Scientific Journal Retracts Article That Claimed No Evidence of Climate Crisis (theguardian.com) 100
One of the world's biggest scientific publishers has retracted a journal article that claimed to have found no evidence of a climate crisis. From a report: Springer Nature said it had retracted the article, by four Italian physicists, after an internal investigation found the conclusions were "not supported by available evidence or data provided by the authors." Climate sceptic groups widely publicised the article, which appeared in the European Physical Journal Plus in January 2022 -- a journal not known for publishing climate change science.
Nine months later the article was reported uncritically in a page one story in the Australian newspaper and promoted in two segments on Sky News Australia -- a channel that has been described as a global hub for climate science misinformation. The segments were viewed more than 500,000 times on YouTube. The article claimed to have analysed data to find no trend in rainfall extremes, floods, droughts and food productivity. "In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet," the article said.
Several climate scientists told the Guardian and later the news agency AFP that the article had misrepresented some scientific articles, was "selective and biased" and had "cherrypicked" information. After those concerns were raised, Springer Nature announced in October it was investigating the article. In a statement Springer Nature said its editors had launched a "thorough investigation," which included a post-publication review by subject matter experts. The authors of the article also submitted an addendum to their original work during the course of the investigation, the statement said.
Nine months later the article was reported uncritically in a page one story in the Australian newspaper and promoted in two segments on Sky News Australia -- a channel that has been described as a global hub for climate science misinformation. The segments were viewed more than 500,000 times on YouTube. The article claimed to have analysed data to find no trend in rainfall extremes, floods, droughts and food productivity. "In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet," the article said.
Several climate scientists told the Guardian and later the news agency AFP that the article had misrepresented some scientific articles, was "selective and biased" and had "cherrypicked" information. After those concerns were raised, Springer Nature announced in October it was investigating the article. In a statement Springer Nature said its editors had launched a "thorough investigation," which included a post-publication review by subject matter experts. The authors of the article also submitted an addendum to their original work during the course of the investigation, the statement said.
Springer again (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, I think I recall hearing of several quite dubious articles published by Springer in one magazine or another. Admittedly this is over a period of several years, but I rather think that are a bit loose in their editorial oversight. Unless it's something worse.
Re:Springer again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well said.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me put it this way: Scientists are free to follow their personal politics to ask scientific questions. But if they also allow their politics to override verifiable facts and dictate the answers, they're frauds who have no place in science.
However, such scientists should fit right into the fever-swamp of political conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Springer again (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Safe pharmaceuticals have side effects. (Score:2)
You're acting like the COVID vaccines were the first ever drug approved by the US government as safe for us to take to have a list of possible issues. Perhaps you're one of those rare souls that have never seen a TV pharmaceutical commercial with the laundry list of possible side effects rapidly read off at the end of almost every one.
Turns out the pharmaceuticals deemed safe by the US government quite commonly have potential side effects https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov] . This will be true for other count
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For starters, the paper doesn't need the word safe in it. The FDA approving a drug for human consumptions means that by default.
After that, even over the counter pharmaceuticals like Tylenol have declared health risks associated with them. Your glass of water criteria is completely absurd. Even food isn't held to such a high standard.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I was one of the people that had negative cardio affects. I got 3 shots my CRP went up after each one to the point I had to see a cardiologist. Lots of people died from that safe shot.
I guess one needs to define "lots" and compare it with other similar risks.
The number of deaths in the unvaccinated seems to be a lot more than the "lots of people [who] died from that safe shot", so even if the COVID vaccines were particularly "dangerous" (and they are not), one could still justify their use from a public policy point of view.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of data out there. Im not going to gather and correlate it. Look for it you will find it you just won't hear it on the news.
The people who have gathered and correlated it have found that the vaccines are as safe or safer than other vaccines in wide use and have been effective in preventing COVID deaths.
That doesn't mean your negative effects were not real. I am sorry you had those troubles.
Re: (Score:2)
if ...[scientists] also allow their politics to override verifiable facts and dictate the answers, they're frauds who have no place in science.
That appears to be exactly what happened [substack.com] in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
There's being wrong, and there's lying. Don't confuse them. I have no problem with lying people losing their jobs over their lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Thay are probably doing this really cheaply to optimize their earnings. Makes them a low-quality publisher.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's a "paper published in low-grade journal found to have major flaws" that has Springer's name on it, then it's important to remember that Springer's name was on a really low grade paper.
Re:My journal article can beat up yours (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look briefly into the economics of the journals industry, you'll quickly realize that they are highly motivated to publish as many papers as possible.
Their customers are universities, which they hold hostage via paywalls controlling access to the "complete and prestigious catalog" of the journal.
The more content they have, the more valuable their catalog appears.
However, the real goal of these journals is not to promote science. Shocker, they aren't ran by scientists. They are ran by businessmen, whose only real goal is to make money. And so, here we are, with journals that excitedly publish mountains of folly to keep their money machine printing.
Journals are, at best, about as accurate as your local newspaper. At worst, well, think of mainstream cable news.
Re: (Score:2)
Journals are, at best, about as accurate as your local newspaper. At worst, well, think of mainstream cable news.
The social "sciences" have journals. So do the English departments. I think you're doing a disservice to mainstream cable news.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where is the specific problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. At least two things need to be said:
1) If the conclusions were not supported by the provided data, why was it published in the first place? Why wasn't this caught in peer review?
2) Exactly what did the data imply, if not the conclusions? In other words, what's wrong with the logical reasoning. Saying it's illogical (or "not supported"), as Spock-speak, is not illuminating. Could just be someone's opinion.
Re: Where is the specific problem? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem was clearly stated. The conclusions are not supported by the provided data. Nothing else needs to be said.
The only thing of value is the evidence base substantiating the conclusions. Without it underlying assertions are meaningless devoid of value.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem was clearly stated. The conclusions are not supported by the provided data. Nothing else needs to be said.
"'Shut up,' he explained.” --Ring Lardner
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing else needs to be said.
What a desperate and pathetic rhetorical fail. No, you can not shut us up by falsely asserting that "Nothing else needs to be said."
Someone leaked internal Nature deliberations [substack.com], demonstrating that the peer review process was corrupted by climate activists. Three out of four reviewers recommended publishing the addendum. Instead, Nature refused to publish it and retracted the original article.
The problem was clearly stated.
The problem was falsely stated.
Data Selection (Score:2)
This all may have a dignified air and phrasing about it, but it is 100% compatible with "minority view slipped through. now crushed".
No, it is not compatible with this unless they are lying. They raise concerns about data selection, analysis and the conclusions. Any one of these being flawed could easily invalidate the results of the paper. Since they give no details on what their concerns are it is impossible to reach any conclusion on how valid they are but the fact that they had concerns with almost every stage of the paper is a bit concerning.
The no comment on peer review is entirely understandable. The only thing they can say is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and then "no comment" as to how the thing passed peer review to begin with.
This all may have a dignified air and phrasing about it, but it is 100% compatible with "minority view slipped through. now crushed". (note, i haven't investigated the issue of the claims and counterclaims further, yet... in large part because they are not mentioned / linked to! (and i have to go off and do it via searches etc)
The paper authors picked a physics journal that has nothing to do with climate science. It's very likely the authors knew that the paper would be reviewed by physicists who think they know more about climate change than actual experts (but really don't). That's how it passed peer review to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
The paper authors picked a physics journal that has nothing to do with climate science. It's very likely the authors knew that the paper would be reviewed by physicists who think they know more about climate change than actual experts (but really don't). That's how it passed peer review to begin with.
Took all of 5 seconds to find over a thousand papers related to climate science on Springer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bruh, Springer is a giant publisher which owns hundreds of scientific journals covering all fields of science. If you search for climate science papers "on Springer", you'll find thousands of papers from completely different journals than the article above is about.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction people are making here. This particular journal has over 180 climate related papers so even limiting it to the journal itself I don't understand parents assumption about reviewers being clueless.
Someone else similarly asserted "Your statement is about as logical as saying that because one aisle in the supermarket contains seven types of bacon that we can conclude all aisles in the supermarket have bacon."
Is a supermarket not responsible for the sourcing and safety
Re: Where is the specific problem? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone leaked the internal deliberations [substack.com] at Nature. Of four reviewers, three recommended publication of the addendum. Instead, Nature refused to publish the addendum and retracted the original article.
I see the evidence every day (Score:1, Interesting)
I see the evidence of this climate crisis every day actually. I am 47, the temperature is much higher these days than I remember any time in the past. I have close people sending me photos they take of nature dying, birds, hedgehogs just sitting there, doing nothing because clearly they are overheated by months of crazy heat. At the ocean the water is much warmer than I am used to, the winters are completely different and I travel, I visit easily 15-20 countries per year and it is happening everywhere.
Th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think we are a disease, I think we are extremely inert, as a collective we are lemmings, we will jump off a cliff because everyone is doing it. Individually we are trying to improve our own plight, we do go the way of the least resistance. Lack of education is the problem, propaganda is the problem, lack of ability to analyze and think for ourselves is the problem. Inability to recognize our own mistakes is a problem.
However I don't think that any other species would have fared any better at all,
Re: (Score:1)
lack of ability to analyze and think for ourselves is the problem. Inability to recognize our own mistakes is a problem.
You'll often hear folks our age lament and suggest the education system should teach this or that. Maybe it's basic life skills like balancing a check book or changing a tire, whatever pops in our head today. Mine would be basic data analysis. So many times I've come across a person who was so adamant some issue is the end of the world, sky is falling crap but when you look at the numbers it then becomes clear they literally have a better chance at getting struck by lightning. I'm exaggerating a bit but you
Re: (Score:2)
Humanity is a disease. We fester.
Speak for yourself.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I see the evidence of this climate crisis every day actually. I am 47, the temperature is much higher these days than I remember any time in the past. I have close people sending me photos they take of nature dying, birds, hedgehogs just sitting there, doing nothing because clearly they are overheated by months of crazy heat. At the ocean the water is much warmer than I am used to, the winters are completely different and I travel, I visit easily 15-20 countries per year and it is happening everywhere.
The question is whether we can actually change anything at all, can we block the Sun for example? Even blocking 1-2% of the Sun light and heat would actually alleviate this problem almost immediately. However as a species on this planet we cannot even agree that dying off as a species is not a desired outcome. Then there are people who deny the change of the climate and the obvious heating problem, then there are people who believe we shouldn't be trying to do anything because whatever we do will be worse than the status quo. I disagree. With this attitude we shouldn't have been building houses, machines, we shouldn't have been making clothes and improving our food production because the outcomes could have been worse.
Our ancestors didn't stop though, they built houses, they mined coal and oil and today we have what we have. The problem is now, it's with us here and we cannot at this point expect the future generations to fix it because we are already that generation that should be fixing it.
Can we block the Sun even slightly by sending millions of satellites into an orbit between the Sun and Earth, can this be done at all with the technologies we have today? I think yes, but the cost is truly insurmountable. Clearly it is much easier to use sulfur and sodium to generate mist above the oceans to block the light at least a tiny bit. Apparently we removed sulfur from diesel fuels that container vessels were burning and so we cleaned up the air and that gave us another problem - faster heating I think.
Of-course some will say we have other options, I don't see them. Can we build a giant radiator and attach it to the planet to radiate heat into space? I don't think that's going to happen. Instead of reducing CO2 production we are also increasing it by shutting down nuclear reactors for power generation and starting coal, gas, heavy oil generators. I don't think reducing the CO2 levels is going to happen and even if we did reduce it, the heating wouldn't go away, it is with us to stay for a long time. So it is better to start thinking about reducing the further heating of the planet by blocking the Sun somehow than waiting to be dead just like those birds and hedgehogs that are dying from overheating on the streets of Antalya.
If you're traveling to 15-20 countries every year, you're part of the problem. Get the fuck off of airplanes and start practicing what you preach.
Re: (Score:1)
Not just airplanes of-course, half airplanes. However what did you see that I am 'preaching' that goes against my proposals - using nuclear, figuring out how to block the heat from the Sun?
Someone just downmoded my original comment here, this is normal, it's just what happens whenever I talk about figuring out how to block the light and heat of the Sun by a percentage point, not sure what you all need 100% of the heat for, can't we just do with the 98% of it?
Re: (Score:2)
Not just airplanes of-course, half airplanes. However what did you see that I am 'preaching' that goes against my proposals - using nuclear, figuring out how to block the heat from the Sun?
I see extreme egoism and hypocrisy. You are engaged in activities that cause the problem. None of your solutions include you stopping to cause the problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Shouldn't you be consistent and apply your logic equally? I have ability to travel and you have ability to travel, our destinations and distances may be different, but if you want to stop me from travelling shouldn't you stop driving, taking public transit, buying clothes and food and entertainment and energy and living in a house? All of these are provided by industries that use energy to run and they burn stuff. I am conscious enough to realize that no individual will change their pattern of behavior,
Re: (Score:2)
"the temperature is much higher these days than I remember any time in the past": that has to be the worst reason I've ever heard for believing in global warming, bar none. According to NASA's graph at https://climate.nasa.gov/evide... [nasa.gov] the global temperature during your lifetime has been less than 1 degree Celsius, or less than 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Do you seriously think that you are capable of detecting that amount of warming? Your 47 year old body is way different from your 7 year old body, heck it's
Re: (Score:1)
Since I am not a machine with sensors spanning the globe and recording the data points over 5 decades I will go from my own subjective observations regardless of your comment and my own subjective observations are telling me that it is hotter than before, that the winters are milder and shorter, the trees get destroyed by beetles more because the insects don't die off longer, that the ocean water is hotter and that the wild fires are more expansive than before. While it is true that the temperatures averag
Re: (Score:2)
"the temperature is much higher these days than I remember any time in the past": that has to be the worst reason I've ever heard for believing in global warming, bar none. According to NASA's graph at https://climate.nasa.gov/evide [nasa.gov]... [nasa.gov] the global temperature during your lifetime has been less than 1 degree Celsius, or less than 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Do you seriously think that you are capable of detecting that amount of warming?
That's not how it works tho.
Even a half degree change in global averages means the local weather can destabilize and make for periods with more frequent and more severe extremes.
Re: (Score:1)
It ought to be criminal (Score:5, Insightful)
I like to think I'm a logical, critical-thinking, fairly well-educated person.
What I have not been doing is studying climatology or checking temperature, wind, precipitation, insolation, and CO2 levels around the world to see if there's a trend worth knowing about.
I can only be as informed as the results passed to me through credentialed experts. When people fake their political anti-science crap into the system, it hurts everybody, and it should be treated as a crime against us all.
Re: (Score:2)
When people fake their political anti-science crap into the system, it hurts everybody, and it should be treated as a crime against us all.
Hang on, there's nothing in TFA to indicate they were intentionally trying to mislead anyone. Goodness knows we have enough of that.
If you're logical and critical thinking, perhaps you should consider whether they made a mistake? Papers get withdrawn all the time because their results are not reproduceable.
The line I liked was "... the article was reported uncritically in a page one story in the Australian newspaper.". No kidding, it seems every newspaper is willing to publish whatever claim they see. Journ
Re:It ought to be criminal (Score:4, Insightful)
>perhaps you should consider whether they made a mistake?
Then their 'science' was so astoundingly bad they shouldn't even have been able to find a self-publisher.
No matter what, this paper should never have seen the light of day except as an example of what not to do.
Re: (Score:2)
No matter what, this paper should never have seen the light of day except as an example of what not to do.
I see you are very sure, did you read that paper yourself? You just said you know nothing about that field and all your information is second hand. Seriously, you are quick to pass judgements when everything is hearsay.
Re: (Score:2)
So one paper, retracted over controversy, that went against the entire scientific world and well-established data... and you think that requires rigorous study to be confident it was shit?
You sound like someone who would be interested a bridge I could sell you.
Re: (Score:2)
there's nothing in TFA to indicate they were intentionally trying to mislead anyone
"cherrypicked" appears in TFS. HTH, HAND.
No matter the climate crisis (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because solar panels fit on my roof, and power my house (in the daytime, with enough power left over that they could charge batteries to get me through the night, if I had batteries)? Whereas a wind turbine wouldn't fit in my yard, much less on my roof, and most of the time wouldn't produce a significant amount of electricity.
Not sure what your comment about EVs has to do with solar panels, although for the record I do have an EV.
Wind turbines: mature, solar panels Moore's Law. (Score:2)
Why not buy wind turbines, the biggest manufacturers of which are in Europe and USA? Or from the biggest manufacturer of electric cars, which are also in Europe and USA?
Because wind turbines and solar panels were about par on $/watt a few decades back, then wind turbines, which were close to a mature technology improved incrementally while photovoltaic panels rode a variant of Moore's Law. At this point photovoltaics have a monstrous advantage (especially in house and farm scale sizes).
Solar panels are als
It's not hard to cherry-pick successful mitigation (Score:3)
Obviously we are reacting to changes in climate to keep food productivity high and continue to feed the world. The fact that we've thus far been able to mitigate the worst effects doesn't mean they're not there. It just means we've got a lid on it for now. But like a "contained" wildfire, it can quite easily escape that containment. Proving that we have managed to adapt so far is not the same as proving that there is no problem.
Re: It's not hard to cherry-pick successful mitiga (Score:2)
Wasn't the whole claim that there is no crisis yet?
So... (Score:1)
... what should we disbelieve? The articles that Springer Nature publishes after careful evaluation and peer review? Or the articles that it retracts after strong political and media pressure?
Re: (Score:2)
The articles that Springer Nature publishes after careful evaluation and peer review?
Let us know you don't understand the phrase "peer review" without telling us.
Hint: publication is part of the peer review process.
business as usual (Score:1, Troll)
"Concerns were raised regarding... the resulting conclusions of the article"
Of course concerns were raised. Any scientific reasoning inconsistent with fossil fuel profiteering must be cancelled.
Those pesky facts were getting in the way of the green agenda to save the world from carbon dioxide emissions by shutting down nuclear, so the article was retracted.
Germany powers its economy by tearing up the earth to mine highly polluting coal and by destroying thousands or acres of woodlands annually to fuel thei
Whistleblower says it was retracted for politics (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the article had misrepresented some scientific articles, was "selective and biased" and had "cherrypicked" information.
It'd be interesting to see what they consider "misrepresented", but since when is being selective and cherry picking against the scientific method? I mean, if what's out there is the truth, then surely picking some of them to support one's argument is fair game, no?
Re: (Score:1)
Please, tell me I just missed the implicit
Please?
Re: (Score:2)
> but since when is being selective and cherry picking against the scientific method?
Just in case you are serious. Consider: Cherry picking data is having a set of data and doing something like taking all of the 10's, say, that are in the dataset and creating a model that matches the data set.
Now, if the data you are cherry picking is to show that there is no climate crisis, what do you think the model will show? Have any guess?
So no, that's not the scientific method at all, it is antithetical to the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was more thinking along the lines of cherry picking full sets of data
Same thing on a higher level..
Statistics is a mine field.
Would Cliff Mass agree with the paper? (Score:2)
Does Cliff Mass regularly use empirical evidence to support the same conclusion that there is no climate crisis evident in data yet?
Yeah, we know why it was retracted (Score:1)
This is on the editor (Score:2)
An article that shows evidence of a non-obvious phenomenon is worthy of publication, as is an article that proves or at least shows overwhelming evidence of a negative result. However, it should be obvious to any competent editor that an article that simply fails to show evidence is not worthy of publication. After all, it could be (as was the case for this article), that the authors were incompetent or biased.
The authors were trying to advance their agenda. I don't blame them. It's was on the editor (a
No confidence (Score:2)
The problem I have is the inability to trust that Journals would touch or consider papers that went against the grain whatever that grain happens to be.
I think it should be mandatory if you are going to take what should be an extraordinary and rare step of retracting anything after the fact. Most especially after it gets a lot of attention and there is a lot of political pressure brought to bear your refutation had better be completely transparent, vigorous and beyond reproach.
The evidence free commentary
Re: (Score:2)
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
It's a fairly effective way of weeding out the incompetent, the crazies, and the corrupted.
Nobody should publish a paper like this for the public, it should have fought its way through the scientific community until multiple independent subject experts had said, "there might actually be something to this" first.
"Crisis" (Score:1)
.
This is a nonsense article about a nonsense paper
I look up at the subject line and see 'thegaurdian.com' and think "Yep, sounds about right".
meaningless, unfortunately (Score:2)
We have seen retractions of articles and entire books based simply on political pressure, so unfortunately as far as learning anything is concerned, this retraction is a no-op. The only retractions of interest are those that clearly show falsification of data. And "clearly" is key.