Retraction of Paper Saying There is No Climate Emergency Illustrates How Dependent Climate Activists Are on Scaremongering – The...
The retraction of a paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal because it challenged the idea we're in the midst of a 'climate emergency' shows how science has been corrupted by climate activists.
The fact that a paper can be retracted for ANYTHING other than faulty science (ie just blatant fucking lying about results or methodology) is the long standing injustice that proves just how disgustingly low the "science community" really is, and has been for quite some time.
It's always been this way, but it only recently became the state religion. Thankfully at the same time we gained better visibility through the internet and unlike generations past, can recognize the grift.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.
This is a reminder that this is not the first time the climate gang has done this. In fact it seems to be standard procedure.
Back in 2009, long before GG, there was Climategate. The Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia had their emails and some of their code leaked. In these emails it was shown that Michael Mann (Penn State at the time, he made the Hockeystick graph) and Phil Jones (CRU) conspired to get papers retracted or prevent their acceptance across multiple journals.. They were tipped off by a New York Times reporter, Andrew Revkin. Sometimes they get the editors to allow them to review their enemies work, with obvious rejections following from that.
As a side note, the defamation lawsuit by Michael Mann against Mark Steyn started in 2012 is still ongoing. It's amazing how long you can drag a suit out with unlimited government funds.
Yep, the ClimateGate. Heard about it on a podcast episode "Cherry Picking" by Red Pilled America, it was quite a while ago since they broadcasted it but its one of the few which struck me the most.
One of the guys who were in that episode talked about weather data acquisitioning and he recalled that several weather stations throughout USA were measuring record high heat during the summers of mid 2000's. However when they (I think Stephen if my memory serves me right) dug into the measurement of those temperatures, he found out that those "weather stations" were data loggers placed in the middle of a sunbaked parking lot. No wonder they were measuring extreme temperatures. Or how warmer periods of centuries past (such as during the height of the Roman Empire or more recent the draughts of 1930's America) are downplayed to obfuscate the unpredictability of the climate.
Sadly I forgot the adres of a blog which went further into the data about the matter. Maybe its American Thinker blog or wattsupwiththat
It was WUWT. They are the ones that instigated the Surface Stations project, which tried to categorize all temperature stations that were listed as part of the USHCN. http://surfacestations.org/
Suffice to say that the NOAA's data collection is basically bunk, with the majority of temperature stations of record having errors greater than 2 degrees. Anyone who has taken a college level physics lab knows that in propagation of error your error cannot go below the instrument error, no matter how many measurements you average.
That's right, that's the page, thanks!
great stuff! I wonder if you have more of these saved?
This isn't as much of a problem as what Fauci et all did with Nature. Nature is supposed to be one of the premier science journals that can be published in. People work their lives to get published in it, but if you can't you can always go to the lesser journals.
One of them appears to be Springer Nature, which is clearly not the same. On the front page of their website:
This is an enemy.
It was always going to be retracted, hell that might have been the reason they accepted it in the first place: to retract it after publishing to humiliate the author.
it's like trying to get published in the "Feminist Journal of Economics"
Fauci’s second in command at the gain of function lab was the one pushing the “wet-market theory”, which Nature published and plastered everywhere while shutting down / not publishing any critics of the theory
Graphenium is not only right, but the guy who organized the Gain Of Function research from the US, and was the one who solicited Fauci for the money from the NIH.
The fact that they think 'X information is dangerous' is an acceptable reason to censor valid findings tells you everything you need to know about their so-called authority - and exactly how much credence you should give them when they tell you to 'trust the science'.
It's bought and paid for - has been for a while - and even if it wasn't, it's quickly brought to heel in the face of ideological pressure and hysteria. The more they do this, the more they destroy their own credibility, and, unfortunately, the credibility of scientific inquiry in the long term. Those among them who really do believe in destructive climate change are doing precisely everything they can to destroy their own narrative.
Scientists are whores for funding and grants.
The whole system is rotten to the core. I'm surprised researchers are still trying to publish things that go against the narrative
"Climate activists"
Nice way of avoiding the name.