get beyond the Bitcoin bit, blockchain is much more than that I think.

    • The Informed Consumer

      NOT THE INFORMED CONSUMER……..HotScot!

      Blast WordPress!

    • I wish people would learn something about “blockchain” before the offer it up
      as a panacea.

      Blockchain(s) are data structures, linked data structures. There are a few nascent projects trying to use blockchain for science.

      One could use a blockchain ( say a DAG) for storing publications,
      reviews, data, code, ( Etherium would be an aweful choice), but the
      Key problem is science publication is

      GOVERNANCE.

      1. Who gets to add ” block”
      2. Who gets to validate that the block is “correct”

      Think of science as a data base of sorts, of records that are ordered
      in time, and also linked by reference to claims made in the paper.
      Paper A cites paper B.

      Currently the time ordering is fine, papers have dates ( better auditing could
      be provided by cyrtographically secure time stamping– bitcoin is just
      a time stamper) BUT what really sucks is the “linkage” of claims.
      Unlike patents, science papers do not make their claims in a way that is
      EASILY traceable. ie they dont make numbered claims.

      So a blockchain could be used to great a linkage of claims made by papers, but only if claims become discrete data types in a science paper.

      maybe a blockchain could be used to store the papers, the reviews, the
      submission times, the revisions ( most source control packages are
      crude “blockchains”) and the linkage of citations and claims.
      MAYBE.

      But the question of governance still remains.

      who can write a block, or propose a block.
      who validates a block and adds it to the blockchain.

      In the end Skeptics/Contrarians/Deniers— choose your badge–
      all have the same problem. They dont do science. They dont educate students. They dont publish in a shareable way what they think the case is.
      Their work work is largely static, wholly negative, and doesnt advance understanding. They propose the same old blocks that have previously ben rejected. They meme, they dont think. They don’t propose new blocks of understanding, they
      only want to prevent others from adding blocks. worse, they want to dismantel or erase the “blockchain” of knowledge that already exists.

      good luck with that

      • “They don’t do science.”

        Oh, please. All I have to do is name one name to falsify your statement. Judith Curry. If they hadn’t taken down the list I’m sure I could have named others.

        You could have easily qualified your statement by adding “some or many “

        Think before you write.

      • David Walker

        “In the end Skeptics/Contrarians/Deniers— choose your badge–
        all have the same problem. They dont do science.”

        Nor do you, according to all the evidence.

        And as your main qualification appears to be in English, I would have expected you to understand apostrophisation.

      • Yes, I think you are right about many of the denizens of blogtopla who resolutely repeat their mantras without doing any credible observations or analysis.

      • Steven Mosher: In the end Skeptics/Contrarians/Deniers— choose your badge– all have the same problem. They dont do science. They dont educate students.

        You must have missed the list of CCCs that the authors initially published along with the study.

      • “In the end Skeptics/Contrarians/Deniers— choose your badge–
        all have the same problem. They dont do science. They dont educate students. They dont publish in a shareable way what they think the case is.
        Their work work is largely static, wholly negative, and doesnt advance understanding.”
        Steven Mosher, unless you can publish what you say here I have to consider it no more than piffle – and negative piffle at that. Nature Communications would be an acceptable venue for me to at least start to accept what I have seen you say multiple times. Now if you make your case without having to present evidence of some 400 Skeptics/Contrarians/Deniers and just speak in general terms of Skeptics/Contrarians/Deniers I will give you considerable credit for bringing classification to a whole new level of efficiency.

  6. “Lets face it, these individuals are relatively small potatoes in terms of climate change main stream media. Compare the media impact of the above list with

    Al Gore
    Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez
    Greta Thunberg
    Etc.”

    This is the most obvious and fatal error of the paper. In an apples-to-apples comparison of contrarian and alarming views in the media, the most outsized media presence would be given to these individuals, DiCaprio, the pope, the royal family, etc. With zero scientific citations, the entire conclusion of the paper would be flipped on its head. This work is disgraceful.

  7. Pingback: COnsensus Enforcement In Climate | Transterrestrial Musings

  8. Matthew Janicki

    It’s like McCarthys second coming!
    This is not funny anymore, it’s becoming dangerous!

  9. I said it half jokingly in a comment last month:

    “We are in a climate crisis now, and tolerance for deniers is about to end. After all deniers are the enemy of humankind and the planet and the Grauniad is doing a public service for finding where they spread their hideous propaganda. Soon deniers will be labeled as climaterrorists and their legal prosecution will start.”

    But we are now one step closer. Labeling one person’s ideas unacceptable is the first step in denying some of his fundamental rights, like free speech.

    A renowned climate scientist born in Eastern Europe recently told me climate skeptics will have to resort to “samizdat” on the web.

    • Javier, i’m surprised that you weren’t on a list all by your lonesome: public enemy numero uno (😉)

      The way you shred alarmist arguments here in the blogosphere is nothing short of phenomenal. And i’ve oft wondered how much that accounts for. A random sampling of alarmists troll through skeptic blogs and over time they seem to be packing less and less of a punch. Does a damaged rank and file among the climate faithful account for much? (iow, can a monarchy exist without its subjects?) Or is yer humble fonz just going off the deep end here?

      • +1

      • Thank you for your kind undeserved words.

        As a realist, I think the scientifically-induced socioeconomic phenomenon of blaming GHG emissions for any change in weather/climate cannot be stopped. As with any mass illusion it will have to run its course until some other thing occupies our collective worrying minds. Under that light there is less debate because the domination by the CAGW proponents is more complete. Most scientists have been subdued into self-censorship of any skeptical expression and include disclaimers when their research points to contrarian evidence.

        A recent example:
        Cernusak, L. A., et al. “Robust Response of Terrestrial Plants to Rising CO2.” Trends in plant science (2019).
        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1360138519300998
        Its last paragraph:
        “Global climate change caused by CO2 emissions carries tremendous risks for human society. In this Opinion, we argue that terrestrial plants have responded vigorously to the historic increase in atmospheric CO2, and that adverse impacts of global climate change on terrestrial plant production have been overshadowed by the positive effects of CO2 fertilization at the global scale. However, this should not be interpreted as lessening the urgency with which global climate change should be addressed by drastically and rapidly reducing human-caused CO2 emissions.”

        It is a shameful paragraph that reveals how scientists self-censor or, even worse, self-convince that the evidence must be interpreted in the light of the dominant orthodoxy.

        We can’t stop this. We can only leave testimony that some people resisted the foolishness of this mass hysteria, the first one provoked by science.

        Not even nature can stop them. They will interpret anything that happens within the framework of their delusion.

  10. They even have dead people on the list. Christopher Booker passed away a few months ago. It appears they got their list from DeSmogBlog. Roger Pielke, Jr, and Bjorn Lomborg, both on the list, are not skeptics. They’re just not catastrophists, which is the test they apply to everyone.

  11. They even have dead people on the list. Christopher Booker passed away a few months ago. It appears they got their list from DeSmogBlog. Roger Pielke, Jr, and Bjorn Lomborg, both on the list, are not skeptics. They’re just not catastrophists, which is the test they apply to everyone.

  12. Matthew Janicki

    Excellent point. Everyone who is not a catastrophist is a contrarian.

  13. Some of us on the right have been noticing subtle and not-so-subtle media bias for a long time, this paper is a fine example of that sort of bias. When the Dr. Currys of the world who are not looking for it detect this bias, it’s probably due to the smell.

  14. Stuck in moderation. 2nd attempt

    This is another attempt to reach unanimity by dismissing the credentials of dissidants rather than engage in the substance. It reminds of a paper Regarding Anderegg et al. and climate change credibility, PNAS, Dec. 28, 2010 by Lawrence Bodenstein
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3012507/
    Excerpts:
    “The study by Anderegg et al. employed suspect methodology that treated publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise.

    In the climate change (CC) controversy, a priori, one expects that the much larger and more “politically correct” side would excel in certain publication metrics. They continue to cite each other’s work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation.

    Here, we do not have homogeneous consensus absent a few crackpot dissenters. There is variation among the majority, and a minority, with core competency, who question some underlying premises. It would seem more profitable to critique the scientific evidence than count up scientists, publications, and the like.

    Regarding purely scientific questions, it may be justified to discount nonexperts. However, here, dissenters included established climate researchers. The article undermined their expert standing and then, extrapolated expertise to the more personal credibility. Using these methods to portray certain researchers as not credible and, by implication, to be ignored is highly questionable. Tarring them as individuals by group metrics is unwarranted.

    Publication of this article as an objective scientific study does a true disservice to scientific discourse. Prominent scientific journals must focus on scientific merit without sway from extracurricular forces. They must remain cautious about lending their imprimatur to works that seem more about agenda and less about science, more about promoting a certain dogma and less about using all of the evidence to better our understanding of the natural world.”

  15. Pingback: Judith Curry: The Latest Travesty In ‘Consensus Enforcement’ - The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

  16. This is awful.

    Soon to be widely, perhaps universally, cited.

  17. My first reaction to this article was that Richard Linzen’s 80% cut in funding for climate science might have been a bit too conservative.
    Then I wend to the vitae of the lead author, Alexander Michael Peterson. He got a PhD in Physics from Boston University over 6.5 years. His list of publications however read like that of a social scientist. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0955-3483 But he is an assistant professor in the Earnest and Julio Gallo Management Program at UC Merced.

    • Two of the authors are at the UC Merced Center for Climate Communication, and were awarded US$ 10,000 for a project titled “Climate Skeptics – who are they and how are they connected” in 2017
      https://ucmerced.app.box.com/s/fxwa7eidzc6qkgjygda3w26cunm5ar6o

      These are just the humanities people riding the climate wave for funds and publications with an impact they could not dream of by publishing on other subjects. After all quality standards for publishing about climate communication are nonexistent.

    • Well that explains it. Sean.

      As a professor in the Ernie and Julio Gallo Mgmt. Program, he will sell no fact before it’s time.

  18. Of course, Judith Curry (among others) is among the 386 top-cited climate scientists, but was arbitrarily removed from the “Climate Scientists” (CCS) list (see p.12 of the Supplementary Material).

      • that puzzled me… surely Pielke jnr & snr, lindzen, spencer, christy, etc,etc are highly cited climate scientists. similarly Tol, in his IPCC area of expertise must also be very highly cited… then scientists like Happer, Dyson, etc ..

        So how were they dropped from the ‘scientist’ list, many of the ‘contrarian’ probably ‘outcite’ the ‘scientists?

  19. My latest article speaks to some of this.
    https://www.cfact.org/2019/08/13/videos-can-be-science/
    The fallacy is the idea that academic journals is all there is to science. Alarmists hide behind the journals like a shield.

    Given that the vast majority of academics are liberals who believe in dangerous AGW, this is wildly false. The liberals do not own science.

    Science is a body of discourse, not a body of journals. My growing body of skeptical videos, 300 and counting, are very much a part of science.

  20. Having recently experienced the emerging inbred system of computerized “citation metrics” – and understanding that this false metric dominates hundreds of millions of dollars of funding…

    …the event here is not surprising.

    But the summary is really nice and helpful.

    One thing caught my eye.

    “You guys have to get your heads together and figure out a means of using blogs, or better perhaps, BLOCKCHAIN (my emphasis added) as peer review platforms rather than being a slave to the editor of a magazine. ”

    My work involves tracking/stimulating innovations in complex networks.

    Part of that work is tracking the emerging “data layers” surrounding Earth, looking for innovations that can be scaled by entrepreneurs around the world.

    Most Americans do not fully comprehend the importance of the reality that almost 7 billion people have – or have access to – a mobile device, and therefore the vast global internet lies much beyond US advertising and government control.

    Because they need to provide benefit to more than 3 billion of the poorest people on Earth, the “developing” world governments have moved technically far beyond the retrograde, near-cartel, “advertising internet” of the US.

    As Judith’s post shows, in the “American-style” media/advertising internet – powerful censors can block real dialog, and can easily create media fantasies that have undue, but powerful influence back in the physical world.

    Even if you turn on all your browser securities, use a VPN, and try to eliminate advertising and cookie tracking….you will find you are still tracked, your personal data is still shared…

    …and most importantly, over the past year the Google’s, Apple’s, Microsofts, and others will BLOCK your VPN, or “cookie disabled” access except to content they want you to see.

    That is precisely what this “climate denier v.scientist” media fantasy example is all about.

    It is a very sophisticated advertising campaign (technologically, not intellectually).

    So what?

    This kind of Anglo-commercial channel restriction does not operate so well outside the advertising-dominated part of the global network.

    It is possible to use what one might call “blockchain” – and related network protocols, to create various forms of “co-op” internet space, beyond the advertising dominated space.

    I am grossly oversimplifying this.

    When the internet first scaled globally, there were free apps, that one could download to any computer in the world, and if one left that computer online, then scientists who could not afford mainframes, could “borrow the unused clock cycles” in the connected machine for massive computing tasks.

    One task was decoding the electronic telescope “noise” from distant stars. I can’t remember the app’s name, and because Google is controlling my searches only toward today’s commercial advertising, I can’t find the old app name in Google search.

    I left one PC running this app in my classroom, so students could watch this “people’s cloud” building in real time.

    India’s Garuda is very different technically, but similar in strategy and architecture.

    My point is, “blockchain” is a modern rendition of shared computing resources, that would be ideally suited for science innovation AND peer review – beyond the inbred citation-based “advertising” cartel that is now the US/EU government and their government funded “independent” universities.

    And this may seem very crazy – but I would be centering whatever this kind of scientific communication innovation is – in India, China, and Africa.

    They have the most to gain – and lose – from climate innovation. And from most scientific advances in general.

    They are also world class experts at passive energy systems. (See adobe, the building material).

    The main climate science “innovation” in the US and EU governments seems to be amassing large debt-fueled funds, and building large programs (EV’s) – while trying to avoid the centuries old threat that new science represents to legacy royal empires. Any new science that suggests old policies – like CAFE – are obsolete will not be funded or publicized.

    India and China have huge motivations to keep 3 billion people fed and happy, with unbounded new science into the unpredictable future.

    Therefore, I think a strategy of building a new research capability and peer reviewed publication system on “blockchain” with servers in India, China, and Africa would be one way to break the obvious – and crude – information cartel that the subject of this post seems to represent.

    This would apply to other fields as well.

  21. I’ve been using quote marks for decades when referring to “climate science.” From now on, it seems only LOL emojis will do.

    • I’ve adopted the term climate studies. Think they need to re-earn the science nomenclature. My level of disbelief grows daily. They appear to have no grasp of science, ethics, shame, maths or stats…. especially stats.

  22. There is no useful distinction to be made between science and science. It is drawn by those with a political agenda, an oppositional mindset and a propensity to delude themselves as to the infallibility of the group. In the skeptic camp it fosters a range of idiosyncratic and frequently mutually exclusive notions. As I noted just yesterday – without a skerrick of support in scientific literature, not a whiff of quantitative analysis and not a clue about mechanism.

  23. Reblogged this on The Inquiring Mind and commented:
    Most interesting and very revealing

  24. What are the characteristics of these contrarians?

    These are the scientists that are presenting alternative hypothesis and predictions for a complex issue. These are the scientists that dare to challenge the status quo. These are the scientists that are thinking out of the box. These are the scientists that are not influenced by politics and group think but are influenced by the data.

    I want to hear more from these brave contrarian scientists.

    • Good idea. What is the science that distinguishes these brave souls?

      • The rejection or modification of hypotheses that do not conform to observation. See Feynman, Richard

      • Actual examples in climate science?

      • Geoscience is a good example of where alternate theories are welcomed and lead to healthy discussions. I’m sure Climatology will eventually follow suit.

      • RCP 8.5 should be an example of a P99 extreme high case and either rejected or modified to be more representative of measured data constraints.

      • This is just accounting for potential future emissions – and not even the latest. Not an alternative paradigm.

      • Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2010) 365, 1297–1302

        From the introduction: “Taken together, these examples suggest that in order to better understand Earth’s environmental and ecological systems and their couplings, we need to view these as coupled thermodynamic systems that are organized in a state far from thermodynamic equilibrium. Central to thermodynamics is the concept of ‘entropy’ as a measure of ‘disorder’ or ‘randomness’. While the use of ‘entropy’ is often surrounded with ambiguity, it can nevertheless be used in purely quantitative terms to measure the distance of a given state from thermodynamic equilibrium. Hence, it would seem that entropy can serve as an important concept to characterize the organization of the unique thermodynamic states of life and Earth’s habitable environments and to understand the driving processes that result in these unique states.”

      • Maximum entropy in systems far from equilibrium? Are you suggesting that this is an alternative skeptic theory?

      • From “The Science and Praxis of Complexity” (1985): Prigogine on Climate

        Why are there climatic changes? Why are there glaciations? Why are there such dramatic changes in the quantity of polar ice? After all, the sun has always sent roughly the same amount of energy towards the earth, certainly over the last few millions of years. How is it that the earth has witnessed such dramatic changes in the ice cover and. in its climatic pattern? This problem has, of course, interested many people, but it was only some years ago that a reasonable explanation was put forward. It seems that very small perturbations deriving from small deviations in the earth’s orbit can be amplified enormously through their interaction with the biosphere. This cannot be understood as an outcome of a deterministic, black box theory; it is rather the outcome of the autonomy of the earth’s internal climatic fluctuations which can come into resonance with the small external perturbations. One can show that because of the balance of energy between the earth and the sun, there may be a principle that stipulates the following: given a cold climate and a warm climate, and a characteristic transition time to go from one the the other, if there is a small periodic exogenous effect and this period is related to that of transition, an enormous resonance can occur which will drive the climate from one type to another by an amplification of the initially small perturbations. This example underlines rather clearly how little we really know about the basic features of our environment.

      • I keep writing about this. It is mainstream with lots of more recent analysis. Try convincing skeptics.

      • The tropics is a bit of a cherry.

        e.g. remss.com/research/climate/

        But even then models have bigger problems that are known to ‘mainstream science’.

        “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” IPCC TAR 14.2.2.2

    • Renee +1

      bigterguy +1

  25. What the ecofascists hate about a democratic internet is that sceptical bloggers learn a huge amount about the earth’s climate history, climate dynamics and atmospheric and ocean circulation from blogs. It’s powerfully educational. They hate this. Many citizens now spend evenings informing themselves online rather than sitting vegetatively in front of television being brainwashed by eco fascist media organisations like the BBC and CNN.

    Climate blogging gives participants wide education in palaeo climate and climate dynamics, with associated topics such as thermal physics, statistics and low dimensional chaotic pattern formation. Contrast this with your average PhD student in an eco-fascist compliant university. My experience of hundreds of PhD’s fresh from undergrad studies is that they are immature and youthfully impressionable and have only second hand climate opinions which are eco fascist-compliant in order to impress and get jobs with ecofascist research groups. These people can have little to no real curiosity about climate processes. On receiving their PhD brief they plunge into a narrow but voluminous literature of ecofascist compliant papers all beginning with opening sentences like “In a warming world…”

    It is thus not at all surprising that the level of general knowledge about climate and historic climate changes (that really DID happen!) is much higher among motivated and engaged climate skeptical bloggers than PhD students in ecofascist university climate research groups. Many such PhD’s only learn about things like the LIA, MWP, ice ages and tectonic drift and chaotic-nonlinear dynamics by encounter with climate skeptics.

    The situation is exactly analogous to the Protestant reformation. Printing presses and translation of the bible from Latin allowed people to become informed about religious ideas and dissent from the Catholic Church was the consequence. In our generation the internet is a global equivalent of the Wittenberg door.

    So it’s becoming ever clearer how violently the elites are craving the return of an impoverished (by making energy economically unattainable) and ignorant (shutting down the internet and burning books) peasantry. But the genie of knowledge might prove hard to return to the bottle.

    • I mostly like and agree with the comment.
      Although the situation is ‘analogous to the standard whig narrative of the Protestant Reformation.’
      In reality the ‘Reformation’ was nothing more than a looting operation by the aristocracy to steal church property, and all the supposed theologic arguments and the ‘oppression’ narrative came later to cover the tracks of mass thievery.

  26. “This ranks as the worst paper I have ever seen published in a reputable journal.”

    Actually, I have to disagree with Judith’s assessment. It is one of the best papers I’ve read……..for comedic value. That is why I will be rereading the paper and some of the primo sentences whenever I want to bolster my skeptical views.

    Taken in isolation and without context the paper would be funny. Not just for being drenched in hubris and self importance but for its overreach at trying to sound sciencey. But I know they are serious and these findings will be taken deadly serious within the establishment and by extension the MSM.

    This whole sorry chapter of global hysteria outdoes itself time after time.

    Case studies about these last few decades will be taught in social psychology classes for generations to come. But in the meantime, I have to ask, where are the adults?

  27. Would the use of RICO against “deniers” and oil companies be possible if the Democrats held the White House and Congress? How about every state in the union suing oil companies, inspired by past billions gained from “big tobacco”, suing oil companies. If either came to pass, any article in any journal would become small potatoes.

    I’d guess for a subject like climate change YouTube would be a major non MSM outlet for opinion. It would be possible to research part of the situation there as the number of channel subscriptions is stated as are the number of views received by each video. A few random observations on YT: if you count “views” Michael Mann, Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen or Bjorn Lomborg rarely generate over 10,000 views: views in the 100’s are pretty common and only occasionally does someone crack 150,000. (Greta Thunberg topped out at 74K views – most far fewer.) The Pope’s comments on climate found on Vatican news are also in the low thousands, except for the very strange slide show put on in 2015 using St. Peter’s as the screen. I haven’t found any mega climate channels. Our Changing Climate has 159,000 subscribers and posts short videso which often hit 50k – one on the company Fjällräven reached nearly 3 million and another praising the search engine Ecosia hit 800,000. Tony Heller has some 35,000 subscribers and his videos are usually in the low thousands. I’m not sure how important any of this is. What you can’t measure is how many opinions appearing in the ocean of videos put out by the cable news channels “spin” climate science one way or another. Ditto with the interesting rise of the “Intellectual Dark Web” which has grown very popular indeed and generates pieces much longer than the typical YTube offering.

  28. I resent being way down at #278 in the list. As always in these matters, it is rarely clear exactly what ‘deniers” are denying. If the issue is whether human activity has contributed to the climate change of the past 140 years, then I am a believer, not a denier, and I suspect that many of the people on the list are believers. If the issue is how hot will it get, and what are the impacts, that is a totally different story. But on those matters there is a very broad gray scale, and it is impossible to classify believers and deniers.

    • The apparent lack of a proximate cause behind the halt in warming post 2001/02 challenges our understanding of the climate system, specifically the physical reasoning and causal links between longer time‐scale modes of internal climate variability and the impact of such modes upon global temperature. Fortunately, climate science is rapidly developing the tools to meet this challenge, as in the near future it will be possible to attribute cause and effect in decadal‐scale climate variability within the context of a seamless climate forecast system [Palmer et al., 2008]. Doing so is vital, as the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GL037022

      A skeptic and an alarmist leave a tent in Antarctica… Do I need to spell out who’s what in this paper? Tim Palmer says that they might be some time.

      • Yep, rapidly developing better “garbage-in-garbage-out” models with no particular ability to reflect reality. The guesses as to the planet’s distant future climate are well beyond the fundamental capabilities of the mathematics being used in the models.
        Takes a stunning level of hubris to actually believe we can predict the planet’s future climate. As Dirty Harry observed, “ … got to know your limitations”

      • “Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.” https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2011.0161


        “Schematic of ensemble prediction system on seasonal to decadal time scales based on figure 1, showing (a) the impact of model biases and (b) a changing climate. The uncertainty in the model forecasts arises from both initial condition uncertainty and model uncertainty.”

        I don’t know why this should be a surprise. Both the chaos of models shown in perturbed physics ensembles and the unpredictability of Earth systems.

      • Robert
        I know about Lorenz’ butterfly attractor (two attractor lobes) but your figure 1 is new to me – could this be the “Lorenz jellyfish” 😄

      • An attractor is on the trajectory of a single solution. Multiple solutions of a model starting with slightly different initial conditions take divergent trajectories.

        pnas.org/content/pnas/104/21/8709/F1.medium.gif
        https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709

        “Generic behaviors for chaotic dynamical systems with dependent variables ξ(t) and η(t). (Left) Sensitive dependence. Small changes in initial or boundary conditions imply limited predictability with (Lyapunov) exponential growth in phase differences. (Right) Structural instability. Small changes in model formulation alter the long-time probability distribution function (PDF) (i.e., the attractor).”

