One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Scientific Censorship: Climate Fanatics Urge Removal of Study Questioning Evidence of a “Climate Crisis”
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
Sep 30, 2022 20:04:42   #
Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois
 
Claiming that four Italian scientists who published a peer-reviewed paper earlier this year finding that there is not yet evidence of any “climate crisis” wrote the study in “bad faith,” climate fanatic scientists are urging that the journal that published the study remove it from public view.

The study in question comes to the conclusion that the so-called “climate crisis” that the mainstream media say is already upon us is not evident — at least yet — and that it is counterproductive to claim that such a crisis exists.

The study, done by four Italian scientists — physicist Gianluca Alimonti, professor of agrometeorology Luigi Mariani, atmospheric physicist Franco Prodi, and physicist Renato Angelo Ricci — states that “the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.”

Further, the Italian study calls into question the wisdom of leaving such a “crisis” for our children without the necessary tools — fossil fuels, etc. — they will need to adapt to such a crisis should it ever come to bear.

“Leaving the baton to our children without burdening them with the anxiety of being in a climate emergency would allow them to face the various problems in place (energy, agricultural-food, health, etc.) with a more objective and constructive spirit, with the goal of arriving at a weighted assessment of the actions to be taken without wasting the limited resources at our disposal in costly and ineffective solutions,” the Italian study states.

The study was first published in January, and has been cited by mainstream media outlets such as Sky News Australia. Only now are other scientists, interviewed by French news service AFP, calling for the paper to be memory-holed.

“They are writing this article in bad faith,” said Friederike Otto of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment.

So, although the Italian study was peer reviewed — the gold standard of haughty scientists everywhere — some climate scientists would rather that it simply go away, possibly so that they don’t have to react to its conclusions.

The alarmist scientists quickly dove into character assassination of the Italian scientists involved.

Saying that the Italian study was written “by people not working in climatology and obviously unfamiliar with the topic and relevant data,” Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research claims that the Italian scientists — three physicists and a professor of agrometeorology — simply do not possess the acumen to comment on the subject.

“It is not published in a climate journal — this is a common avenue taken by ‘climate sceptics’ in order to avoid peer review by real experts in the field,” he complained.

In a true case of the pot calling the kettle black, Rahmstorf said, “They simply ignore studies that don’t fit their narrative and have come to the opposite conclusion.”

Climate fanatics and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would never “cherry pick” scientific data to come to their own conclusion, apparently.

Richard Betts, head of Climate Impacts Research at Britain’s Met Office, believes that the Italian study was done only to challenge the climate crisis narrative: “The paper gives the appearance of being specifically written to make the case that there is no climate crisis, rather than presenting an objective, comprehensive, up-to-date assessment.”

Then came the censorship calls.

“I do not know this journal, but if it is a self-respecting one it should withdraw the article,” Rahmstorf concluded.

Otto agreed, saying, “If the journal cares about science they should withdraw it loudly and publicly, saying that it should not have been published.”

When asked by AFP how the Italian study could be published, given the fact that it appears to be at odds with mainstream climate science, the publisher, Springer Nature, said only, “We can’t comment at this time.”

Certainly honest scientists can disagree on conclusions drawn from data. Such disagreements lead to finding the truth, after all. Any scientific conclusion should be rigorously challenged, again and again, with the ultimate goal of locating truth.

But one thing honest scientists should never do is attempt to silence other scientists with dissenting views. That’s not science; it’s authoritarian politics.

Reply
Sep 30, 2022 20:20:07   #
microphor Loc: Home is TN
 
Parky60 wrote:
Claiming that four Italian scientists who published a peer-reviewed paper earlier this year finding that there is not yet evidence of any “climate crisis” wrote the study in “bad faith,” climate fanatic scientists are urging that the journal that published the study remove it from public view.

The study in question comes to the conclusion that the so-called “climate crisis” that the mainstream media say is already upon us is not evident — at least yet — and that it is counterproductive to claim that such a crisis exists.

The study, done by four Italian scientists — physicist Gianluca Alimonti, professor of agrometeorology Luigi Mariani, atmospheric physicist Franco Prodi, and physicist Renato Angelo Ricci — states that “the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.”

