Skip to content

Hmm, science, eh?

One of the world’s biggest scientific publishers has retracted a journal article that claimed to have found no evidence of a climate crisis.

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”.

Now, if that’s true, no evidence, then it should be withdrawn.

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.

But there is a thought that it’s convenient to the narrative that it should be withdrawn, no?

That there is no – as yet – climate crisis does seem to be true after all.

9 thoughts on “Hmm, science, eh?”

  1. 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.

    Pot meets Kettle.

  2. Truth is that the current climate is within the parameters of recent historical norms and any observable “rise” in temperature is likely a reversion-to-mean for a given inter glacial period.

    That sort of comment will get you excommunicated from the Church of Gaia though, since it doesn’t provide funding, knighthoods or accolades, but rather is the road to professional exile and ostracisation.

    We’re all mean to be Good Little Greta’s and “Pay more tax to Gaia to stop the sky falling in”.

  3. The land is getting greener. The oceans are as well, although this is only detectable by spectral analysis of satellite data.
    So we know where all that extra CO2 is going. Chlorophyl.

  4. The sciences were wonderful, weren’t they, in their day? But, alas, The Science is like a return to the Inquisition: burn the heretics.

    Maybe the rot started when the sciences became dominated by government money. To be fair the crusty old fuddy-duddies predicted the problem a century ago.

    It’s probably too late to reverse it now, short of Combined Arms Operations with machine-gunners and lions.

  5. “ The article claimed to have analysed data to find no trend in rainfall extremes, floods, droughts and food productivity…”

    The same conclusion reached by the IPCC a couple of years ago.

  6. Usually scientific articles are retracted because they plagiarised, fraudulent, or there is some other problem with the way that they arose – not normally because they draw wrong conclusions from their data, which would be grounds for someone to publish another paper describing the flaws in the first – not grounds for retraction.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *