Credit: NOAA
Some IPCC-supporting climate alarmists – you may have heard of some of them – are complaining about a research article by four Italian scientists in which they question the existence of a ‘climate crisis’. The objectors claim their ability to attribute climate change to human factors has improved, or something.
– – –
A fundamentally flawed study claiming that scientific evidence of a climate crisis is lacking should be withdrawn from the peer-reviewed journal in which it was published, top climate scientists have told AFP.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, says Phys.org.
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, is not evident,” reads the summary of the 20-page study.
Four prominent climate scientists contacted by AFP all said the study—of which they had been unaware—grossly manipulates data, cherry picking some facts and ignoring others that would contradict their discredited assertions.
“The paper gives the appearance of being specifically written to make the case that there is no climate crisis, rather than presenting an objective, comprehensive, up-to-date assessment,” said Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts Research at Britain’s Met Office.
The authors ignore the authoritative Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change (IPCC) report published a couple of months before their study was submitted to Springer Nature, Betts noted.
“Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe,” the IPCC concluded in that report.
“Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has strengthened” since the previous report eight years earlier, it said.
Full article here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
[…] Scientists urge top publisher to withdraw ‘faulty’ climate study — Tallbloke’s Talkshop […]
Impassioned claims are not becoming to scientists.
‘Four prominent climate scientists contacted by AFP’
K. I see it. ‘Climate scientists.’ Not ‘scientists.’
Since when has any paper on AGW been objective? Since when has the IPPC done any science, conducted any experiments, validated any data?
Since when has weather become climate? Since when have the gremlins at the climate factory not manipulated data and cherry-picked end points,
[…] Scientists urge top publisher to withdraw ‘faulty’ climate study | Tallbloke’s Talkshop (w… […]
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
The scientific evidence is compelling that manmade climate change is modest and benign, and CO2 emissions are beneficial, rather than harmful. Here are some relevant peer-reviewed studies:
https://sealevel.info/negative_social_cost_of_carbon.html
Contrary to the complaints of the four critics of Alimonti et al, it is indisputable that extreme weather events have not significantly worsened as CO2 levels have risen, and one very important category of extreme weather events, severe tornadoes, has substantially improved (declined):
https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html?0=tornadoes#tornadoes
The decline in hurricane and tropical cyclone destructiveness is less striking, and might be due to merely random variation, but here’s a paper about it:
Lin & Chan (2015), Recent decrease in typhoon destructive potential and global warming implications. Nature Communications, doi:10.1038/ncomms8182.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8182
Friederike Otto’s complaint about “heat waves” is much ado about very little, because the slight increase in global temperatures which the Earth has experienced over the last century decreases cold snaps as much as it increases heat waves, and:
“Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries..”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm
Source:
Gasparrini et al, (2015), Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study. The Lancet, Vol 386, no. 9991, pp.369-375. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62114-0
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext
In other words, contrary to what climate activists would have you believe, a warming climate is generally net-beneficial. That’s why scientists call the periods of warmest climate, including periods warmer than our current climate, “climate optimums.”
The four critics of this paper are activists, not impartial scientists. All four of them make their livings in the “Climate Biz,” and have careers which are dependent on climate alarmism. When the fake “climate crisis” collapses, all four of them will need to find new jobs.
Stefan Rahmstorf is particularly notorious for publishing deeply flawed “studies” to promote the climate scare. Here’s an excerpt from one of the published critiques of his work:
“…this statistical analysis (Rahmstorf, 2007) is based on an application of statistics… violating basic assumptions of the statistical methods used.”
Schmith et al (2007), Comment on “A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise.” Science, Vol 317, Issue 5846, p. 1866. doi:10.1126/science.1143286
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1143286
See also:
http://tinyurl.com/rahmstuff
CO2 emissions have a slight effect on global temperatures, but they are enormously beneficial for agriculture. More CO2 benefits crops in two important ways: “CO2 fertilization” (which increases crop yields in all conditions), and improved water use efficiency and drought resilience. 15-20% of current crop yields are a direct result of the beneficial effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 for agriculture. If we didn’t have those improvements in crop yields we could approximately cover the deficit by using ALL of Earth’s rainforests for agriculture.
Climate change is a highly politicized topic, so (as is the case for any politicized topic) if you want to understand it you need to read balanced information. I have a list of resources which can help:
https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html
It has:
● accurate introductory climatology info
● in-depth science from BOTH skeptics & alarmists
● links to balanced debates between experts on BOTH sides
● information about climate impacts
● links to the best blogs on BOTH sides of the issue
Listen to the wisdom of the late Prof. Freeman Dyson:
“…non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial… possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and… the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.”
When he wrote these words he was, by general consensus, America’s most distinguished living scientist. He was the man who took over Einstein’s position, when Einstein died.
Prof. Dyson knew that manmade climate change is modest & benign, and CO2 emissions are beneficial, not harmful.
Climate Emergency Not Supported by Data, Say Four Leading Italian Scientists
14 SEPTEMBER 2022
Four leading Italian scientists have undertaken a major review of historical climate trends and concluded that declaring a ‘climate emergency’ is not supported by the data. Reviewing data from a wide range of weather phenomena, they say a ‘climate crisis’ of the kind people are becoming alarmed about “is not evident yet”. The scientists suggest that rather than burdening our children with anxiety about climate change, we should encourage them to think about issues like energy, food and health, and the challenges in each area, with a more “objective and constructive spirit” and not waste limited resources on “costly and ineffective solutions”.
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/14/climate-emergency-not-supported-by-data-say-four-leading-italian-scientists/
– – –
Tinkering with ’emissions’ and calling it climate action is extremely optimistic, not to say silly.
Were they wrong, one would be enough….
Interesting that the climate clique impugns the authors and makes minor critiques about data. The authors appear to be respectable scientists, meteorologist and physicists. I would expect a call to retract the report in the journal to be fairly specific about errors of procedure or mistakes in the analysis of the data.
‘the authoritative Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change (IPCC) report’
Because the IPCC says so.
Brilliant – the paper looks at the data so the criticism is that they “ignored” an IPCC report.
And yet they continue to claim this us science.
Study: ‘Similar conclusions seem to be reached about meteorological and hydrological drought by the IPCC AR6 draft available today, while a little more concern is expressed about agricultural and ecological drought’
Betts: ‘The authors ignore the authoritative Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change (IPCC) report published a couple of months before their study was submitted to Springer Nature’
– – –
Clearly they didn’t ignore it.
Why refute when you can ban?
This was based on an AFP ‘fact check’. Shame on Betts for stooping so low but it’s par for the course for people like Rahmstorf and ‘Freddie’ Otto to want to immediately censor those questioning the climate crisis/extreme weather narrative. I’ll be writing a detailed article on my Substack using actual facts, not hand-waved ones laced with insults, to rebut this rubbish from Betts, Otto et al. Personally, I think with all the authors of the Springer paper being Italian, this may be an early manifestation of Meloni Derangement Syndrome in the climate ‘science’ community and their cheerleaders.