Robust Science! More Than 30 Contradictory Pairs Of Peer-Reviewed Papers

I get mail, too.

Though not very friendly at times. But here’s one from reader Jimbo who delivers quite a neat collection of contradictory reports. No matter if it’s hot-cold, wet-dry, green-brown, windy-calm, bad-nice – its all due to manmade climate change.

Hi Pierre Gosselin,
The last time you posted the following list on Notrickszone a Warmist [Hunneycut?] attacked it as being from news stories. I have now changed all the links to point to PEER REVIEWED materials and made it even longer.
Partly referenced and inspired by Numberwatch.
What I want to know from ‘Warmists’ is what would falsify the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming?


Amazon dry season greener
Amazon dry season browner

Avalanches may increase
Avalanches may decrease – wet snow more though [?]

Bird migrations longer
Bird migrations shorter
Bird migrations out of fashion

Boreal forest fires may increase
Boreal forest fires may continue decreasing

Chinese locusts swarm when warmer
Chinese locusts swarm when cooler

Columbia spotted frogs decline
Columbia spotted frogs thrive in warming world

Coral island atolls to sink [?]
Coral island atolls to rise [??]

Earth’s rotation to slow down
Earth’s rotation to speed up

East Africa to get less rain
East Africa to get more rain – pdf

Great Lakes less snow
Great Lakes more snow

Gulf stream slows down
Gulf stream speeds up a little

Indian monsoons to be drier
Indian monsoons to be wetter

Indian rice yields to decreasefull paper
Indian rice yields to increase

Latin American forests may decline
Latin American forests have thrived in warmer world with more co2!

Leaf area index reduced [1990s]
Leaf area index increased [1981-2006]

Malaria may increase
Malaria may continue decreasing

Malaria in Burundi to increase
Malaria in Burundi to decrease [?]

North Atlantic cod to decline
North Atlantic cod to thrive

North Atlantic cyclone frequency to increase
North Atlantic cyclone frequency to decreasefull pdf

North Atlantic Ocean less salty
North Atlantic Ocean more salty

Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to decline [???]
Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to grow [?]

Plant methane emissions significant
Plant methane emissions insignificant

Plants move uphill
Plants move downhill [?]

Sahel to get less rain
Sahel to get more rain
Sahel may get more or less rain

San Francisco less foggy
San Francisco more foggy

Sea level rise accelerated
Sea level rise deceleratedfull pdf

Soil moisture less
Soil moisture more

Squids get smaller
Squids get larger

Stone age hunters may have triggered past warming [?]
Stone age hunters may have triggered past cooling

Swiss mountain debris flow may increase
Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease
Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease then increase in volume

UK may get more droughts
UK may get more rain

Wind speed to go up [?]
Wind speed slows down [?]
Wind speed to speed up then slow down

Winters maybe warmer [??]
Winters maybe colder ;O)


Update: Also see Joe d’Aleo’s link here:

35 responses to “Robust Science! More Than 30 Contradictory Pairs Of Peer-Reviewed Papers”

  1. Jimbo

    Please note that the list above was partly referenced and inspired by Numberwatch. The differences between this list and Numberwatch are:

    1) I have tried to select my sources only from peer reviewed letters, papers, abstracts, correspondence etc, or from the IPCC.

    2) The list contains only research that appears to arrive at contradictory and opposite findings.

    3) Items and links in brackets are just for extra information purposes though some are peer reviewed.

    4) I have also added many of my own finds to the list.

    1. Jimbo

      News just in. Remember when you were told that increasing co2 in the atmosphere would cause more precipitation? Now we are told that decreasing it caused……………..more precipitation!

      “………..precipitation increase is due to the heat-trapping property of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”

      “If we could cut carbon dioxide concentrations now, we would see precipitation increase within the year, but it would take many decades for climate to cool.””

      The paper is here:
      Decreasing CO2 causes short-term increase in precipitation

      H/t Steven Goddard

  2. Joe D'Aleo

    Hi Pierre

    They got both sides of virtually every issue covered.

    See post on Ten failures of consensus science. We had brainstormed 30 such failures but wrote up the first ten.

    A forecaster would lose his job with even a few busts like that, but no one in the MSM challenges them.

  3. DirkH

    I would love to see this list in the MSM. It’s a pity that their only job is to sell illusions.

  4. mindert eiting

    Thanks, Jimbo. You are also writing science history. Perhaps this may be used in philosophy courses as a demonstration of the logical principle that a false theory implies everything ( p and not-p). Yesterday I posted here a link to an article which convinced me (as a lay man) that the theory contradicts thermodynamics. We also know why AGW is false.
    By the way, Rob Honeycut is still alive. A week ago he was at WUWT. Perhaps your post may seduce him to come back at NTZ, which will be appreciated by Pierre and all his guests, I presume.

  5. Bob W in NC

    Pierre –

    I regularly pass on this type of information from your blog that exposes the fraud of AGW to many of my friends. You, WUWT, and others provide an outstanding forum and source to educate all of us who are not trained in meteorology in this area.

    I pass on the following wisdom in peer-reviewed literature (biology and medicine) I found some years ago. It should be pounded into the head of every warmist, because it has universal application in science (my emphases):

    1. “‘Truth’ in science is NEVER absolute; it is simply the answer which at any given time best fits the available evidence – and in the assessment of scientific truth, there is inevitably an element of subjectivity.” Alder, DP. Lancet II(7988):742, 1976.

    2. “…the ability to predict is the ULTIMATE test of understanding.” Hartline, BK. Science 203:246, 1979

  6. DirkH

    O/T Interesting German article about Baden-Württemberg’s energy future. The Greens were the winners of the election.,259269_puid,1_pageid,17.html

    Details: There wer 4 nuclear reactors in BW, producing up to 50% of the electricity needed in BW. Two are off now, due to Merkel’s edict to switch off the 7 oldest following the Fukushima accident. The Greens want these two to stay switched off forever. No word about what they’ll do with the two remaining.

    The land had to import 10% of its electricity even when all nukes were running. Now this shortfall will increase substantially and will have to be covered by extending generator capacities of existing coal- and gas fired plants, and of course, more imports. And renewables – the Greens want to increase Wind power in BW from 6% “five-fold” (Hello fluctuations, Hello blackouts!); solar does a measly 2% ATM.

    The article states (without attribution to the Greens; so it’s the opinion of the writer i guess):
    “Ein weiterer Ausbau von Kohle- und Gaskraftwerken wäre wegen des CO2-Ausstoßes und der damit verbundenen Klimaerwärmung ökologisch verheerend. ”
    “A further increase of gas and coal fired capacity would be ecologically devastating due to the increase in CO2 emissions and the climate warming connected to this.”
    (Trying to translate this as literal as possible)

    This experiment will be interesting to watch. As i said before, it’s a hilly country and they probably used all windy spots already for the wind turbines they have…

    Citizens of BW, get yourself one of these (i don’t own stock):

    …and good luck. You elected them, you pay for it. 😉

    1. Bernd Felsche

      They’ve been insane in B-W for quite a while, guided by a tiny minority of fools; as in the cancellation of construction of a the reactors at Wyhl in the 1970’s.

      Maybe they prefer the Black Forest to become a forest of wind turbines. It takes only about 3000 of them to go anywhere equalling the power generation of one reactor. So 6000 wind turbines will need to be planted, consuming about 10 times the amount of concrete and 5 times the amount of steel of “conventional” power stations of the same, real output (if there’s wind blowing in the region). And that’s before one considers the deforestation necessary to build access roads for construction and entrenchment for an underground power grid. Of course, those wind turbines will be imported from China.

      Proponents of wind farms tend to be ignorant of the basic laws of nature, like Le Chatelier’s principle. From which one concludes that the wind energy will substantially move to a height above the turbines as the wind “sees” the turbines as an obstruction.

  7. Ted

    Hi Jimbo.
    Great job, thanks to guys like you, Pierre, Joe and the many skeptics who’s only interest is to see that the truth bubbles to the surface of the scum pond that climate science has become. Keep up the good work we are finally on the + side of the issue, still miles to go but we have the winning hand.

  8. On “robust” climate science | JunkScience Sidebar

    […] Robust Science! More Than 30 Contradictory Pairs Of Peer-Reviewed Papers By P Gosselin […]

  9. nofreewind

    Jimbo, you’re a star!! You made it to Climate Depot. Way to Go.

  10. Rob Honeycutt

    Jimbo… Did you bother to try to contact any of the scientists involved in these studies and get their opinions on what you view as contradictions? If you were genuinely curious and skeptical I would expect that you would.

    1. DirkH

      Burdening skeptics with homework the well-funded scientists should be doing…

      1. Rob Honeycutt

        Dirk… And are doing. That’s part of the problem. You guys get to make up pretty much anything you want on a whim. It takes real work to go in and research the real answers.

        All I’m saying is, if Jimbo is truly skeptical then he’ll endeavor to roll up his sleeves and find out what the contradictions are about by contacting the authors of the papers themselves. Maybe there are conflicts and contradictions. But what do those scientist have to say about it? Is it just that new data has become available? Is it that some of the research is showing different results? Is it that the scientists disagree about the results? What are the actual contradiction? Making a list of contradictions tells me absolutely nothing.

        I do this all the time. The scientists are almost all quite amenable to answering politely worded questions, even if you’re on the other side. I had a long and detailed back and forth with Craig Loehle on his research a while back. He was quite nice. Likewise I’ve had nice correspondences with Dr Richard Alley.

        What’s the problem with doing a little homework? I’d be much more willing to accept the contradictions if I knew there was some serious sweat put behind it. Right now this is still a fluff piece. Give me something I can sink my teeth into.

    2. Ed Caryl

      Step 1.
      Read the papers.
      After you have done that, you can move on to:
      Step 2,
      Ask authors about contradictions.
      Have you completed step 1?
      Ed, where have you been! I was thinking of starting a search for you. Welcome back! – PG

      1. Rob Honeycutt

        Ed… Dirk just above you seems to think the authors should be doing that homework. I can go in and do Jimbo’s homework for him. But that’s going to result in a piece that I write and publish.

        1. Ed Caryl

          Do it, Rob. PG will be glad to publish it here.

      2. mindert eiting

        Hopefully, Ron de Haan will also join the party when he has arrived at a place in the world where sanity rules over left dogma’s. This he wrote yesterday at Lubos Motl’s site.

      3. Ed Caryl

        I’ve been lurking.

  11. Dappledwater

    Whomever collected these hasn’t bothered to read the papers on the Amazon forest greening/browning. Firstly you’ve linked to the wrong paper on greening. I think you are meaning Scott Saleska’s paper.

    The rainforest can indeed green-up during the early stages of the dry season, because of the reduced cloud cover, i.e sunlight reaching the tree canopy increases, and because rainforest trees are deeply rooted therefore and able to access water deep in the soil, there is a burst of growth. But this isn’t some magical property, once the water runs out, drought stress and tree death can occur.

    As for Saleska’s paper claiming a green-up during the 2005 Amazon drought. Didn’t happen. See Samanta 2010 & 2011. Saleska and his co-authors have erred in their interpretation of the satellite data. There are a number of long term forest plots in the Amazon, and actual ground observations show drought stress and tree death from the 2005 event. Makes sense really when you stop to think about it.

  12. DirkH

    What these scientists do is simply run a climate model – in some cases they run an “ensemble” of climate models and average them, which is of course equivalent to running one model that consists of the sourcecode of all the submodels (but for some reason they believe that multi-model is superior) – and then they write a paper about certain wiggles they observe in the model outputs.

    They believe in “publish or perish”, and the wiggles in the model outputs give them a lot of opportunities to publish papers. If one of these papers contradict an earlier paper, all the better: You have created a “controversy”, and can now busy yourself publishing rebuttals and have a little fun with the colleagues; this also helps to awaken the impression that the “science” is alive and progressing.

    All of these papers are junk; it is a vast Potemkin village, serving only the purpose of keeping the “scientists” busy and in pay.

    Let’s just say i wouldn’t use the “information” from these papers as an input for my trading models.

    1. Rob Honeycutt

      Dirk… May I ask how many of the papers listed here you have actually read? You might take some time to take a careful look before casting stones.

      1. DirkH

        I saw too many model-only papers to still care.

      2. mindert eiting

        Dear Rob,
        Did the IPCC establish confidence intervals based on computer model output? Yes or no?

  13. Ed Caryl

    On the sea level rise topic, note this one:
    Where it is found to be neither accelerating or decelerating.

  14. DirkH

    The story of “computer model is able to predict the far future” has simply worn off; the media doesn’t tell it anymore and the public doesn’t buy it anymore (Germans are a little bit behind the curve as usual but you just wait..).

  15. Klimatforskning i ett nötskal

    […] så fantastiskt med en ofalsifierbar, pseudovetenskaplig hypotes. Läs hela listan med referenser här. Vill du ha ytterligare ett gott skratt på klimatbluffens bekostnad, besök även […]

  16. Catchup 5 – Old Posts From Bigblog Site | Greenhouse Bullcrap

    […] NO TRICKS ZONE Robust Science! More Than 30 Contradictory Pairs Of Peer-Reviewed Papers By P Gosselin on 30. März 2011… […]

  17. ian

    its so sad that public money is used to pay for most of this “research”.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy