From Climate Warehouse
Mark Morano
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-top- Five-climate-science-scandals
excerpt:
By Roger Pielke Jr.: I define a scandal as a situation in which science is objectively flawed—substantively and/or procedurally—that society has been unable to correct, but should. …
Alimonti retracts over unpopular views
The scientific community has shown a willingness to retract climate science papers—in this case, not because it is wrong in any substantive way, but because it expresses politically unhelpful views. In 2022, a group of Italian scientists published a paper summarizing the IPCC's conclusions about extreme weather trends, consistent with what you're reading here at THB. This paper does not break any new ground but provides a useful review of the literature. Even so, some activist journalists and scientists still called for the article to be retracted—notably, Springer Nature The journal in which the paper was published is obligated. I heard a whistleblower shared all the sordid details, which you can read about here and here .
…
The interns created a “dataset” that we used to conduct research
I recently documented how Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) — purportedly one of the top scientific journals — published a paper using a “dataset” cobbled together by some interns to market a now-defunct insurance company. In reality, no such data set exists in the real world – it’s fiction. This paper is the only standardized study aimed at identifying the signals of man-made climate change in disaster losses, and has therefore received the focus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. National Climate Assessment. This context makes corrections or retractions politically problematic. When I informed PNAS of this fake dataset, they refused to view it and stood behind the paper. Learn the backstory and how PNAS prevented any reconsideration.
…
- A love story with extreme emission scenarios
For long-time readers of The Baht, the number one ranking will come as no surprise. Extreme emissions scenarios that paint unbelievable and even apocalyptic futures are favorites of climate research and assessment. The field is still dominated by a scenario called RCP8.5 – which would see coal consumption increase more than 10-fold by 2100 (see chart above, all credit goes to my colleague Justin Ritchie). However, as the community comes to accept the absurdity of RCP8.5, efforts are underway to replace it with another extreme scenario – currently appearing to be SSP3-7.0, which also foresees a large increase in coal (~6x) and to In 2100, the world's population will be approximately 13 billion, far exceeding the United Nations' prediction.
…
- IPCC’s Big Mistake
The IPCC is a huge endeavor and if it didn’t exist we would have to invent it. It is not surprising that some errors may occur in the assessment. What matters is what happens when you make a mistake. I discovered a major error in the IPCC AR6 synthesis report involving confusion about hurricane intensity – a simple error related to a misunderstood technical term (hurricane repair, i.e. measurement — reinterpreted as hurricane).
Relevant