    • Hi Donald, apologies for not including you on the list of people that I’ve learned something from, but I stopped at #100 :)

  29. Looks like youall need to retain a good Constitutional attorney for this clown ride.

  30. The fact that ‘Nature’ has sunk to this demonstrates that they recognise the alarmists are losing the CAGW debate. It’s just a matter of time untill the CAGW scare is continued by just a small group ‘flat earthers’.

  31. Pingback: Pseudo-Science Doxxing: The Latest Travesty In Consensus Science Enforcement – Menopausal Mother Nature

  32. i’m surprised that Mother Earth (or Gaia) was not on one of those contrarian lists. When all is said and done, She will have the last word…

    • Doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory, doesn’t matter how smart you are, doesn’t matter how many of you there are, (O Galileo,) if it doesn’t agree with experiment, its wro-o-ong.

      • I keep wondering at what point in this massive yawning divergence between reality and the models that the consensus will start to crumble and they begin to cry uncle.


      • http://www.remss.com/research/climate/

        “Global (70S to 80N) Mean TLT Anomaly plotted as a function of time. The black line is the time series for the RSS V4.0 MSU/AMSU atmosperhic temperature dataset. The yellow band is the 5% to 95% range of output from CMIP-5 climate simulations. The mean value of each time series average from 1979-1984 is set to zero so the changes over time can be more easily seen. Note that after 1998, the observations are likely to be in the lower part of the model distribution, indicating that there is a small discrepancy between the model predictions and the satellite observations.”

        That models miss internal decadal variability should not be a surprise. And they have bigger problems than that.

        e,g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6

        But even the 2 degree target is just a step on the way to a tipping point threshold. Gaia is a bitch that way.

      • The graphic is the real problem for models – discussed above.

        “Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.” James McWilliams.

        But here’s the right graphic for the comment above.

  33. Tipping points are the new black. In Earth systems more widely – not just the absurdly narrow purview of climate.

    https://sleepinggiants.earth/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/TIPPING-POINTS_TOKYO_MARCH-2019-1.pdf

  34. I am somewhat disappointed that I didn’t make the terrorist or the terrorist watch list for all mown blog posts in the main stream media comments sections. I try as hard as I can, and yet, my science arguments are hardly even acknowledged nor addressed by the climate glitteratcia; ie the high profile climate scientist’s pontifications often found in the main stream media like NYT, WaPo, LaTimes, etc. I am not discouraged. My excellent prose finds fodder from those whose belief in “climate catastrophic with certainty just around the corner” provides evidence that they too don’t understand anything about which they say. Somewhat gratifying to know that those on their high horse that climate change catastrophe is eminently upon us with extreme weather as evidence and they unaware that similar moments in recent history are documented in current conditions, just separated by several decades.

    Try as I might, my excursions into the blogosphere, besides being banned by the LaTimes through their own editorial policy against climate catastrophe deniers, I find being castigated by the journalist educated and science ignorant somewhat gratifying. Boosting, probably wrongly, my ego for my efforts, it seems the story of a warming climate is still as fluid as first encountered by myself, way back in 2008. I stay tuned.

  35. It’s too bad they didn’t get the list right. I could have used it to find scientists with differing opinions more easily.

  36. Pingback: The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’ | Watts Up With That?

  37. Pingback: The newest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’ – All My Daily News

  38. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Is the average temperature in winter in the northern hemisphere will also be below the average of the years 1979-2000? So it is now in the southern hemisphere.

    • IP
      There has been a cold anomaly around Antarctica for at least 10 years.
      (As long as I’ve been looking at it.)
      The official explanation “it’s cooling because it’s warming” is not exactly parsimonious and will soon pass its sell by date.

  39. Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    Judith Curry writes: ‘This ranks as the worst paper I have ever seen published in a reputable journal’, calls out Nature for ‘rank stupidity’ and puts forward this query: ‘The ignorance of climate change of AOC and Greta is rather shocking. Why isn’t anyone concerned about this?’

  40. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Niño 3.4 index falls.

  41. Pingback: The latest travesty in ‚consensus enforcement‘ — Climate Etc. – Climate- Science.press

  42. Geoff Sherrington

    The Australian contrarian list gives me a strong impression that it was cobbled together by an Establishment author who sometimes peeps at blogs like Climate Etc, WUWT and Jo Nova to obtain research data. It is out of date,with 2 deceased Australians that quickly come to mind. Many others not mentioned should be on the list.
    The paper’s list fails to convey the eminence of some of the players with large contributions to meteorology. William Kininmonth and Garth Paltridge in particular held top Establishment positions when one could be round of high office. I could go on, but just Google the names to be impressed.
    Geoff S

  43. Geoff Sherrington

    Please change “round” to “proud” while cursing autocorrect with me. Geoff S

  44. I didn’t see Tom Nelson (@tan123) listed,

  45. Nature Communications received this hit list on 15 March 2018 and it was accepted only over a year later on 28 March 2019 while being published on August 13 2019.
    Signs of a consciousness or technicalities?

  46. Agreed. A very bizarre article.

  47. Suppose you are someone who believes in CAGW and you now hear that there are 386 high profile people who disagree. Might you start questioning, investigating?
    The Nature paper may have some unintended consequences?

  48. charles the moderator

    It won’t be peak 2019 until Mann is excoriated for being a climate denier.

  49. There have been numerous occasions in history when the ‘consensus’ has tolerated no dissent, and has imposed its will with dire threats under one pretext or another. Such people are always the same, and form part of the grand, universal and enduring consensus: unity in blindness and stupidity.

  50. Supplementary information has now been retracted, and data access revoked.

    • There is an update notice to the paper:

      “Editorial Note: The Supplementary Information for this Article is currently unavailable due to concerns regarding the identification of individual.”

      My guess: their attorney’s recommended immediate action after reading the letter from Roger Pielke Jr.

    • Richard (and Judy),

      How can they just redact the supplementary information and not post a notice that they’re reviewing the paper for possible changes or retraction? Just editing the list removes concerns about libel, but invalidates the paper’s methodology.

      As they say, the worst ethical problems often begin after a problem is discovered.

      • I disagree – taking the list of names down now does not remove concerns about libel. Nature and UCMerced published the list of names yesterday, via ref 64, and both gave the paper much publicity. So both are responsible for this gross violation of ethics.

        Ref 64 leads to a page at UCMerced that says

        “This dataset is private for peer review and will be released on January 1, 2020. Please contact Alexander Petersen with any questions.
        Lists of files and downloads will become available on the release date.”

      • Expanding on Paul Matthew’s discovery, we see that the authors’ claim of data availability did not survive the first day.

        The paper says:

        Data availability

        All data analyzed here are openly available from Web of Science and the Media Cloud project. Supporting article- and individual-level data are available at the UC DASH data repository 64

        Ref 64 says:

        UC DASH – Source Data files. https://doi.org/10.6071/M3K371 (2019)

        Click on that link and go to “Juxtaposition of climate change contrarians and scientists in the media using Media Cloud data”

        Petersen, Alexander, UC Merced, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0955-3483
        apetersen3@ucmerced.edu
        Publication date: January 1, 2020

        Data Files

        This dataset is private for peer review and will be released on January 1, 2020. Please contact Alexander Petersen with any questions.

        Lists of files and downloads will become available on the release date.

  51. Here is a more detailed, but similar, analysis of this paper. Also, it puts it in the wider context of the debate about public policy to fight climate change – and changes in American society.

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2019/08/15/new-paper-in-nature-communications/

  52. No, wait… these guys have authority? And, there’s a league? Wow.

    “Centerfield” – John Fogerty (w/ lyrics) – YouTube

  53. Pingback: Enlisting peer-reviewed science in the climate crusade | Watts Up With That?

  54. This whole thing, analytics aside, is just nuts. I hope youall have a plan.

    • John,

      “I hope youall have a plan.”

      That’s an important point. Skeptics don’t have a plan, or organization, or ressources – or even mutual support (i.e., they’re a bunch of Lone Rangers – except for Watts). Which is why the climate activists are winning. Slowly, surely – the best path to victory.

      They have every requirement for the decisive win but public opinion. That is natural, since taking the institutional high group – control of the power centers – both allows that as the last step and makes counter-attack more difficult.

      • Larry-
        How do you define winning? Has the world (or the USA) implemented plans to vastly reduce CO2 output?

      • Larry,
        You might enjoy a research paper that digs into this topic of citizens knowledge of climate change and specifically the effect of misinformation.
        Quoting Trump: “[climate change] wasn’t working out too well, because it was getting too cold all over the place. The ice caps were going to melt, they were going to be gone by now, but now they’re setting records . . . they’re at a record level.”
        Yes there were liberals who thought the above statement was basically true.
        https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168019864784

      • (and further, is the ipcc now losing?)…

      • Rob,

        “Has the world (or the USA) implemented plans to …”

        You are confusing “winning” with “victory.” Winning is a process of accumulating advantages that, if continued, ends in victory.

      • “Winning is a process of accumulating advantages that, if continued, ends in victory.”

        Larry

        At what level must CO2 concentrations top for you to consider the process to have been a “success, or failure for that matter”?

        Worldwide CO2 emissions as well as atmospheric concentrations will continue to rise for decades (since 1/3 of the world’s population still doesn’t have access to electricity or motorized transportation)

        I suggest your definition of winning is completely misguided. The winning nations will be the ones that best prepared for a changing climate by the construction of robust infrastructure that adapts best to the changing conditions.

      • Rob

        “The winning nations will be the ones that best prepared for a changing climate by the construction of robust infrastructure that adapts best to the changing conditions.”

        If you insert an ‘ever changing climate’ into that phrase I can agree. As far as the UK goes (I have 2000 years worth of records, many not by the ‘monks that mosh despises) we can see we are currently in a generally benign climate. The past has at times been much warmer, colder, wetter, drier, windier and calmer than the current era.

        Our infrastructure needs to be much more robust in case the weather of the past recurs, which is always possible.

        The years around 1540 were probably the warmest in the last 500 years yet barely 20 years later we were suffering the brutally cold winters depicted in Breughels paintings.

        tonyb

      • Tony

        The climate has been changing continuously and that will continue. It will continue to change positively (from humans point of view) in some areas while it changes negatively in others. Human influence will result in it changing somewhat differently, but no one knows preciously how.

        What we do know is that humanity (regardless of the nation) is not prepared for the weather of 100 years ago with today’s populations.

        Larry’s and other’s perceptions of “winning” and what should be done in response to a perceived problem is misguided at best.

    • Larry is right, there is no plan. Like all good cultural narratives, the “existential threat” of climate change satisfies many deeply held human needs and tendencies. The problem with this one is that no amount of activism can really make much of a difference. Without better energy technology, emissions will continue to rise. The lift wing malefactors of great wealth show their moral blindness here by investing in agitation and propaganda when they should be investing in developing new technology.

  55. Pingback: Enlisting peer-reviewed science within the weather campaign – Daily News

  56. I am against suppression of dissent but your association with WUWT is an association with a suppressing site. I monitor quite carefully which of my comments are suppressed there and it is entirely political. I actually with quite a lot of what they say, which is why it truly irks me that suppression is considered ethical.

    I do not agree with US Foreign policy and refuse to join any major UK party because they always kowtow to aggressive military adventurism.

    It would harm Mr Watts’ credibility immensely if being anti imperialism is grounds for suppressing contributions on climate. The sun has no politics, nor do earths oceans and nor do the rain clouds of the world.

    It really, really narks me that being a climate skeptic is not politically compatible with being against war without end….

    • Thank you for commenting on WUWT.

    • rtj1211,

      Re: WUWT

      The reaction to my posts at WUWT have been overwhelmingly negative, because I am a strong supporter of the IPCC and major climate agencies. I’ve had countless “disagreements” in the comments about this (I don’t bother much anymore, because it’s like fighting the tide with a spoon).

      IMO Watts qualifies as a prince in the climate wars for posting material that disagrees with the beliefs of his audience. Who else does that? Does Realclimate have guest posts by eminent climate scientists like Curry and Pielke Sr? Does Skeptical Science have people challenging their smears of “climate misinformers”?

      Also, Watts’ team moderates his comments with, imo, far too light a hand. If he deletes your posts, you should ask why (they usually give a reason). If posts about foreign policy are deleted for being off-topic – good. I do that too.

    • rtj1211 | August 15, 2019 at 2:36 pm | Reply

      I write disagreements with the essay writers and commenters at WUWT, and I have never had a post suppressed, as far as I can recollect.

    • I don’t do much moderation these days so I probably wasn’t involved, but reading between the lines, I can almost smell where he’s headed.

      “It really, really narks me that being a climate skeptic is not politically compatible with being against war without end….”

      Anti-semitism? Perhaps something else.

  57. Robert Ellison, 8/15 2:20 pm

    “Maximum entropy in systems far from equilibrium? Are you suggesting that this is an alternative skeptic theory?”

    I am suggesting that thermodynamics far from equilibrium is a sounder – if more difficult – route to understanding climate than assuming steady state; that global average temperature and equilibrium climate sensitivity and suchlike have no meaning for dissipative structures over many scales; that the catastrophist “propaganda bombardment” to which Larry Kummer refers is unsupported by any science capable of long term prediction. So yes, an alternative to the inanities of the popular CO2 narrative, and of the paper under discussion here.

    I don’t think we disagree a lot. But thermodynamics remote from equilibrium doesn’t, I think, equate to “mainstream” climate science, although it should. I can suppose that it’s protagonists are quietly trying to avoid being labelled as contrarians or worse.

    • You quote maximum entropy in ecology and then rail against what would be desperately obtuse ideas in climate science. Maximum entropy is a given. The planet always tends to energy equilibrium at TOA by fundamental laws. What interests more is departures from energy equilibrium resulting from spatio-temporal shifts in patterns of ocean and atmospheric circulation.

      There are potentially three modes of climate variability when forced by greenhouse gases among other things.

      Mode 1 isn’t taken seriously by other than Peter Lang. Mode 2 is what most skeptics believe. Mode 3 with shifts in means and variance is mainstream science. Although if you think you understand the difference between random and chaotic – you probably don’t.

      • A chaotic system will give the same end result IF the initial data are the same. A random system gives different end results EVEN if the initial data are the same.
        Are the initial data ever exactly the same in global climate situations?
        Better dump both these mathematical definitions for this complex entity and humble down to ‘un-modelable” to avoid fake certainties. Too bad of all those juicy AI projects planned -> artificial. Good only for Hollywood scenarios.

        At most study climate history using multiple serious proxies and highlight what you imagine did happen in roughly similar circumstances.

        Obviously don’t build in river plains, coastal low lands or heavy earthquake or landslide prone zones. Prepare for Nature’s shows of strength seen only in the distant pasts.

        First stop being singularly obsessed with CO2.

      • Initial conditions are not known with high precision – allowing for 1000’s of feasible solution trajectories for any climate model. allowing probabilistic but nor deterministic forecasting. Presuming that the model structure is correct. Missing internal variability says that it isn’t.

        The climate system changes slowly until pushed past thresholds at which stage internal variability sets the pace and scope of change.

        Random sums to zero – chaos does not.

    • Nick,
      A pleasant surprise to discover the word thermodynamics in this blog. While climate science seems mostly focussed on temperature, it might be noted that any generalized thermodynamic definition for temperature begets the concept of entropy. There’s a very readable non-technical discussion on the internet by Michel Baranger, “Chaos, Complexity and Entropy” which sketches the evolution of thermodynamics from non-linear, chaotic mechanical systems.

      To the best of my knowledge, thermodynamic dissipation is not considered in the theories of climate science. It seems inevitability presumed that the statistical mechanics for equilibrium systems (Boltzmann) applies, although models are for a system in which energy enters from a very hot source and exits at a very low temperature, typically 95% of incoming free energy being dissipated by internal processes, e.g. weather.

      I’ve recently had the time to explore some mathematics for the thermodynamics of steady-state systems far from equilibrium and notes may be found online with a click on Quondam (heading). As classical thermodynamics is based on the mathematical notion of exact differentials and path-independence, it’s not evident how one defines temperature or entropy for a non-steady-state system. Suffice it to say, solutions for thermodynamic dissipation are not those of climate science. Entropy is not an extremum except for an isothermal system. Internal distributions of flux and temperature are determined by minimal dissipation – the work required from external sources to keep a steady-state from relaxing towards an equilibrium state of maximum entropy, minimum dissipation and uniform temperature.

  58. Albert Stienstra

    It’s Ivar Giaever

  59. On the list (Curry linked) the last number is the ranking (Morano #1) anyone know what the first two numbers actually represent?

    Thanks

    • gary, the first number is the number of articles. So Marc Morano is apparently mentioned in 4171 articles. The second number is the proportion of these that are from what they call “select-30” mainstream media articles. This is very low for Morano.

      Willis Eschenbach exposes how ridiculous this in his latest article at WUWT. The authors used blog posts as examples of media visibility. Even more insanely, they counted mentions in comments under blog posts! So this comment I have written here, mentioning the name “Willis Eschenbach”, would count as media visibility for him according to the criteria of this dumb paper.

  60. Pingback: The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’ |

  61. Roger Pielke senior agrees with the view I expressed above, that removing the linked information with the list of names does not resolve the issue.

    • To confirm whether the media favours articles mentioning contrarians by 49%, here are the results for two google searches:

      … for Judith Curry: About 9,950,000 results
      … for Greta Thunberg: About 79,600,000 results

      Restricted to category News:
      … for Judith Curry: About 25,100 results
      … for Greta Thunberg: About 23,400,000 results

      ‘Fundamentally flawed’ seems a rather tactful characterization.

  62. Wait, doesn’t Ronald Bailey agree with the IPCC consensus?

  63. CCC = Climate Change Champions. CCs = Climate Change Scientists

    CCC go down in scientific history.

    CCs go down in shame.

    That is my prediction.

  64. Two predictions:
    1) soon the All Gore/AOC/Greta block will label IPCC as a contrarian run outfit
    2) any migrant entering US who is originally from a warm climate region such as Central America will be automatically granted asylum as a climate refugee. So refugee from colder climates such as North Korea will have to wait….

  65. I read the outrageous slander of arguably some of the most qualified Climate Science experts on the planet as Dr. Curry posted for all of us to see and discuss along with these brilliant comments and a little voice in the back of my head asks, “So what exactly did Al Gore do to qualify for a Nobel Prize?”

    • ‘So what exactly did Al Gore do to qualify for a Nobel Prize?”

      Even less than Obama. Hmm. These prizes couldn’t be politically motivated could they?

      tonyb

  66. Sören Floderus

    So, just wrote to Petersen via Nature’s contact form: Dear Sir,
    My name in your list published is not in order, labeling me as “contrarian” and relating such to “misinformation” or “disinformation” (both versions are around). I have done nothing of that kind. Correct labeling might be just “unconvinced”. Please remove it immediately or I’ll need to start discussing what else can be done.
    Sincerely, Sören Floderus

    • Sören Floderus

      Oh well, Springer’s system sends technical bounce: couldn’t deliver it.

      • Look at the paper and follow the link in ref 64. It takes you to the page where the full data set used to be until they pulled it yesterday. On that page it now says “Please contact Alexander Petersen with any questions” and his email address is given there.

      • Sören Floderus

        Sent it via LinkedIn instead.

  67. Sören Floderus

    Thanks Paul, I’ll do that too

  68. To put it bluntly, the subject is censoring unpopular scientific views. The second author of the paper (Emmanuel Vincent) is a founder of climatefeedback.org, a website that provides a set of volunteer climate scientists to the opportunity to review news stories about climate science.

    https://climatefeedback.org

    The criteria for commenters will exclude most of the prominent critics of the IPCC consensus.

    https://climatefeedback.org/for-scientists/

    Google, Facebook and other organizations are extremely upset about the fake news problem (see the Cosmic Ping Pong Pizzeria) that the Russians used social media to help Trump win the election in 2016. It is a serious problem. These internet platforms have instituted a wide variety of measures to keep “unreliable information away from the public by ranking it lower on searches, keeping it from new feeds, posting warnings (such as seen on youtube videos skeptical of the IPCC consensus).

    https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17142788/google-news-initiative-fake-news-journalist-subscriptions

    https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/04/07/google-fact-check-tags/

    The internet platforms are relying on various fact-checking organizations, including: Politifact (aka the Poynter Institute, a journalism school with a Pulitzer Prize for fact checking), Factcheck.org (the Annenberg Public Policy Center at U Pennsylvania), and the Washington Post’s FactChecker. From a practical point of view, fact-checking is the old-line liberal media and journalism schools passing judgment mostly on conservative media. Emmanuel Vincent spoke at two workshops the Poynter Institute sponsored in 2017, one at the National Press Club in Washington DC.

    http://emmanuel.vincent.earth/public-speaking-teaching/

    So Emmanuel Vincent is already in the business of implementing the vision advocated by this paper of changing “the disproportionate attention given to contrarians”. The internet platforms have already begun to make it harder for “fake news” to spread through their platforms. The only places they are willing to turn for “independent” help are these liberal fact-checking organizations and groups like climatefeedback.org.

  69. The authors are writing under the auspices of the Center for Climate Communication, University of California, Merced,

    “UC Merced opened Sept. 5, 2005, as the newest campus in the University of California system and the first American research university of the 21st century.”
    “Climate Communication” invariably means propaganda.

    LeRoy Westerling has a Ph.D. in Economics and International Affairs, from
    the Department of Economics and the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, UC San Diego. Fields: Environmental Economics, Insurance, Applied Econometrics, Comparative Policy Analysis. He also has a B.A. in International Economics/Chinese Studies, December 1987, Department of Economics, UC, Los Angeles. Fields: International Economics, Development Economics, Finance, Chinese Studies.
    Yet he is now a climatologist:
    https://www.ucmerced.edu/content/leroy-westerling
    Research Interests: Applied climatology, Climate-ecosystem-wildfire interactions, Statistical modeling for seasonal forecasts, paleofire reconstructions, and climate change impact assessments, Resource management and policy. A further web site with an updated photo…
    http://ulmo.ucmerced.edu/

    Petersen is described as a Physicist, http://physics.bu.edu/~amp17/#
    His PhD was: Applications of Statistical Physics to the Social and Economic Sciences.

    Vincent boasts about Macron’s “Make our Planet Great Again” where he offered research grants to scientist wishing to leave the US under Trump http://emmanuel.vincent.earth/
    He was actually a Post-doc at MIT before Richard Lindzen retired. He should be ashamed of falsely labelling such an eminent scientist.
    He runs a site called https://sciencefeedback.co/
    “Science Feedback is a worldwide network of scientists sorting fact from fiction in science based media coverage. Our goal is to help readers know which news to trust.”

    These scientists should perhaps be on one of their own lists.
    “Most of the contrarians are not scientists, and the ones who are have very thin credentials” Much thicker, I would suggest, than their own.

  70. Pingback: Dissed By Thunk Tank Climate Flacks In Nature Magazine – William M. Briggs

  71. The truly amazing thing in this story is that nobody, from UC Merced that financed the study to Nature Communications that published it, realized that it is absolutely unethical to publish a study with the names of the subjects without obtaining their prior written consent. This is a humongous violation of ethical normative that violates the rights of not only the contrarians, but also the category of “real scientists.” There should be serious legal consequences for the journal and the authors, and perhaps the institution for financing a study whose goal was to identify the contrarians.
    “Climate Skeptics – who are they and how are they connected”
    https://ucmerced.app.box.com/s/fxwa7eidzc6qkgjygda3w26cunm5ar6o
    It is obvious that the goal of any study in a public university is to disseminate the results.

    It is also a sign that even universities and scientific journals have no second thoughts to deprive perceived climate contrarians of their fundamental rights.
    O tempora o mores!

    • I’m assuming that in all their travels the individuals responsible for publishing the names and then removing them from the paper would have heard about The Genie and The Bottle.

    • Correct. I have linked the UC Merced ethics document below, which says amongst other things “We will respect the rights and dignity of others.”

    • Javier: It’s not only unethical, it is against the rule of academic publishing and against the law in the EU.

    • Javier: it is absolutely unethical to publish a study with the names of the subjects without obtaining their prior written consent.

      It is also illegal in the US (where the study was approved and conducted). I conjecture that the IRB was not informed of the intention to publish the names in Supplementary Information. I expect that somebody at UC Merced will look into this seriously. Well, I hope so.

  72. UCMerced has an ethics document on its website.

    It says:

    “We will respect the rights and dignity of others.”

    I can’t see where to send reports of violations of this policy. Maybe somebody else can and put in a report.

    • > I can’t see where to send reports of violations of this policy.

      Every time I see a Hearland Conference poster I tell myself that.

      • Willard: Every time I see a Hearland Conference poster I tell myself that.

        You made that up, right?

        Do you think it is a joke when University faculty violate the stated ethics standard of the University?

      • Willard: Isn’t begging two questions one question too many for one comment, MattStat?

        No.

        You need only write a couple of truthful propositions.

      • Why are you denying that the Heartland Conference has posters, MattStat?

      • Willard: Why are you denying that the Heartland Conference has posters, MattStat?

        I am not. So the question is without a predicate, so to speak.

      • > So the question is without a predicate

        So was your first claim about ethics.

        Featuring on public posters matters quite a bit when comes to time to argue that data should be anonymized.

      • Willard: So was your first claim about ethics.

        They violated standard ethics when they published the names of the people whom they studied without prior permission.

        Featuring on public posters matters quite a bit when comes to time to argue that data should be anonymized.

        Also called “de-identifying” it is a standard ethical requirement in research on humans.

        If, in addition, they did the research without prior IRB approval (the IRB would have warned them against posting the names), then they are in double trouble. IDK, but there was no explicit notice in the published paper (unless I missed it) that they had obtained IRB approval.

        I am most interested in how this plays out.

      • > They violated standard ethics when they published the names of the people whom they studied without prior permission.

        Your proof by assertion is duly noted.

        Here’s another study with names or researchers revealed (h/t VeeV):

        The world’s most-cited researchers, according to newly released data, are a curiously eclectic bunch. Nobel laureates and eminent polymaths rub shoulders with less familiar names, such as Sundarapandian Vaidyanathan from Chennai in India. What leaps out about Vaidyanathan and hundreds of other researchers is that many of the citations to their work come from their own papers, or from those of their co-authors.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02479-7

        Many contrarians feature in that list, which is unsurprising considering that their bench is thin.

      • Willard: Your proof by assertion is duly noted.

        Yeh, I am not really an authority. I have just taken a “bunch” of research ethics courses and written a “bunch” of IRB submissions in the UC system.

      • Willard, for actual authority, we can start here, and search for more detailed documentation:

        https://www.ucop.edu/ethics-compliance-audit-services/_files/stmt-stds-ethics.pdf

      • oops, I meant to direct readers’ attention to sections 7 and 8 of https://www.ucop.edu/ethics-compliance-audit-services/_files/stmt-stds-ethics.pdf.

        All research involving humans has to be approved by IRBs. This covers assembling and reporting on “publicly available” data bases because those may contain errors. With time and money, we could probably get the IRB approval form, if any, for this study using the FOIA.

        “Psychiatric” research includes research on sleep disturbances in women undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. You can find more examples at my ResearchGate page.

      • > sections 7 and 8

        You mean paragraphs 7 and 8 of a simple Statement of Value. I suppose I should celebrate that you did not cite dictionary definitions for “ethics.”

        Let’s recap. Just Asking Question. Proof by assertion. Appeal to authority. Handwaving to an unsubstantial source. Some INTEGRITY ™ we got there.

      • Willard: Handwaving to an unsubstantial source.

        That is the official UC policy.

        The Belmont report that informs most of these university policies is a little abstract:

        https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html

        More about informed consent here:
        https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/decision-charts/index.html

        It is the IRB, not the researcher, who decides whether the informed consent is needed or not.

        There’s this:
        https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/informed-consent/index.html

        Can records or databases be reviewed to identify potential subjects without obtaining informed consent or parental permission?
        Yes, under certain circumstances. Although the HHS regulations do not specifically reference this type of activity, sometimes referred to as “preparatory to research,” such an activity must be reviewed and approved by an IRB in accordance with HHS regulations at 45 CFR 46.109(a) when:

        The activity involves human subjects research, as defined by the regulations at 45 CFR 46.102(f);
        The research does not meet the criteria for exemption under HHS regulations at 45 CFR 46.101(b).
        In general, informed consent of the subjects, or parental permission for children involved in research, must be sought and documented in accordance with, and to the extent required by, HHS regulations at 45 CFR 46.116 and 45 CFR 46.117 respectively.

        However, an IRB may approve a consent or parental permission procedure that does not include, or that alters, some or all of the elements of informed consent, or may waive the requirements to obtain informed consent (45 CFR 46.116(c) or (d)). In order to permit investigators to obtain and record identifiable private information for the purposes of identifying potential subjects, OHRP expects that IRBs routinely will waive the requirement for informed consent for such activities. In assessing the level of risk to determine whether a waiver of informed consent or parental permission is permissible for the identification of potential subjects, the IRB need only consider the risk of investigators accessing the subjects’ identifiable private information, not the risks of the research in toto.

        And there’s this: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/investigator-responsibilities/index.html

        You’ll notice the requirement for confidentiality

        What are investigators’ responsibilities once a study is completed?
        If all research-related interventions or interactions with human subjects have been completed, and all data collection and analysis of identifiable private information described in the IRB-approved research plan have been finished, then the human subjects research study has been completed. When a human subjects research study has been completed, the investigators no longer are required to obtain continuing review and approval of that study by the IRB. The investigators should follow any applicable institutional policies and procedures for notifying the IRB of the study’s completion.

        Once a study has been completed, investigators may keep the data they collected, including identifiable private data, if consistent with the IRB-approved research plan. Investigators should continue to honor any confidentiality protections of the data.

        Investigators also should honor any other commitments that were agreed to as part of the approved research, for example, providing information about the study results to research subjects, or honoring commitments for compensation to research subjects for research participation.

        There actually is lots more. Just about everything requires approval of the IRB before research can begin.

        You’ll have noticed that UC Merced and Nature immediately took down the tables containing identifying information.

        Most research published by universities that involves human subjects contains an explicit statement that IRB approval was obtained. The funding organization for this study may not have required such a statement, so its absence in the paper may not indicate anything important.

        I expect more details to be made public this week.

      • Willard: Some INTEGRITY ™ we got there.

        Working from memory, mostly, I might be wrong. I have not yet come across the rule requiring that the informed consent form have on it (a copy of) the seal of approval of the IRB, but so it is — or was when I worked for UCSD.

      • Let me get this straight, MattStat – are you suggesting that bibliometric studies require an IRB?

      • Willard: Let me get this straight, MattStat – are you suggesting that bibliometric studies require an IRB?

        Yes.

        Here’s the Federal language again:

        Can records or databases be reviewed to identify potential subjects without obtaining informed consent or parental permission?

        Yes, under certain circumstances. Although the HHS regulations do not specifically reference this type of activity, sometimes referred to as “preparatory to research,” such an activity must be reviewed and approved by an IRB in accordance with HHS regulations at 45 CFR 46.109(a) when:

      • > Here’s the Federal language again

        The first thing would be to check what’s a research subject. It’s in §46.102.

        I haven’t seen any IRB in Ioannidis’s study cited above. He’s at Stanford. I’ve never seen contrarians wonder about his research is ethical. I’ve seen many contrarians cite his research.

      • Willard: Willard: Let me get this straight, MattStat – are you suggesting that bibliometric studies require an IRB?

        When you first encounter these regulations, they can seem Draconian to you. Like lots of other regulations, rules, laws, etc., there’s a history. Ordinary free-ranging citizens have lots of rights, and might be able to legally do this work in their garages or home offices. University-based or Federally/Foundation funded researchers have obligations and restrictions that have been written out and widely disseminated..

      • > Like lots of other regulations, rules, laws, etc., there’s a history.

        Like a lot of episodes with contrarians, there’s history here too:

        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/10/09/ceci-nest-pas-un-sokal/

        So I researched a bit that topic already. Here’s how Ioannidis formulates what I’m trying to tell you:

        Patient involvement
        No patients were involved in setting the research question or the outcome measures, nor were any involved in the design or implementation of the study. There are no plans to involve patients in the dissemination of results, nor will we disseminate results directly to patients. Therefore, ethics approval is not required.

        https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/6/1999/4061562

        At best you could go for a legal case, but then you’d have to establish harm. This may be hard to prove, as the study itself shows that contrarians take advantage of having a thin bench.

      • Willard: Here’s how Ioannidis formulates what I’m trying to tell you:

        He’s not the authority. I cited the governing documents.

        The rules exist because of the history of abuse by researchers. IRB approval is required when there is a risk of damage to participants, including damage to reputations and earning ability.

        What you tried to tell me is this: Every time I see a Hearland Conference poster I tell myself that.

        Everything you have written since is you shifting your ground.

      • > He’s not the authority.

        This does not counter the fact that he published bibliometric studies without an IRB.

        That you published psychiatric stuff seems to bias your intuitions.

        ***

        > Everything you have written since is you shifting your ground.

        Not really. I addressed directly the only point you may have.

      • Willard: This does not counter the fact that he published bibliometric studies without an IRB.

        Since the Peter Boghossian case, that may be reconsidered.

        It is important to note that the UC Merced study explicitly studied people. That’s where the protection of human subjects comes in.

      • > Since the Peter Boghossian case, that may be reconsidered.

        James, Peter, and Helen’s scam wasn’t a bibliographic study. Editors and reviewers were subjects.

        Wishful thinking won’t make them similar.

      • Willard: That you published psychiatric stuff seems to bias your intuitions.

        I have been writing about my required training. The training covered the material that is in those documents that I linked and excerpted. If you have read them, you’ll have discovered that the training is required of everyone before they engage in human subjects research.

        What the Bhogossian case and UC Merced case have in common is publishing enough detail that particular persons could be identified (for Boghiassian, it was the dates and journals, which allowed identification of the editors.). The UC Merced posted the literal list of its subjects for public review — surely you agree that posting violated the written ethical requirements. What makes these ethics regulations (actually, Federal Laws) applicable is the study of human subjects. You and I do not get to vote on the issue of what constitutes a serious risk — to reputation, earnings, etc. That power devolves upon the IRB. (I never served on an IRB, have you done so? It’s a side issue, just curious)

      • > What the Bhogossian case and UC Merced case have in common is publishing enough detail that particular persons could be identified (for Boghiassian, it was the dates and journals, which allowed identification of the editors.).

        Peter got caught fabricating data and studying subjects without getting an IRB. As far as I recall, the decision has little to do with identifying anyone.

        You’re clearly being argumentative here. This contrasts with your earlier suggestion that reading legal stuff suffices. The fact is that the informations we can find in bibliographies and on conference posters are public. I provided evidence that they can be studied without an IRB.

        Good luck arguing your case on proper channels otherwise.

      • Willard: You’re clearly being argumentative here. This contrasts with your earlier suggestion that reading legal stuff suffices.

        I don’t think I said that reading legal “stuff” suffices.

        Our differences are pretty well laid out, and everyone now knows where to read the governing documents — including the Federal law. Nature Communications removed one offending document. For the rest, I think we’ll have to watch what happens next.

      • > I don’t think I said that reading legal “stuff” suffices.

        I took your for actual authority, we can start here, and search for more detailed documentation as a suggestion that it was a mere matter of knowing the rules. Your [t]hey violated standard ethics also suggests it’s a clear instance of ethical violation. If that was the case, many bibliometric studies would violate standard ethics.

      • Willard: as a suggestion that it was a mere matter of knowing the rules.

        I don’t know how you inferred something like “mere” about reading excerpts from the laws and policies. That’s a start. University researchers planning research involving human subjects also have to take the online training. It says so in the regs.

      • Willard: If that was the case, many bibliometric studies would violate standard ethics.

        That could be.

        We might end on agreement. Do you agree that publishing the list was a violation of the written laws and policies? Do you think that taking down the list was a proper response to criticism. To me, the answers are are Yes, and Yes, it’s a start.

      • > Do you agree that publishing the list was a violation of the written laws and policies?

        No, I don’t, and in fact I think it more than suboptimal to suggest that much so confidently.

        We need better Cs. There’s only one rule for being one. Search for “Rules for Cs” at Crooked Timber to know which one. You can guess what C stands for, and why I write C.

      • Latest(?) on Bhogossian, including requirement to take training.

    • Paul

      If you go to the website there is a list of the departments

      https://www.ucop.edu/

      ‘Ethics and compliance’ might be the first port of call. Clicking on the link takes you to a name and email address

      tonyb

    • Paul Matthews: I can’t see where to send reports of violations of this policy.