Further, the Italian study calls into question the wisdom of leaving such a “crisis” for our children without the necessary tools — fossil fuels, etc. — they will need to adapt to such a crisis should it ever come to bear.

“Leaving the baton to our children without burdening them with the anxiety of being in a climate emergency would allow them to face the various problems in place (energy, agricultural-food, health, etc.) with a more objective and constructive spirit, with the goal of arriving at a weighted assessment of the actions to be taken without wasting the limited resources at our disposal in costly and ineffective solutions,” the Italian study states.

The study was first published in January, and has been cited by mainstream media outlets such as Sky News Australia. Only now are other scientists, interviewed by French news service AFP, calling for the paper to be memory-holed.

“They are writing this article in bad faith,” said Friederike Otto of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment.

So, although the Italian study was peer reviewed — the gold standard of haughty scientists everywhere — some climate scientists would rather that it simply go away, possibly so that they don’t have to react to its conclusions.

The alarmist scientists quickly dove into character assassination of the Italian scientists involved.

Saying that the Italian study was written “by people not working in climatology and obviously unfamiliar with the topic and relevant data,” Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research claims that the Italian scientists — three physicists and a professor of agrometeorology — simply do not possess the acumen to comment on the subject.

“It is not published in a climate journal — this is a common avenue taken by ‘climate sceptics’ in order to avoid peer review by real experts in the field,” he complained.

In a true case of the pot calling the kettle black, Rahmstorf said, “They simply ignore studies that don’t fit their narrative and have come to the opposite conclusion.”

Climate fanatics and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would never “cherry pick” scientific data to come to their own conclusion, apparently.

Richard Betts, head of Climate Impacts Research at Britain’s Met Office, believes that the Italian study was done only to challenge the climate crisis narrative: “The paper gives the appearance of being specifically written to make the case that there is no climate crisis, rather than presenting an objective, comprehensive, up-to-date assessment.”

Then came the censorship calls.

“I do not know this journal, but if it is a self-respecting one it should withdraw the article,” Rahmstorf concluded.

Otto agreed, saying, “If the journal cares about science they should withdraw it loudly and publicly, saying that it should not have been published.”

When asked by AFP how the Italian study could be published, given the fact that it appears to be at odds with mainstream climate science, the publisher, Springer Nature, said only, “We can’t comment at this time.”

Certainly honest scientists can disagree on conclusions drawn from data. Such disagreements lead to finding the truth, after all. Any scientific conclusion should be rigorously challenged, again and again, with the ultimate goal of locating truth.

But one thing honest scientists should never do is attempt to silence other scientists with dissenting views. That’s not science; it’s authoritarian politics.
Claiming that four Italian scientists who publishe... (show quote)


It's important that we do not allow dissenting/opposing views even be shut down.

Reply
Sep 30, 2022 21:55:44   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
microphor wrote:
It's important that we do not allow dissenting/opposing views even be shut down.


That's what ideologues on the left do. They are all for free speech as long as it agrees with their dogma.

Reply
 
 
Sep 30, 2022 23:22:57   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
Parky60 wrote:
Claiming that four Italian scientists who published a peer-reviewed paper earlier this year finding that there is not yet evidence of any “climate crisis” wrote the study in “bad faith,” climate fanatic scientists are urging that the journal that published the study remove it from public view.

The study in question comes to the conclusion that the so-called “climate crisis” that the mainstream media say is already upon us is not evident — at least yet — and that it is counterproductive to claim that such a crisis exists.

The study, done by four Italian scientists — physicist Gianluca Alimonti, professor of agrometeorology Luigi Mariani, atmospheric physicist Franco Prodi, and physicist Renato Angelo Ricci — states that “the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.”

Further, the Italian study calls into question the wisdom of leaving such a “crisis” for our children without the necessary tools — fossil fuels, etc. — they will need to adapt to such a crisis should it ever come to bear.

