Author Topic: Scientists urge top publisher to withdraw faulty climate study  (Read 301 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 167,540
Scientists urge top publisher to withdraw faulty climate study
« on: September 27, 2022, 05:16:47 pm »
Scientists urge top publisher to withdraw faulty climate study
AFP - 6h ago
 

A fundamentally flawed study claiming that scientific evidence of a climate crisis is lacking should be withdrawn from the peer-reviewed journal in which it was published, top climate scientists have told AFP.
 
Appearing earlier this year in The European Physical Journal Plus, published by Springer Nature, the study purports to review data on possible changes in the frequency or intensity of rainfall, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts and other extreme weather events.
 
It has been viewed thousands of times on social media and cited by some mainstream media, such as Sky News Australia.

"On the basis of observation data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, in not evident," reads the summary of the 20-page study.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/scientists-urge-top-publisher-to-withdraw-faulty-climate-study/ar-AA12ieHx?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=5e73fbff1f654a55b553fc83ffbd3433
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Thomas Jefferson

Offline rangerrebew

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 167,540
Re: Scientists urge top publisher to withdraw faulty climate study
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2022, 05:17:39 pm »
 :nothappen:
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Thomas Jefferson

Offline DefiantMassRINO

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,710
  • Gender: Male
Re: Scientists urge top publisher to withdraw faulty climate study
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2022, 05:21:59 pm »
Isn't the whole point of a "peer-reviewed journal" to submit items for scrutiny by fellow scientists?  What's the harm?  If it's faulty, other scientists will point out why.

The only reason to ask that the study to not be published is that the requestors are afraid the study is correct and can withstand scrutiny and critique.

If the authors of the study are willing to take the public risk of being proven wrong, let them go for it.  That's how science is supposed to work.
"It doesn't matter what temperature the room is, it's always room temperature." - Steven Wright

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,339
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: Scientists urge top publisher to withdraw faulty climate study
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2022, 05:37:46 pm »
Isn't the whole point of a "peer-reviewed journal" to submit items for scrutiny by fellow scientists?  What's the harm?  If it's faulty, other scientists will point out why.

The only reason to ask that the study to not be published is that the requestors are afraid the study is correct and can withstand scrutiny and critique.

If the authors of the study are willing to take the public risk of being proven wrong, let them go for it.  That's how science is supposed to work.
Yeah, that's why the NEJM and Lancet retracted two articles during COVID. Peer review is not a flawless process, especially when those who disagree with you have been purged from the review boards.  "Climate Science" has more than one way to work toward "consensus". One way is to come up with something that can withstand the strict scrutiny of the entire scientific community, the other is to marginalize and discredit scientists who disagree so they have no voice.


The "Frontline Doctors" suffered that fate for a time during COVID, but it turns out that the treatments they advocated worked, and the "vaccine" didn't. Nonetheless peer reviewed studies appeared to be contrary to that (if you didn't actually read the 'study' and see what had been done). Those studies showed that IVM and HCQ protocols were generally ineffective, or marginal, when incompletely administered during the later phases of the disease in the study group. That was taken to be that those protocols (with macrolide antibiotic--sometimes administered-- and zinc (NEVER administered in those studies)) were ineffective, and ballyhooed by the media and medical establishment as such.

The studies did not prove anything about using the complete protocol at the first onset of symptoms (a protocol intended to stop viral replication before the patient became admittable or critical), and the protocols were later shown to be effective at reducing hospitalization and death significantly, IF USED WHEN AND AS DIRECTED.

All the peer review process did was permit the publication of studies that showed that it didn't work when not used as intended. The media did the rest, to discredit regimens that could have saved thousands, if not millions of lives.

« Last Edit: September 27, 2022, 05:41:39 pm by Smokin Joe »
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis