Post-publication rejection of peer-reviewed scientific papers precisely because they are “are highly controversial due to their political and social implications” are another means climate activists continue their banishment of dissent on climate change.
Back in 2009 the Climategate e-mails provided written documentation affirming suspicions climate scientists inclined to activism seek to “oust” those who they suspect might be in the “greenhouse skeptics camp” from participating in a scientific journal’s peer-review process.
Further, they would even “redefine what the peer-review literature is” if that’s what it would take to prevent heretical papers from being referenced in IPCC reports.
Image Source: Lowe, 2009
The scientific literature says CO2 changes lag paleoclimate temperature changes
A few months ago we highlighted a peer-reviewed scientific paper about the logical contradiction of a perceived CO2-induced paleoclimate record even though ice cores overwhelmingly support the conclusion temperature changes precede changes in CO2 by hundreds to thousands of years.
Image Source: Richet, 2021
That the ice core record clearly affirms this sequencing (CO2 changes occur at least centuries after temperatures change) is not even controversial. Just a few of the many observational studies supporting the temperature-leads-CO2 ordering include Mudelsee, 2001, Fischer et al., 1999, Monnin et al., 2001, Schneider et al., 2013, Stott et al., 2007, and Shin et al., 2020.
The Copernicus Gatekeepers of Truth
After likely receiving heavy criticism from climate activists for daring to publish a “skeptic” paper in their journal, the Gatekeepers of Truth at Copernicus then “decided” this paper was not sufficiently reviewed by those who reject papers that do not align with the anthropogenic global warming narrative.
Two reasons Copernicus offers for post-reviewing an already published paper stand out:
“The topic and conclusions of the manuscript are highly controversial due to their political and social implications, a fact that author, editor, and referees were aware of, as evident from email records, the manuscript’s cover letter, and referee reports.”
“6 [of the reviewers invited to referee the paper] are publicly known as being in favour of or having ties to an industry benefiting from the manuscript’s conclusion.”
So the author was aware that his paper was “highly controversial” and had “political and social” implications, and yet he had the audacity to seek publication in their journal anyway. What an odd criticism this is.
While offering no scientific justification for doing so, questioning the background and suspected political affiliations of reviewers is apparently deemed sufficient to disqualify them from reviewing manuscripts. Nowhere do the “acceptable” referees tackle the logical lead-lag cause-effect problem in paleoclimate science. At Copernicus, the science is apparently less important than the occupational and political affiliations of those reviewing manuscripts.
Predetermined rejection
In June and July, new reviewers who were selected by Copernicus because they were predisposed to reject the already-published paper merged their criticism of Richet’s paper into a single document here.
By late August to early September, the foregone conclusion had been realized. Dr. Richet’s paper questioning why it is assumed CO2 drives the present climate changes when it can be demonstrated CO2 did not drive climate change in the ice core record, was rejected.
Dr. Richet: “Should IPCC-revolving scientists be the only holders of truth?”
Dr. Richet wrote a reply to the Copernicus Gatekeepers of Truth who rejected his paper after it had been published. As an Earth scientist (geochemist and thermodynamicist) commenting on the CO2 ice core data, he is claimed to have improperly benefitted from a too-friendly peer-review process because 3 of the reviewers allegedly “have ties to industry benefitting from the manuscript conclusions.” (What “benefit” this is remains unspecified.)
Richet rightly points out that those criticizing his conclusions about the ice core data contradicting the CO2-drives-climate narrative likely have at least indirect ties to the $89 trillion dollars of climate-related “green” industries that necessarily must be spent (2015-2030) to transition to CO2 emission mitigation in the coming decades.
Regarding the disqualification of reviewers with ties to industries allegedly benefitting from the manuscript’s publication, Richet notes that Copernicus, the man, was Church administrator who never published on astronomy until later in his non-scientific career.
Importantly, none of Richet’s opponents were able to refute the central claim that “the interpretation of ice-core results flatly contradicts the fundamental principles of scientific reasoning.”
Finally, Richet asks why it is that only those scientists who align their views with that of the UN IPCC are allowed to decide on matters of “truth” in climate science.
Of course, this question will remain unanswered.
At long last a scientist who accurately fingers finance :
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/04/18/raising-trillions-for-climate-finance
With UN Climate czar Mark Carney and BlackRock fully onboard, the managerial class follow power of the moment – they see the Great Reset winning. Guess which side they took in WWII !
See why Orwell actually wrote 1984 – a scathing critique of the Managerial Revolution :
https://canadianpatriot.org/2021/09/21/how-the-great-reset-was-first-thought-up-by-the-original-proselytizer-of-totalitarianism-and-the-father-of-neo-conservatism/
Climate change is Orwell’s Forever War. A ‘war’ that cannot be won. And a war that requires propaganda and censorship because the science and engineering are fake.
The ‘green’ solution does not work for fundamental engineering reasons. And forcing a scheme that does not work will just make electricity and natural gas so expensive … Industry will collapse. Ideas that do not work… Continue to not work regardless of the amount of money spent or lies told.
The ‘irony’ of the Climate change war…. Is the fundamental concept of AGW is incorrect. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is a result, not a cause of the change. What caused the past cyclic D-O changes (warming of 20 to 30 years on the Greenland Ice sheet. The Greenland Ice sheet is now cooling because of increased cloud cover in the summer.
There is a bit of the (Barbra) “Strisend Effect” {BSE} happening with this.
It is also like being told not to think of a Pink Elephant. What do you then think about. That’s the PEE.
The climate is a complex nonlinear system involving many interdependent factors and feedback loops as demonstrated by the Holocene ice core record.
Fluctuations in the putative global temperature record since mid-1800s demonstrate that the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration was not the overriding climate factor, however theory would suggest it was one factor.
The fact that CO2 changes lag temperature changes in the long term ice core record is not a logically valid reason to come to that conclusion as CO2 can be both cause and effect.
This is some links to data that supports my above statement that the current regions that warmed (global warming is not ‘global’ it is regional warming. Are the same regions, that warmed and then cooled in the past.
This is the proxy temperature data from the analysis of the Greenland Ice Sheet Two project for the last 11,000 years, from Richard Alley’s paper.
As you can see in this graph. The Greenland Ice sheet warms and cools cyclically. The past warmings and cooling periods were not caused by changes in atmospheric CO2. The Greenland Ice Core analysis disproves AGW. What caused the past warmings?
It is known the past warming periods correlated with solar cycle changes and the actual peak warming was short either 20 years or 30 years.
We are at the end of this warming period based on temperature not increasing and the sun changing to a Maunder minimum state. Solar cycle 24 and now 25 is a change from large long life sunspots (dark spot) to tiny ‘pores'(dark spot) which have a group life time of around 10 days now and getting shorter. The average past lifetime for a sunspot group did not change significantly cycle to cycle, and was 22 days.
https://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
The Antarctic Peninsula juts out of the Antarctic polar vortex and has a high snowfall rate so it captures changes to the South sea temperature. The south hemisphere has warmed cyclically in the past, exactly like it is warming now.
Does the Current Global Warming Signal Reflect a Recurrent Natural Cycle.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
“Public media in the U.S., including National Public Radio (NPR), were quick to recognize the significance of this discovery. The past natural warming events reported by Mulvaney et al. are similar in amplitude and duration to the present global warming signal, and yet the past warmings occurred before the industrial revolution and therefore were not caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.”
. The paper, entitled “Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice-shelf history” and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey (Nature, 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391), reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica.
[…] Related: Activists Get A Recent Paper That Threatens Climate Alarm Narratives Removed From Journal […]
[…] Reposted from the NoTricksZone […]
This seems to be the pattern today, to protect the guilty by preventing the release of scientific information.
https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/harde-2017-censored
Journals who undertake such unscrupulous conduct are not legitimate scientific media – because they are un-scientific. They should be prohibited from receiving public funds, which pay for their operation through publications charges. Such correction will happen only if the public has had enough, if it brings pressure on those who control public funds.
[…] Reposted from the NoTricksZone […]
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
You’re fighting the good fight, Kenneth.
Has anyone told Retraction Watch about this? They prefer to communicate by email here: team [AT] retractionwatch [DOT] com
If anyone wishes to raise the issue, be forewarned they are biased towards AGW. So expect no sympathy (or even level-headedness there). Don’t expect them to know or care about the evidence base. So I would entirely avoid the AGW controversy and make it as issue of fact. Q: Is CO2-related warming rational when temperature changes precede atmospheric CO2 changes? A: Of course not! Should this be discussed in a history of science journal? Of course it should.
BTW: They already fobbed me off on their facebook page:
“As noted, there are 2,500 retractions per year, and we can cover at most 10% of them given our extremely limited resources (our journalists are volunteers). It is on our list to cover but we can’t necessarily prioritize it. As also noted, we vastly prefer to centralize communication to email: team@retractionwatch.com. Every additional channel is a distraction that further limits how much journalism we can do.”
[…] Activists Get A Recent Paper That Threatens Climate Alarm Narratives Removed From Journal […]
[…] Activists Get A Recent Paper That Threatens Climate Alarm Narratives Removed From Journal […]
Liar
[…] according to a NoTricksZone post by liar Kenneth Richard, reposted to WUWT, have gotten a paper retracted because it […]
[…] Reposted from the NoTricksZone […]
[…] Activists Get A Recent Paper That Threatens Climate Alarm Narratives Removed From Journal […]