“Leaving the baton to our children without burdening them with the anxiety of being in a climate emergency would allow them to face the various problems in place (energy, agricultural-food, health, etc.) with a more objective and constructive spirit, with the goal of arriving at a weighted assessment of the actions to be taken without wasting the limited resources at our disposal in costly and ineffective solutions,” the Italian study states.

The study was first published in January, and has been cited by mainstream media outlets such as Sky News Australia. Only now are other scientists, interviewed by French news service AFP, calling for the paper to be memory-holed.

“They are writing this article in bad faith,” said Friederike Otto of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment.

So, although the Italian study was peer reviewed — the gold standard of haughty scientists everywhere — some climate scientists would rather that it simply go away, possibly so that they don’t have to react to its conclusions.

The alarmist scientists quickly dove into character assassination of the Italian scientists involved.

Saying that the Italian study was written “by people not working in climatology and obviously unfamiliar with the topic and relevant data,” Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research claims that the Italian scientists — three physicists and a professor of agrometeorology — simply do not possess the acumen to comment on the subject.

“It is not published in a climate journal — this is a common avenue taken by ‘climate sceptics’ in order to avoid peer review by real experts in the field,” he complained.

In a true case of the pot calling the kettle black, Rahmstorf said, “They simply ignore studies that don’t fit their narrative and have come to the opposite conclusion.”

Climate fanatics and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would never “cherry pick” scientific data to come to their own conclusion, apparently.

Richard Betts, head of Climate Impacts Research at Britain’s Met Office, believes that the Italian study was done only to challenge the climate crisis narrative: “The paper gives the appearance of being specifically written to make the case that there is no climate crisis, rather than presenting an objective, comprehensive, up-to-date assessment.”

Then came the censorship calls.

“I do not know this journal, but if it is a self-respecting one it should withdraw the article,” Rahmstorf concluded.

Otto agreed, saying, “If the journal cares about science they should withdraw it loudly and publicly, saying that it should not have been published.”

When asked by AFP how the Italian study could be published, given the fact that it appears to be at odds with mainstream climate science, the publisher, Springer Nature, said only, “We can’t comment at this time.”

Certainly honest scientists can disagree on conclusions drawn from data. Such disagreements lead to finding the truth, after all. Any scientific conclusion should be rigorously challenged, again and again, with the ultimate goal of locating truth.

But one thing honest scientists should never do is attempt to silence other scientists with dissenting views. That’s not science; it’s authoritarian politics.
Claiming that four Italian scientists who publishe... (show quote)


The only word of consequence in the article is "yet"... let us all wait until after a certified tipping point and then cry about the lateness of the hour..

Why are you people so defensive about the fossil fuel/climat connection? Do you own a lot of stock? most big players moved into renewables a couple years ago.. but do hang onto yours.. prove the world wrong..

By the way, what is the name of the journal which first printed the article?? Does anyone know?

Reply
Oct 1, 2022 00:00:46   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
permafrost wrote:
The only word of consequence in the article is "yet"... let us all wait until after a certified tipping point and then cry about the lateness of the hour..

Why are you people so defensive about the fossil fuel/climat connection? Do you own a lot of stock? most big players moved into renewables a couple years ago.. but do hang onto yours.. prove the world wrong..

By the way, what is the name of the journal which first printed the article?? Does anyone know?


Do you farm? Do you fertilize, plant, or harvest? Do you drive to town for supplies or order items on Amazon that have to be driven to your home for the delivery? I suppose you are using electric vehicles or electric snowmobiles in winter?

We (us people) are not defensive about fossil fuel/climate connection so why are you (people) so defensive?

Big players moved into renewables? Do you know how much energy generation comes from renewables in this country? (And it is better here than in most countries. Germany went all green and look where that left them. We have a lower carbon footprint per capita than Germany.) Add to this the strip mining that China uses to obtain minerals needed for battery production, leaving permanent scars on the earth and creating other environmental problems. Do you have any idea how much energy production, and for how long, the entire world would have if it had to rely on battery power?

Reply
Oct 1, 2022 00:23:22   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
dtucker300 wrote:
Do you farm? Do you fertilize, plant, or harvest? Do you drive to town for supplies or order items on Amazon that have to be driven to your home for the delivery? I suppose you are using electric vehicles or electric snowmobiles in winter?

We (us people) are not defensive about fossil fuel/climate connection so why are you (people) so defensive?

Big players moved into renewables? Do you know how much energy generation comes from renewables in this country? (And it is better here than in most countries. Germany went all green and look where that left them. We have a lower carbon footprint per capita than Germany.) Add to this the strip mining that China uses to obtain minerals needed for battery production, leaving permanent scars on the earth and creating other environmental problems. Do you have any idea how much energy production, and for how long, the entire world would have if it had to rely on battery power?
Do you farm? Do you fertilize, plant, or harvest?... (show quote)



Evening lad... once upon a time I raised hogs.. made some money until the last year.. 1981.. only grew a tiny bit of corn. no farm land up here.. so 10-15 acres was all I could find..

I agree with you on the mining done by China.. One complicating factor in conversion to renewables is that no nation has managed to finish the job.. not Germany, not the Norsk.. a twist is that in some categories China leads the world, even as planned coal burning plants still will be built..

Battery technology is perhaps the biggest growth niche in the world now.. watch for many developments.. Some house sized batteries are being sold, but I know nothing about them.. To calculate life time on the current battery capacity would not help at all.. more work to be done. Both battery and charging is changing and getting better by the week..

No, the renewable energy produced in the USA is a minor amount and has a long way to go.. In my electric grid only one coal burning plant was still in use when the covid hit.. do not know the current status.. I do pay a small among each month to use supposed renewables for my elect.. of course I see no way they can be divided for that so it is only promoting the growth.. but only one plant of the many shows good progress..

I have no electric vehicle... not even a lawn mower.. Snow Mobile?? I am going to ask my grandson about such a thing.. do not see the market to tell the truth..

Reply
Oct 1, 2022 00:28:45   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
dtucker300 wrote:
Do you farm? Do you fertilize, plant, or harvest? Do you drive to town for supplies or order items on Amazon that have to be driven to your home for the delivery? I suppose you are using electric vehicles or electric snowmobiles in winter?

We (us people) are not defensive about fossil fuel/climate connection so why are you (people) so defensive?

Big players moved into renewables? Do you know how much energy generation comes from renewables in this country? (And it is better here than in most countries. Germany went all green and look where that left them. We have a lower carbon footprint per capita than Germany.) Add to this the strip mining that China uses to obtain minerals needed for battery production, leaving permanent scars on the earth and creating other environmental problems. Do you have any idea how much energy production, and for how long, the entire world would have if it had to rely on battery power?
Do you farm? Do you fertilize, plant, or harvest?... (show quote)


The world agrees with the fossil fuel/climate change , even Exxon logged in the information.. cutting down on the use of fossil fuels is the most obvious and quickest route to having any affect on the CC..

I you who fight so hard to stop renewables and save the cash cow for big oil would propose some solutions.. any at all we could have a look, but that never happens. Only the nay sayers are shouting as loud as possable to keep the oil biz the richest on earth.. follow the money some say.. that is the biggest cash cow ever designed..

Reply
 
 
Oct 1, 2022 00:54:11   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
permafrost wrote:
The world agrees with the fossil fuel/climate change , even Exxon logged in the information.. cutting down on the use of fossil fuels is the most obvious and quickest route to having any affect on the CC..

I you who fight so hard to stop renewables and save the cash cow for big oil would propose some solutions.. any at all we could have a look, but that never happens. Only the nay sayers are shouting as loud as possable to keep the oil biz the richest on earth.. follow the money some say.. that is the biggest cash cow ever designed..
The world agrees with the fossil fuel/climate chan... (show quote)


What makes you think I work hard to stop renewables (what a misnomer that is)? Furthermore, I am not invested in any fossil fuel companies (but the CA public employee unions and teacher unions are). It is not only the nay-sayers shouting the loudest, nor are they the ones keeping the oil biz the richest on earth (which it is not, having been surpassed by leftist tech companies).

(BTW: It has been calculated that all the battery power in the world would provide 75 seconds of power)

Reply
Oct 1, 2022 01:07:26   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
permafrost wrote:
Evening lad... once upon a time I raised hogs.. made some money until the last year.. 1981.. only grew a tiny bit of corn. no farm land up here.. so 10-15 acres was all I could find..

I agree with you on the mining done by China.. One complicating factor in conversion to renewables is that no nation has managed to finish the job.. not Germany, not the Norsk.. a twist is that in some categories China leads the world, even as planned coal burning plants still will be built..

Battery technology is perhaps the biggest growth niche in the world now.. watch for many developments.. Some house sized batteries are being sold, but I know nothing about them.. To calculate life time on the current battery capacity would not help at all.. more work to be done. Both battery and charging is changing and getting better by the week..

No, the renewable energy produced in the USA is a minor amount and has a long way to go.. In my electric grid only one coal burning plant was still in use when the covid hit.. do not know the current status.. I do pay a small among each month to use supposed renewables for my elect.. of course I see no way they can be divided for that so it is only promoting the growth.. but only one plant of the many shows good progress..

I have no electric vehicle... not even a lawn mower.. Snow Mobile?? I am going to ask my grandson about such a thing.. do not see the market to tell the truth..
Evening lad... once upon a time I raised hogs.. ma... (show quote)


Therein lies the problem...trying to make a complete conversion to renewable (which is not renewable: energy is neither created nor destroyed; it only changes form) is impossible, but Biden is doing his best to try and in the process has made life more miserable for millions of people as well as putting many of them on the precipice of bankruptcy, reducing their ability to earn a living and provide for their families. (Remember Texas last winter).

It will take a gradual transition. Electric vehicles may be obsolete before they are 100% as mandated by the idiot governor and legislature of CA. Hydrogen fuel is cleaner and more efficient. Right now it is too costly. When someone develops cold fusion they will have changed forever the way the world obtains and uses energy (perhaps we should be investing in a new Manhattan Project).

Reply
Oct 1, 2022 01:59:23   #
Smedley_buzkill
 
Parky60 wrote:
Claiming that four Italian scientists who published a peer-reviewed paper earlier this year finding that there is not yet evidence of any “climate crisis” wrote the study in “bad faith,” climate fanatic scientists are urging that the journal that published the study remove it from public view.

The study in question comes to the conclusion that the so-called “climate crisis” that the mainstream media say is already upon us is not evident — at least yet — and that it is counterproductive to claim that such a crisis exists.

The study, done by four Italian scientists — physicist Gianluca Alimonti, professor of agrometeorology Luigi Mariani, atmospheric physicist Franco Prodi, and physicist Renato Angelo Ricci — states that “the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.”

Further, the Italian study calls into question the wisdom of leaving such a “crisis” for our children without the necessary tools — fossil fuels, etc. — they will need to adapt to such a crisis should it ever come to bear.

“Leaving the baton to our children without burdening them with the anxiety of being in a climate emergency would allow them to face the various problems in place (energy, agricultural-food, health, etc.) with a more objective and constructive spirit, with the goal of arriving at a weighted assessment of the actions to be taken without wasting the limited resources at our disposal in costly and ineffective solutions,” the Italian study states.

The study was first published in January, and has been cited by mainstream media outlets such as Sky News Australia. Only now are other scientists, interviewed by French news service AFP, calling for the paper to be memory-holed.

“They are writing this article in bad faith,” said Friederike Otto of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment.

So, although the Italian study was peer reviewed — the gold standard of haughty scientists everywhere — some climate scientists would rather that it simply go away, possibly so that they don’t have to react to its conclusions.

The alarmist scientists quickly dove into character assassination of the Italian scientists involved.

Saying that the Italian study was written “by people not working in climatology and obviously unfamiliar with the topic and relevant data,” Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research claims that the Italian scientists — three physicists and a professor of agrometeorology — simply do not possess the acumen to comment on the subject.

“It is not published in a climate journal — this is a common avenue taken by ‘climate sceptics’ in order to avoid peer review by real experts in the field,” he complained.

In a true case of the pot calling the kettle black, Rahmstorf said, “They simply ignore studies that don’t fit their narrative and have come to the opposite conclusion.”

Climate fanatics and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would never “cherry pick” scientific data to come to their own conclusion, apparently.

Richard Betts, head of Climate Impacts Research at Britain’s Met Office, believes that the Italian study was done only to challenge the climate crisis narrative: “The paper gives the appearance of being specifically written to make the case that there is no climate crisis, rather than presenting an objective, comprehensive, up-to-date assessment.”

Then came the censorship calls.

“I do not know this journal, but if it is a self-respecting one it should withdraw the article,” Rahmstorf concluded.

Otto agreed, saying, “If the journal cares about science they should withdraw it loudly and publicly, saying that it should not have been published.”

When asked by AFP how the Italian study could be published, given the fact that it appears to be at odds with mainstream climate science, the publisher, Springer Nature, said only, “We can’t comment at this time.”

Certainly honest scientists can disagree on conclusions drawn from data. Such disagreements lead to finding the truth, after all. Any scientific conclusion should be rigorously challenged, again and again, with the ultimate goal of locating truth.

But one thing honest scientists should never do is attempt to silence other scientists with dissenting views. That’s not science; it’s authoritarian politics.
Claiming that four Italian scientists who publishe... (show quote)


Science follows the money. Period.The original "global warming" study under the auspices of the UN was done by UN funded scientists who were not allowed to have anything to do with "editing" the results of their findings before publishing.

Reply
Oct 1, 2022 03:12:37   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
Smedley_buzkill wrote:
Science follows the money. Period.The original "global warming" study under the auspices of the UN was done by UN funded scientists who were not allowed to have anything to do with "editing" the results of their findings before publishing.


THIS IS JUST ANOTHER LEFTIST ATTEMPT TO DISTRACT EVERYONE BEFORE THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS FROM THE MISERABLE JOB JOE BIDEN AND THE DEMOCRATS HAVE DONE SINCE HE WAS ELECTED AS PRESIDENT !

Reply
 
 
Oct 1, 2022 04:20:46   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
dtucker300 wrote:
Therein lies the problem...trying to make a complete conversion to renewable (which is not renewable: energy is neither created nor destroyed; it only changes form) is impossible, but Biden is doing his best to try and in the process has made life more miserable for millions of people as well as putting many of them on the precipice of bankruptcy, reducing their ability to earn a living and provide for their families. (Remember Texas last winter).

It will take a gradual transition. Electric vehicles may be obsolete before they are 100% as mandated by the idiot governor and legislature of CA. Hydrogen fuel is cleaner and more efficient. Right now it is too costly. When someone develops cold fusion they will have changed forever the way the world obtains and uses energy (perhaps we should be investing in a new Manhattan Project).
Therein lies the problem...trying to make a comple... (show quote)


the failure of the Texas grid is Bidens fault?? That is a desperate twist to reality..

So renewables are not renewable.. you must be having a bad night....

It is not the promotion of renewables that is causing any hardship to anyone.. also, it seems the only people who cry about a "complete" change to renewables are those who are so set against such a thing happening.. oil and fossil fuel will not be gone for centuries if at all.. it is far from only fuel that is made from oil..100% change is near impossible. many and varied changes are required before that would ever happen..

Reply
Oct 1, 2022 04:22:17   #
permafrost Loc: Minnesota
 
Smedley_buzkill wrote:
Science follows the money. Period.The original "global warming" study under the auspices of the UN was done by UN funded scientists who were not allowed to have anything to do with "editing" the results of their findings before publishing.


that is not true.. the money is coming from big oil to protect the cash cow they created..

Reply
Oct 1, 2022 06:55:49   #
Bevvy
 
Parky60 wrote:
Claiming that four Italian scientists who published a peer-reviewed paper earlier this year finding that there is not yet evidence of any “climate crisis” wrote the study in “bad faith,” climate fanatic scientists are urging that the journal that published the study remove it from public view.

The study in question comes to the conclusion that the so-called “climate crisis” that the mainstream media say is already upon us is not evident — at least yet — and that it is counterproductive to claim that such a crisis exists.

The study, done by four Italian scientists — physicist Gianluca Alimonti, professor of agrometeorology Luigi Mariani, atmospheric physicist Franco Prodi, and physicist Renato Angelo Ricci — states that “the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.”

Further, the Italian study calls into question the wisdom of leaving such a “crisis” for our children without the necessary tools — fossil fuels, etc. — they will need to adapt to such a crisis should it ever come to bear.

“Leaving the baton to our children without burdening them with the anxiety of being in a climate emergency would allow them to face the various problems in place (energy, agricultural-food, health, etc.) with a more objective and constructive spirit, with the goal of arriving at a weighted assessment of the actions to be taken without wasting the limited resources at our disposal in costly and ineffective solutions,” the Italian study states.

The study was first published in January, and has been cited by mainstream media outlets such as Sky News Australia. Only now are other scientists, interviewed by French news service AFP, calling for the paper to be memory-holed.

“They are writing this article in bad faith,” said Friederike Otto of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment.

So, although the Italian study was peer reviewed — the gold standard of haughty scientists everywhere — some climate scientists would rather that it simply go away, possibly so that they don’t have to react to its conclusions.

The alarmist scientists quickly dove into character assassination of the Italian scientists involved.

Saying that the Italian study was written “by people not working in climatology and obviously unfamiliar with the topic and relevant data,” Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research claims that the Italian scientists — three physicists and a professor of agrometeorology — simply do not possess the acumen to comment on the subject.

“It is not published in a climate journal — this is a common avenue taken by ‘climate sceptics’ in order to avoid peer review by real experts in the field,” he complained.

In a true case of the pot calling the kettle black, Rahmstorf said, “They simply ignore studies that don’t fit their narrative and have come to the opposite conclusion.”

Climate fanatics and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would never “cherry pick” scientific data to come to their own conclusion, apparently.

Richard Betts, head of Climate Impacts Research at Britain’s Met Office, believes that the Italian study was done only to challenge the climate crisis narrative: “The paper gives the appearance of being specifically written to make the case that there is no climate crisis, rather than presenting an objective, comprehensive, up-to-date assessment.”

Then came the censorship calls.

“I do not know this journal, but if it is a self-respecting one it should withdraw the article,” Rahmstorf concluded.

Otto agreed, saying, “If the journal cares about science they should withdraw it loudly and publicly, saying that it should not have been published.”

When asked by AFP how the Italian study could be published, given the fact that it appears to be at odds with mainstream climate science, the publisher, Springer Nature, said only, “We can’t comment at this time.”

Certainly honest scientists can disagree on conclusions drawn from data. Such disagreements lead to finding the truth, after all. Any scientific conclusion should be rigorously challenged, again and again, with the ultimate goal of locating truth.

But one thing honest scientists should never do is attempt to silence other scientists with dissenting views. That’s not science; it’s authoritarian politics.
Claiming that four Italian scientists who publishe... (show quote)


Nobody likes to hear opposing views on their religion and that is precisely what this is

Reply
Oct 1, 2022 08:32:17   #
American Vet
 
dtucker300 wrote:
Therein lies the problem...trying to make a complete conversion to renewable (which is not renewable: energy is neither created nor destroyed; it only changes form) is impossible, but Biden is doing his best to try and in the process has made life more miserable for millions of people as well as putting many of them on the precipice of bankruptcy, reducing their ability to earn a living and provide for their families. (Remember Texas last winter).

It will take a gradual transition. Electric vehicles may be obsolete before they are 100% as mandated by the idiot governor and legislature of CA. Hydrogen fuel is cleaner and more efficient. Right now it is too costly. When someone develops cold fusion they will have changed forever the way the world obtains and uses energy (perhaps we should be investing in a new Manhattan Project).
Therein lies the problem...trying to make a comple... (show quote)


The best way is for American to become independent of foreign oil by using the HUGE capabilities we have. Then begin research into other options in a careful, controlled manner - instead of rushing crazily into wind/solar and their well-documented inadequacies and failures.

Reply
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2022 IDF International Technologies, Inc.