Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It appears that your source mislabeled someone as a "whistleblower". He appears to have been one of the authors of the paper. He would likely give a very biased account of what happened.Mann leapt from relative obscurity to international fame with his “hockey stick”, a graph of global temperatures from 1000 AD to the present, which was the showpiece at the iv launching of the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report in Shanghai in January 2001. The hockey stick became a corporate logo for the IPCC , but because it rubbed out the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age from the historical record, it was subjected to a US congressional inquiry. Eventually it was shown that random data fed into the algorithms used by Mann to produce his hockey stick from bristle cone pine tree ring data, also yielded hockey stick results.
Through his position, Connolley for years kept dissenting views on global warming out of Wikipedia, allowing only those that promoted the view that global warming represented a threat to mankind. As a result, Wikipedia became a leading source of global warming propaganda, with Connolley its chief propagandist.
Climate ‘Propagandist’ Banned by Wikipedia | National Review
Remember William Connolley? Team Green’s point man at Wikipedia has censored his last climate-science entry. Lawrence Solomon — who wrote about Connolley for NRO back in 2008 — does a victory lap i…www.nationalreview.com
To be clear, there is absolutely no allegation of research fraud or misconduct here, just simple disagreement. Instead of countering arguments and evidence via the peer reviewed literature, activist scientists teamed up with activist journalists to pressure a publisher – Springer Nature, perhaps the world’s most important scientific publisher – to retract a paper. Sadly, the pressure campaign worked.
"Think of the Implications of Publishing"
A whistleblower shares shocking details of corruption of peer review in climate sciencerogerpielkejr.substack.com
Once again, before you can even start to offer "solutions" you need to learn the basics of AGW.
You should have done more than just find one of the few sources that support you. An unbiased search will find article that explain why the paper was retracted. Such as this one:
Scientific journal retracts article that claimed no evidence of climate crisis
Publisher Springer Nature says 2022 article ‘not supported by available evidence’ as editors launch investigation' 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”.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.
After those concerns were raised, Springer Nature announced in October it was investigating the article.'
Misrepresenting articles is a huge problem. It is a form of lying and lying is a huge no no in the sciences.
And these authors are clearly science deniers. They are working far outside their area of expertise. Do you remember "cold fusion"? That is what can happen when people do experiments in areas of science that they have no clue about.
One more point, the authors are science deniers when it comes to climate. Especially Dr. Alimonti:
'Two of the study’s four authors, retired nuclear physicist Renato Ricci and known climate science sceptic Franco Prodi, signed a declaration in early 2022 that there was “no climate emergency” and that “enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial”.
The study’s lead author, nuclear physicist Prof Gianluca Alimonti, argued in 2014 that there was no consensus among climate scientists that global warming was caused by human activity. At least six separate studies have shown that between 90% and 100% of climate scientists agree warming is caused by humans.'