      Start here: https://rci.ucmerced.edu/

      This page has an email address:
      https://rci.ucmerced.edu/human-subjects-protections-irb/faqs

      more detail is here (note the requirement for training, and explicit presentation of the informed consent form):
      https://rci.ucmerced.edu/irb/researchers/irb-submission-checklist

  73. “To this end, the consortium science framework whereby teams of teams organize around a common goal, with a mission to share returns both within and beyond organizational boundaries—is an appropriate model for facilitating cross-disciplinary knowledge exchange and achieving the transformative breakthroughs needed to address this grand challenge. We see this collaborative pattern in the structure of citations within the broader CCS community documented here (Fig. 7), but not within the CCC community, which is too small to encompass the complexity required to grapple with the fundamental issues of CC science. At the same time, this complexity poses a significant challenge to communicating climate science to the broader public, which makes the public discourse on climate science more vulnerable to the opinions of contrarians whose prominence in the media is disproportionate to their representation in the scientific community.”

    The broader CCS community are oblivious to the fundamental issues of CC science. It is a cross-disciplinary herding of ignorance of the solar forcing of annular mode anomalies and of the associated inverse response of the major ocean phases. Claiming all that to be internal and unforced is the greatest climate change disinformation, and proves a total lack of knowledge of real world climate dynamics and feedbacks. And more importantly, it denies the broader public the means to predict what actually effects them most. They scurry around blaming solar driven heatwaves on our CO2 emissions to tax and punish us, while remaining remarkably silent on killer cold-waves, and they can predict neither. Humanity would be lost without contrarians to collective conditioning [CCC].

    • The annular modes – both of them – may be influenced by some aspect of solar intensity – magnetism, UV or cosmic rays.

      e,g, – https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001/meta

      But polar surface pressure is modulated by multiple factors and there is no simple correlation. And after that – it’s all internal dynamics.

      • “But polar surface pressure is modulated by multiple factors and there is no simple correlation. And after that – it’s all internal dynamics.”

        That unsubstantiated gesturing may resemble your internal dynamics. I have hundreds of years of hindcasts and ten years of forecasting AO/NAO anomalies at weekly scales, which concludes that most of the anomalies would not even exist without their discrete solar forcing.

      • Yet you have no quantitative analysis, no support in scientific literature and no clue about change in the complex dynamical Earth system flow field.

        https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16000870.2019.1596519?scroll=top&needAccess=true

      • Yet you have no quantitative analysis, no support in scientific literature and no clue about change in the complex dynamical Earth system flow field.

        I do have a quantitative analysis for my unique findings, and there is support in the literature for correlations between daily solar wind speed and AO/NAO anomalies. You have no clue about ‘change in the complex dynamical Earth system flow field’, else you would not have cited that article on feedbacks. SST anomalies do not dominate AO/NAO anomalies but the AO/NAO anomalies certainly dominate the SST anomalies, as the article describes. Your continual habit of being contrary with no support is most tedious and boring.

      • “Our hypothesis is that there are positive feedbacks that enhance the AO and negative feedbacks that weaken it.” BTW

      • “Your continual habit of being contrary with no support is most tedious and boring.”

        What I said was factual. What you said was personal abuse. Learn the difference.

        I have given two references on possible solar links to polar annular modes. Here is another.


        lam-2013-geopotential-at-polaes

        This is far from saying that this is the only – or even the major – cause of SAM or NAM variability. And then it only biases a dynamic flow field to one state or other in a resonant Earth system.

        As I said – https://judithcurry.com/2019/08/14/the-latest-travesty-in-consensus-enforcement/#comment-898251

      • “This is far from saying that this is the only – or even the major – cause of SAM or NAM variability”

        Obviously it is not the only cause, but there’s nothing there to say that solar wind variability is not the major cause of weekly scale AO/NAO anomalies. Have fun finding anything else that can drive weekly scale AO/NAO anomalies.

        “And then it only biases a dynamic flow field to one state or other in a resonant Earth system.”

        Ahem. It’s only the leading mode of variability in the whole climate system

      • You go way beyond data to rank speculation.

      • I have hundreds of years of hindcasts of what drives regular AO/NAO anomalies, which the rules derived from have been applied to weekly scale forecasts since 2008. The data free speculation was all yours, namely your hand-waving of multiple factors and ‘all internal dynamics’.

        Lockwood:
        “Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?”

        1968-69 and 1978-79 winters are ideal test cases, being at sunspot maximum rules out lower UV and higher cosmic rays. But both were during the greatest lows in the solar wind in those sunspot cycles. I have consistent evidence to show that the heliocentric configurations of the gas giants in those years produces such cold events, and can map down to weekly detail of the timing of each cold event by the relative positions of the inferior bodies. And qualify that in their close heliocentric analogues 179.05 years earlier.

  74. Not surprising. Just more of the effort to destroy any alternate opinion to the ‘official narratives’.
    The internet got away from the elites, its full on damage control.
    Not going to work.

  75. To what extent is it binary? People are not. But the problem is we have a binary discussion. What can be in the climate media? It can be binary and that’s a tried an true formula. It describes WUWT for instance. It’s easier to be binary.

    They said in a binary situation, we are losing and we should not be losing. They complain about the media. So the media is unfairly binary. But that’s not quite right. It’s binary and we should win. So it should be 1 on the bad guys side and 10 on the good guys side. But if it wasn’t binary is would be 0 to 10. Which would no longer be binary.

    But in any way is the problem binary? No. Effective communication is not saying it’s unfair. Or it’s the media’s fault. It’s their fault. They lost and are complaining. That’s not effective communication. They are just complaining further weakening their position.

  76. Fifty years ago this year I completed my Internship with NASA on the Apollo Program and received my undergraduate degree in Physics. We loaded some of our computer programs using IBM cards and paper tape, and many of our calculations were done using slide rules …I still have my K&E (Keuffel & Esser) Slide Rule in its leather case. The Lead for the project to which I was first assigned was 29 years old and had 3 PhDs. We put men on the moon. During the past 50 years, what happened to NASA and Academia and the Media and the other government agencies who formed an alliance to achieve that goal?

    • Well, kudos to you and nasa of that time, but I wouldn’t say that academia has stand still doing nothing since man on the moon.
      Discovering/ verifying the existence of gravitational waves has not been a piece of cake either… just to mention one known case.

  77. Dear Judy,

    I tweeted a link to this paper, fully aware that I’m listed as a “contrarian.”

    I’ve presented at three Heartland conferences. In all three, I was the ONLY presenter arguing against “the party line.” By definition, that makes me a contrarian.

    Also, my wife frequently disagrees with me.

    Q.E.D.
    Scott Denning

  78. Check out this post by Willis, the paper is even stupider than I thought
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/15/visibility-and-invisibility/

    • curryja: the paper is even stupider than I thought

      It reads as though they had no data quality control at all.

      • It reads as though they had no data quality control at all.

        OTOH, Willis is indeed an extremely lucid and effective “contrarian” (not to be confused, as the authors want us to, with “denialist”), despite the bizarre manner of his selection.

      • The CCS list is the subject of a recent sub-thread over at RealClimate.

        David B. Benson first said:

        mike @139 – Your final link is to a paper by Mark Jacobson. He has ruined his reputation and is a well-known ideologue. To be ignored.

        I then asked:

        #145 David Benson said; He has ruined his reputation and is a well-known ideologue.

        Do you mean this Mark Jacobson at Stanford University, who has about 27,000 citations, (ca.14,000 in past five years), to his peer-reviewed publications in climate science?

        Your assertion about a person, stated with no supporting data or argument, lacks the specificity that once was the hallmark of RealClimate. Supply information to support your ad hominem, otherwise your comment carries no facts and should be discarded.

        And David replied:

        Dan Hughes @151 – You may wish to read prior threads here on Real Climate which support my assertion regarding Mark Jacobson. I am not going to repeat the story of his PNAS fiasco; too well known.

        I have submitted:

        Well, this is strange. While at #145 David Benson claims that Professor Mark Jacobson has ruined his reputation and is a well-known ideologue, this recent peer-reviewed paper ranks him in position 35 out of 386 highly-cited Climate Change Scientists, CCS.

        Kinda makes you wonder just how many other highly-cited Climate Change Scientists might already be in the well-known ideologue category.

        (The last sentence might be a double entendre, if you get my drift.)

      • OTOH, Willis is indeed an extremely lucid and effective “contrarian” …

        And clearly miffed at his middle-of-the-pack ranking.

  79. I tweeted to the author that this paper wasn’t worth printing on toilet paper. I’m sure I’ve been subsequently blocked, but I don’t care enough to ever check. This entire paper is a non-veiled attempt at an elaborate appeal to authority. It’s troubling, but a minor issue when compared to NOAA temperature manipulation. When you have the ability to change past temperatures and no one cares, it’s a real problem.

    Welcome to the Orwellocene.

  80. That didn’t take long…..posted at WUWT, the shot across the bow….
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/16/fraud-breach-of-right-of-privacy-and-libel-by-nature-communications-naturecomms/
    Fraud, breach of right of privacy and libel by Nature Communications @NatureComms
    Guest Blogger / 1 min ago August 16, 2019

    Elisa de Ranieri, editor-in-chief, Nature Communications, David Gevaux, chief “physical-sciences” editor, Fiona Gillespie, managing editor, Jasper Franke, associate editor, “Earth team”, Alexander Michael Petersen, asst. professor, engineering, Emmanuel M. Vincent, “climate communications”, Anthony LeRoy Westerling

    15 August 2019

    Mesdames, gentlemen,

    Fraud, breach of right of privacy and libel by Nature Communication….
    ….
    Here, the defendants recite yet again what that Communist front group proclaimed as the Party Line well over a decade ago: the science is settled (when the defendants know it is not); the consensus is near-unanimous (when the defendants know that it is limited only to the question what fraction of global warming is anthropogenic, and that on that question the defendants are in a tiny, insignificant majority that they are fraudulently presenting as though it were an “overwhelming” majority); and we must act (when in fact we must not act, for if we act we cause needless economic and environmental damage).

    With good reason, then, I reiterate the requests set forth at the beginning of this letter. I shall expect answers from each defendant within seven days of the date of this letter.

    Yours faithfully,

    https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/clip_image038_thumb.jpg?resize=240%2C39&ssl=1

    Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

  81. charles the moderator

    In case someone wants to view the SI, someone put it up as a torrent.

    magnet:?xt=urn:btih:4DA0F366D421D022732036BD2D1A9B57507D92B3&dn=ark%2b%3d13030%3dm50c9t1z_version_3.zip&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3a80%2fannounce&tr=udp%3a%2f%2ftracker.opentrackr.org%3a1337%2fannounce

    • So no list of the other side, the so-called “climate scientists”? And now the supplementary information has been removed…I was mistaken in my previous comment. I initially thought the lists Dr. Curry gave was of all parties. Too astonished by this to have read it carefully! We can make our own lists. A tedious bunch of people, but well-funded.

  82. There is now a new editorial note at the foot of the paper:

    “16 August 2019 Editorial Note: This is an update of an editorial note issued on August 15. Readers are alerted that the editors are aware of a number of criticisms related to this work. These criticisms are being considered by the editors. The Supplementary Information for this Article is currently unavailable due to concerns regarding the identification of individuals. We will publish an update once our investigation is complete.”

  83. “Katherine Hayhoe (with HUGE MSM presence) doesn’t make this list; is anyone concerned about her outsized Kardashian Index?”

    What gets Hayhoe so much attention, I’m convinced, is that she’s a “man bites dog” story: a (professed) evangelical who has climate science credentials and marches in perfect step to the whole climate alarmist tune, while evangelicals are the most skeptical demographic in America about CAGW. There are additional reasons, of course: she’s telegenic, she’s a really good speaker, she plays on audiences heart strings, she can mix humor into her messages, and TIME named her a while back among America’s 100 most influential people.

    And how did they overlook Vijay Jayaraj (who’s published scores of articles critiquing CAGW) and Neil Frank (former National Hurricane Center director who’s also published a good many pieces? (By the way, I’m #101 on the CCC list.)

  84. Pingback: Nature Defamation | Climate Scepticism

  85. ‘The only ‘consensus’ demonstrated to date
    is that the global-warming community
    is a weird mob.” ~Tony Thomas

  86. Pingback: Natural Gas Now Best Picks of the Week - August 17, 2019Natural Gas Now

  87. Sören Floderus

    I’d favor any attempts to have them retract, illegalise the list, apologize. I’m not wealthy, and/but know I don’t misinform (and have not – guess that’s not true with all), and that the article is crap generally (for citing Cook et al for example). Now Monckton writes there’s both criminal and civil case in it – don’t know which first step to take beyond a first mail already sent; just reporting through my Copenhagen police online-form seems the simplest, but it also says: only criminal cases here.

  88. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Solar activity rules the weather.

  89. Pingback: Nature, o lo que hoy quieren hacer pasar por ciencia | PlazaMoyua.com

  90. JC Writes “Apart from the rank stupidity of this article and the irresponsibility of Nature in publishing this, this paper does substantial harm to climate science.”

    How long before papers are titled more enticingly?

    “You wont believe how many gastropods are threatened by climate change”

  91. Is Brian Cox mentioned? I don’t see him on the list. Any list…Maybe I missed it.
    What a mess. So sorry. ☹️

  92. Commenting on July 7 2019 I asked:
    Yes radiative physics is science but what is the atmospheric response?

    https://judithcurry.com/2019/06/29/week-in-review-science-edition-104/#more-24999

    phil salmon | July 7, 2019 at 10:15 am |
    Yes radiative physics is science but what is the atmospheric response?
    A certain Hungarian ex-employee of NASA could help you with that.
    He is the only person who tested the atmospheric thermodynamic reaction to increased CO2 with experimental data (radiosondes) rather than computer models, and was punished accordingly.

    Carbon Dioxide is a Cooling Gas According to NASA

    https://coldclimatechange.com/carbon-dioxide-is-a-cooling-gas-according-to-nasa/

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO) are two substances playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface tending to cool not heat. !!!!!

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    Robert I. Ellison | July 5, 2019 at 5:33 pm | Reply
    The radiative physics of greenhouse gases is not consensus science. It is science.

    But clouds – with bistable dynamics – are hard. A new video from Caltech.

    https://climate-dynamics.org/
    There are risks and rational responses. Electricity is 25% of the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. A multi-gas and aerosol strategy is required – carbon dioxide. CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. Along with ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity. And technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry.
    ordvic | July 5, 2019 at 5:40 pm | Reply
    Yes radiative physics is science but what is the atmospheric response?
    Robert I. Ellison | July 5, 2019 at 5:47 pm |
    Atmospheric warming.

    phil salmon | July 7, 2019 at 10:15 am |
    Yes radiative physics is science but what is the atmospheric response?
    A certain Hungarian ex-employee of NASA could help you with that.
    He is the only person who tested the atmospheric thermodynamic reaction to increased CO2 with experimental data (radiosondes) rather than computer models, and was punished accordingly.

  93. Monckton’s legalistically styled umbrage at being outed as a contrarian? It seems incredible that this could be seen as defamation – or that such a relatively high profile contrarian has not surrendered rights to private contrarianisms long ago. Taking on climate science legally as fraud is just mad hilarity.

    What I know about Monckton is some half arsed math purporting to disprove global warming. He is joined in this by sky dragon slayers, Misloski’s optical depth and volcanic, Saturn in opposition to Jupiter, geothermal or water vapor reductio ad absurdum .

    • Geoff Sherrington

      RIE,
      Had you met Christopher Monckton and discussed some contentious climate matters (as I have done) you might need to revise the unkind, unwarranted and incorrect picture you have drawn of him here, based mainly on the hearsay of others and your fertile imagination.
      You run a blog of your own. Why not desist for a time (like a decade) from bombing Climate Etc and so leave space for those wanting to discuss good, hard science without so much ad hom content? Geoff S

    • Robert I Ellison: Monckton’s legalistically styled umbrage at being outed as a contrarian? It seems incredible that this could be seen as defamation – or that such a relatively high profile contrarian has not surrendered rights to private contrarianisms long ago. Taking on climate science legally as fraud is just mad hilarity.

      You evidently do not know the contents of the paper or of his letter. It is your usual disdain for accurate wording and accuracy in other details.

      He is not “taking on climate science”.

      • “I shall report the fraud to the Serious Fraud Office, to the Chief Constable of South Gloucestershire, and to Interpol, and shall request that the addressees hereof be added to the list of those under investigation for scientific and financial fraud in connection with the systemic and profitable international over-promotion of the imagined problem of “global warming.”

        A word used 68 times – including in the title – in pseudo legalistic posing. Hilarious – as is Matthew.

      • Robert I Ellison: A word used 68 times – including in the title – in pseudo legalistic posing. Hilarious – as is Matthew.

        He is not “taking on” climate science. He is “taking on” the editorial staff and possibly owners of Nature (and now staff and administrators of UC Merced), for their statements about him. He has never “taken on” climate science, he has critiqued a method for calculation of climate sensitivity, and some other specific claims. He has written of his support for “the consensus” — Earth has warmed and human activities have played a part.

        He is “taking on” persons, not climate science, for reprehensible behavior, and asking that those persons be investigated for scientific and financial fraud. Exaggerating the risks of climate change induced by anthropogenic CO2 can boost circulation and bring in grant income, so there is at least a prima facie case to be made against those named persons.

      • Matthew is occasionally a little more semantically slipperier than these others who troll about after me with the same disparagement. But distinguishing between
        the fraud of climate science and of climate scientists evades the point. That reporting it to Interpol is utterly mad.

      • Robert I Ellison: But distinguishing between
        the fraud of climate science and of climate scientists evades the point.

        You really don’t understand — he is objecting to potentially slanderous/libelous claims about himself, not propositions about science; viz, the implicit claim that he “disinforms” or “denies climate”.

      • Being called a contrarian is slanderous? I thought it was a sign of intellectual rigor and moral integrity. I’ll keep that in mind for contrarians like Matthew. But Monckton is as mad as a hatter.

      • Robert I Ellison: Being called a contrarian is slanderous?

        If the authors and UC Merced PR folks had left it at “contrarian” there’d be no potential libel: it’s when they went for “climate denier” and “disinformer” and such for the whole group of contrarians that they raised the issue.

      • Absolutely hilarious. For trollery and trivia you can’t go past these guys.

      • Robert I Ellison: For trollery and trivia you can’t go past these guys.

        I think we’ll learn more this week. Including how many protest letters Nature received.

  94. It appears that they simply took the DeSmog Blog “Climate Disinformation Database,” i.e. their Enemies List, and put an academic veneer on it:

    https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database

    And they are completely oblivious to the irony in claiming there is 90 plus percent consensus on climate change and yet hundreds of experts have to be exposed and shamed on these enemies lists. If there is widespread consensus, what’s the problem?

    This is fascist science. “If you don’t support the party line, we will destroy you.”

  95. Pingback: Blacklist by Nature follows defamation by BioScience: journals reject ethics of science | polarbearscience

  96. A little humor never hurts. A summary Graph from Nature.com.

      • Has anyone “peer-reviewed” this assertion?

        Albert Einstein published 300 scientific papers.. How many of those were Peer reviewed?

        How many of Einstein’s 300 plus papers were peer reviewed? According to the physicist and historian of science Daniel Kennefick, it may well be that only a single paper of Einstein’s was ever subject to peer review.

        MAYBE ONE….
        http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/

      • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review

        “While some medical journals started to systematically appoint external reviewers, it is only since the middle of the 20th century that this practice has spread widely and that external reviewers have been given some visibility within academic journals, including being thanked by authors and editors.[10][14] A 2003 editorial in Nature stated that, in the early 20th century, “the burden of proof was generally on the opponents rather than the proponents of new ideas.”[15] Nature itself instituted formal peer review only in 1967.[16] Journals such as Science and the American Journal of Medicine increasingly relied on external reviewers in the 1950s and 1960s, in part to reduce the editorial workload.[14] In the 20th century, peer review also became common for science funding allocations. This process appears to have developed independently from that of editorial peer review.[4]:221”

      • TEWS:
        “Albert Einstein published 300 scientific papers.. How many of those were Peer reviewed?

        How many of Einstein’s 300 plus papers were peer reviewed? According to the physicist and historian of science Daniel Kennefick, it may well be that only a single paper of Einstein’s was ever subject to peer review.

        MAYBE ONE….”

        Utter bilge.
        Kennefick was writing about the reverental reception afforded Einstein’s papers in the last decades of his life:
        “Albert Einstein had two careers as a professional physicist, the first spent through 1933 entirely at German-speaking universities in central Europe, the second at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton, New Jersey, from 1933 until his death in 1955. During the first period he generally published in German physics journals, most famously the Annalen der Physik, where all five of his celebrated papers of 1905 appeared.”

        He also published many of his 300 works in Naturwissenschaften>

        Sending papers out to expert referees for peer review was these journal’s normal editorial practice.

      • Newton, Einstein, Watson and Crick, were not peer reviewed …according to Joanne Nova…so perhaps you need to correct HER “bilge” as well…no need to be rude to me.
        http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/newton-einstein-watson-and-crick-were-not-peer-reviewed/

      • Can you tell us if Jo & David apologized to the financial victims of their Global Cooling hedge fund yet ?

      • Russell, Once again you present zero evidence of anything. Peer review does not actually replicate anything or do more that find superficial errors and inconsistencies. In my experience, it is rare for reviewers to even read the entire manuscript carefully. They are unpaid and don’t have time unless the topic is of critical personal interest to them (such as its by a competitor).

  97. Pingback: Post-Modern Witchhunt: Nature Publishes Blacklist Of Critical Scientists & Writers - The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

  98. Pingback: Christopher Monckton takes a bite from the elephant – Piece of Mindful

  99. The paper in Nature, “Discrepancies in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians.”

    At first I thought the authors were perpetuating a tongue in cheek joke and I myself had responded in kind. And, thanks to Joanna Nova, author of the children’s book: “Serious Science Party Tricks” has thankfully provided her own “Nature” cover in keeping with the jocular theme of climate science. Great fun. Another hoax. Everyone is being had.

    It did occur to me recently, that these shenanigans has put some Nature editors in a bit of a pickle as such naming names carries some legal issues. Yet, in the vein of “free speech”, pressing such issues would have a hard row to hoe. Another issue for the editors: giving their journal a black eye for not addressing the authenticity of the paper nor its contents.

    In the tailings of this article’s data mining we may see a sort of beginnings of the end, sort of speak of a retreat from the edge of the climate science abyss, ie, the loss of interest in going into a field where ridicule is the norm. Suddenly, it may be you who is the brunt of such derision through no fault of your own. A scene from Robespierre’s French Revolution. Who would want to go into a field where politics is the only thing that matters? The Machiavellian glitterati are the only survivors. Cue Mike and Gavin and Kevin and…

    A science stays fresh with the constant infusing of bright minds. Absent such, we are forced to concede: stale ale.

  100. Pingback: Fighting the Blacklist (With Comment by Steve) | Ubuntu News

  101. There is one Earth System Science ‘narrative’ to rule them all.

    It is a narrative of grand challenges in economics, security, environment and development going far beyond a narrow climate purview in a world unified as never before.


    https://grandchallenges.org/video/grand-challenges

  102. Pingback: Fighting the Blacklist (With Comment by Steve) • Just Conservative Views

  103. Pingback: Fighting the Blacklist (With Comment by Steve) – Just Conservative Views

  104. Judith:
    “‘The ignorance of climate change of AOC and Greta is rather shocking”

    There is no better immersion course in climate reality for a sixteen year old than a transatlantic crossing on a very wet boat. AOC should volunteer to save a tonne of jet fuel otherwise needed to fly in return crew by spending two weeks before the mast on back on Malizia II‘s return voyage

    ( she can return to Congress on any of the sailing cruise ships that shuttle between summers in the Med and winters in the Caribbean.)

  105. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup # 372 | Watts Up With That?

  106. Pingback: Weekly Local weather and Vitality Information Roundup # 372 – IT INFORMATION

  107. There is science and then there is a public discourse full of trite stereotypes – such as with this paper – and echo chamber talking points. Real climate science is settled. The future is unknowable but catastrophes are inevitable. It has always been so. People who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

    The only rational discussion to be had now is what to do about it in ways that meet grand economic, environmental, security and development challenges.

    • Robert I Ellison: Real climate science is settled.

      Except possibly for

      a: how much warming will follow the expected increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration?

      b: how fast will it occur?

      and

      c: what will be the consequences of that warming?

      • Unknown, unknown and unknown. Which bit don’t you comprehend?

        At about the 12 minute mark – considering your short attention span.

      • Robert I Ellison: Unknown, unknown and unknown. Which bit don’t you comprehend?

        They are unknown and the science is “settled”?

      • “Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.” https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709

        Now I know that’s over your head. A question is how far? A secondary problem relates to practical limits to knowledge – and how to facilitate action – on the grand challenges discussed – under uncertainty and apparent risk.

      • Climate science is settled, natural climate changes stopped and Man now uses a tiny trace gas for a thermostat control, except it does not work that way.

    • Robert I Ellison: The only rational discussion to be had now is what to do about it in ways that meet grand economic, environmental, security and development challenges.

      With so many important known unknowns, a rational discussion is proving to be a challenge.

  108. Ask you uncle and aunt (assuming they do not read this blog) if they know Mark Morano and they will look you puzzled in the eye. Ask them if they have heard about Greta, Al Gore and Extinction Rebellion and they will respond affirmative.

    This small poll really tells you who get the most media coverage: it’s the alarmists by a wide margin.

  109. Pingback: Blacklist by Nature follows defamation by BioScience: journals reject ethics of science | Watts Up With That?

  110. Scientists arguing about who gets the most media exposure is pathetic and disheartening. It is a clear sign that politics has replaced science in “climate science”. The fact that the article was published in Nature damages that publication’s reputation.

  111. Keep in mind this paper is really a criticism of the media, not the “contrarians.” This makes the genuine awfulness of it even more disastrous for team catastrophe.
    Dozens of environmental beat reporters and their editors at major news organizations around the globe know they’ve been 100% team catastrophe boosters, often to the clear detriment of objectivity.
    All of them just got called merchants of doubt in Nature based on the ludicrous claim that Marc Morano gets more press than Greta and Bill McKibben. Team catastrophe just forced news organizations to pay attention to the team’s dishonesty and sloppiness.
    I don’t think the result will be more Moreno in the Washington Post, but it may mean more reliance on politicians and less on the folks who’ve outed themselves as unreliable activists.
    Those politicians are either nuts like AOC (even the Post slapped down the Green New Deal as a fairy tale) or looking for an excuse to exit from the goofery – Merkel’s pivot to natural gas, Macron’s dash from the yellow vests, Australia’s left’s political irrelevancy.

  112. Reblogged this on Quaerere Propter Vērum.

  113. Here (who is also on the honor role of skeptics) is my take on this farce:
    https://www.cfact.org/2019/08/19/blacklisting-climate-skeptics-will-not-work/

    My conclusion:
    Amusingly the authors, like many alarmists, seem not to understand their own findings. They call for holding media outlets “accountable” for giving attention to skeptics. But they also point out that skeptics are especially prevalent in blogs, which are uncontrollable.

    Mainstream media is already top heavy with alarmism. They could stop mentioning skepticism entirely and it would not matter, because skeptics own the blogosphere. This is the populist power of the Internet. We no longer depend on left wing mainstream media for information, more for laughs.

    When it comes to the climate change debate, biased mainstream media is no longer significant. Blacklisting skeptics will not work.

  114. Where are the “real” climate scientists who should be standing up to condemn this rubbish and distance themselves from it?
    I note that a few have done so, I salute them. Where are the rest?

    Is it still an achievement to be published in a Nature journal? What does Nature’s management feel about the scientific equivalent of the “gutter Press” and do they see it as a business opportunity or the road to destruction?

  115. Pingback: Det stora bråket om Natures svarta lista - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen

  116. Take a look at:
    https://principia-scientific.org/holtzbrinck-bertelsmann-agents-of-german-climate-imperialism/

    It helps to explain what has happened with the journal Nature, why contrarians have difficulty getting published, why the media has been so one-sided and more. Incredible.

    • Thanks for the link.

      Excerpt from the conclusions:
      “Abandon all notions of impartial climate science. In publish-or-perish academia, publishers reign. In Holtzbrinck’s alarmist legions march a thousand journal editors.”

  117. “Where are the “real” climate scientists who should be standing up to condemn this rubbish and distance themselves from it? I note that a few have done so, I salute them. Where are the rest?”

    You going to the global streets for climate truth, ghgasman!?
    (I agree with you on everybody else).

    KLUG
    https://ocw.mit.edu/give/our-supporters/john-klug/

  118. The editor of the journal Nature Communications who published this travesty did an interview in February on integrity, peer review and ethics:

    “What is the role of editors in peer review?

    The editor plays a crucial role in championing and safeguarding the integrity of peer review. This is particularly true of professional editors, as they are less prone to competing interests when assessing a research work and can thus be more objective in their decisions. A key task performed by editors is reviewer selection, which is essential to maintain the integrity of published material. Professional editors have the competence and time to provide a high-quality and robust peer review experience.

    Editors will also work in collaboration with the research community to develop quality and reproducibility standards for doing and reporting research that can be implemented via journal policy, for example using checklists during the peer review process. In this way, they foster integrity in the publishing process and promote ethics in research practices.”

  119. “He who hates reproof is stupid” – King Solomon in Proverbs 12:1, roughly 3,000 years ago.

    The authors and editors of this Nature article have now received detailed and substantive criticisms, here and elsewhere, on both moral and methodological grounds. I do hope that they respond quickly and appropriately, and that they resist the temptation to despise their critics or take them for ignoramuses, devils, or fools.

    Since one measure of a person’s character is how he responds to criticism, and since non-scientists are rightly inclined to weigh a scientist’s character in deciding which scientists to trust, the stakes are high. Nature’s credibility, and, by association, the credibility of all whom the paper’s authors call “expert scientists”, is in the balance.

  120. How many anagrams of “Greta Thunberg” can you find in the following text?

    Greta Thunberg was recently overheard arranging a berth for herself on a ship heading to Antarctica, on a great berg hunt, it was claimed. All her belongings she packed in a single rucksack – she called it her green truth bag. At the media send-off she trotted out robotically the urgent brag about impending climate disaster and coercing climate obedience from all. Some were heard muttering the term “green brat thug”, a none too complimentary epithet for the sweet climate crusader. On and on she moralised about saving the world – more than one had clearly heard it all too many times. “Let the bugger rant”, one was heard muttering.

    A cousin of hers, Gareth Nutberg, was sailing with her, apparently, along with his toddler half-sisters, Grunt Hateberg and Ruth Grebegnat. Once embarked and on the open sea, certain universals of sea faring soon manifested themselves on the ship’s aft deck as alcoholic beverages appeared as if by magic and the beer truth gang sang loudly in out-of-tune Swedish late into the night. Shouting over this inebriated cacophony, the ship’s cook Hatter Eggburn together with the medical orderly, Reg Bungthreat, tried to give a speech about good eating and digestive health on board ship, but no-one paid much attention.

  121. Thanks for publishing this. This reeks of the propagandist smear campaigns that called out named climate scientists by name and in Wikipedia writing / rewriting of biographies notably Pielke Sr. with fake climate propaganda smears, speaking here of a years long edit war led by climate goon William Connelley. “… a 2009 (internal) Wikipedia arbitration … concluded that Connolley had used administrator privileges to his own advantage in content disputes, and these privileges were (being) removed.
    More recently, Science Magazine appears to have dropped Rush Holt as CEO… “n July 2019, AAAS announced that Holt was taking immediate leave and would retire effective 1 September 2019.” AAAS / Science has plunged deeply into climate propaganda, cif, the lead editorial in Science 31 May 2019: Vol. 364, Issue 6443, pp. 807 titled “A Call to Climate Action.” Excerpts below.
    .
    The science is clear, students are striking, and publics around the globe are demanding a new level of leadership to tackle the climate crisis before it is too late. Climate extremes are inflicting serious economic losses on nations, and climate-driven issues such as sea-level rise, regional aridification, food shortages, disease spread, and massive biodiversity loss only promise ever-worsening costs. Progress has been too slow since 195 countries signed the 2015 Paris Agreement committing to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels. To prevent planetary climate disaster, we must all work to speed up bold initiatives that ensure a rapid exit from the era of fossil fuels and drive carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere down to zero in a manner that benefits everyone on the planet, not just a few. “…solutions to address the climate crisis must quickly widen and include effective ways to soften the blows of climate change that are already inevitable. Solutions must strive to enable communities, businesses, societies, and natural systems to become resilient and adapt to the changing climate. The rapid expansion of adaptation strategies around the globe requires greater integration of academic research knowledge with the insight gained from real-world practice, and this means placing greater priority on partnership between academics and non-academics.” “…it is abundantly clear that absent climate change mitigation, adaptation strategies will in many cases become overwhelmed, leading to unacceptable costs to both human and natural systems … top priority must remain the elimination of the greenhouse gas emissions that (drive) climate change … greater emphasis must be placed on positive synergies between mitigation and adaptation actions, especially those that maximize the protection of biodiversity and soils.” “Only by working together…can the community of nations avoid catastrophic climate change… requires societal transformation of a scale and rapidity that has rarely been achieved … the last time was sparked by global economic depression and World War II. What enabled action then was a perceived existential threat and broad support in society … (t)oday we are faced with such a threat, but widening wealth disparities and special interests impede the needed change…(t)he solution thus requires strong commitment to equity and justice to indigenous peoples and future generations and to a global transformation that vastly increases the number of those who benefit while dramatically reducing the number of those who do not .. true at national scales and also a planetary scale … by a top priority now can the community of nations avoid catastrophic climate change creating a more sustainable and just 21st century.
    .
    Unclear, it might appear Holt’s departure was sudden / unexpected. None to soon for me. Stephen Chu who served as Barack Obama’s Science Advisor may have a less political approach to running what used to be the world’s premier scientific publishing organization (although he is cleearly is a warmist).

  122. If the Alarmist position would have any substance at all, they would not have to resort to such a sham. Just think about it. When you know that your position is untenable but you must absolutely persevere – what do you do? Exactly, you scratch anything that you can use to manufacture anything that resembles evidence backing you up. If you had quality evidence, you would not have to resort to such shoddy tricks. You would lean back, confident that your superior evidence will carry the day. But they can’t do that – they know that their case falls apart faster than a tower of wooden blocks facing a toddler so they need to use whatever crap they can cook up. Oh, I did it again. I mentioned Cook – makes me think of his cooked up 97%.

  123. Pingback: Nyhed | ”Nature” sortlister forskere - en politisag? - Indblik.net

  124. Pingback: Mark Steyn: End of the Peer Show - The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

  125. The biggest deceit of all is to treat expertise as only factor that matters, completely ignoring the motivation of the funding source.

    Government funds climate science and stands to expand itself on the back of a successfully alarmed public. No surprise then that an alarmist consensus is duly manufactured. And no surprise either that integrity and throwing the scientific method overboard in pursuit of a preconceived alarmist conclusion, are shown to be endemic by the stamp of approval given to the Climategate cheating by both management most of the rank and file.

    And the people who produce Nature are on government paychecks too are they ?

  126. Significant too that some of the ‘real scientists’ were in it up to their necks in Climategate.
    That unrepentant charlatanry tells us all we need to know about the ‘consensus’.

  127. Pingback: „Skeptiker werden 49% öfter in den Medien erwähnt“ und andere Märchengeschichten aus der Klatschspalte von Nature – EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie

  128. Pingback: „Skeptiker werden 49% öfter in den Medien erwähnt“ und andere Märchengeschichten aus der Klatschspalte von Nature - Leserbriefe

  129. Pingback: „Skeptiker werden 49% öfter in den Medien erwähnt“ und andere Märchengeschichten aus der Klatschspalte von Nature - BAYERN online

  130. Pingback: Energy & Environmental Newsletter: August 29, 2019 - Master Resource

  131. The comments on the Nature site are… variable, some of them quite disappointing, really, for a prestigious magazine.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4#article-comments

  132. Pingback: The ABC’s Bended-Knee Adoration of Al Gore Tony Thomas | RUTHFULLY YOURS

  133. Pingback: The ABC’s Bended-Knee Adoration of Al Gore – Quadrant Online

  134. Pingback: The ABC’s Bended-Knee Adoration of Al Gore | No B-S here (I hope)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s