Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
From goodreads.comI am reading The Bodies of Others: The New Authoritarians, COVID-19 and The War Against the Human by Naomi Wolf. The author is making similar statements about data manipulation used by the Covid alarmists to overstate the problem and justify lockdowns. Rinse, wash and repeat.
What has been revealed is that the climate doomsday crowd cannot be trusted as honest brokers of the factsWhat? You mean denier leaders lied about what the guy said, and all the deniers here gleefully repeated the lie?
No, I don't think anyone is surprised.
Of course the deniers here don't regret pushing the BigLie. Have they ever? They're deniers. TheParty told them to push the lie, therefore they consider the lie to be a GoodAndHolyThing.
What facts do you think have been misrepresented?What has been revealed is that the climate doomsday crowd cannot be trusted as honest brokers of the facts
www.usmessageboard.com
He left out the “AGWCult members using drones to start forest fires” method as wellIn other words, “I lied by omission, in a classic case of noble cause corruption.”
Follow the science.
Into the abyss.
I’m actually shocked that he had the integrity to come right out and admit this. Good for him. He’s not saying anything that the more well-informed of us didn’t already know, but the fact that this will generate discussion over the amount of overt corruption (which they hardly even bother trying to hide anymore) in the peer review process is a definite bonus.
A new study by a team of mostly San Francisco Bay Area scientists that found human-caused climate warming has increased the frequency of extremely fast-spreading California wildfires has come into question from the unlikeliest of critics—its own lead author.
Patrick T. Brown, climate team co-director at the nonprofit Breakthrough Institute in Berkeley and a visiting research professor at San Jose State University, said his Aug. 30 paper in the prestigious British journal Nature is scientifically sound and “advances our understanding of climate change’s role in day-to-day wildfire behavior.”
But Brown this week dropped a bomb on the journal—as well as his study’s co-authors who are staunchly defending the team’s work. In an online article, blog post and social media posts, Brown said he “left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published,” causing almost as much of a stir as the alarming findings themselves.
Brown wrote that the study didn’t look at poor forest management and other factors that are just as, if not more, important to fire behavior because “I knew that it would detract from the clean narrative centered on the negative impact of climate change and thus decrease the odds that the paper would pass muster with Nature’s editors and reviewers.” He added such bias in climate science “misinforms the public” and “makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.”
Scientist says he 'left out the full truth' to get climate change wildfire study published in journal
A new study by a team of mostly San Francisco Bay Area scientists that found human-caused climate warming has increased the frequency of extremely fast-spreading California wildfires has come into question from the unlikeliest of critics—its own lead author.phys.org
Peer Review Process: Have you accepted Climate Change as your religion?
Factcheck: Scientists pour cold water on claims of ‘journal bias’ by author of wildfires study - Carbon Brief
Dr Patrick Brown has faced widespread criticism from other scientists and the editor of the science journal, Nature.www.carbonbrief.org
However, other scientists were quick to point out that the study’s reviewers had indeed recommended that these other factors were considered.In addition, Brown and his co-authors themselves had argued in their response to the peer reviewers that including the other factors was “very difficult” and that was “precisely why” they had chosen to focus on “the much cleaner but more narrow question of what the influence of warming alone”.In a statement, Nature’s editor-in-chief Dr Magdalena Skipper accused Brown of “poor research practices” that were “not in line with the standards we set for our journal”.One study co-author told Carbon Brief that Brown’s comments “took me by surprise” and that “I don’t think he has much evidence to support his strong claims that editors and reviewers are biased”.Meanwhile, other climate scientists described Brown’s actions as “monumentally unethical” and “very, very weird behaviour indeed”.
AND
What did the study’s peer-review comments show?All research papers in credible academic journals go through some form of “peer review”. This process sees two or three scientists not involved in the study – but with appropriate expertise – offering their assessment of the work, often anonymously. They will recommend whether the paper should or should not be published, as well as offering suggestions for improvement.Nature published the peer-review comments for Dr Brown’s paper alongside the study – a practice it has been offering since 2020.There are three reviewers for the paper and author “rebuttals” to their comments are also included in the document.Their comments, taken together, severely undermine Brown’s claims that he was encouraged to support what he described as the journal’s “pre-approved narratives”.Two of the three reviewers said they could not recommend the paper for publication in its initial form, with the third reviewer providing comments, but no specific recommendation.The two reviewers that recommended rejection both highlighted the limited scope of the study. Reviewer 1 noted that “a concern is the use of wildfire growth as the key variable”, adding:
Reviewer 3 was concerned that “the climate change scenario only includes temperature as input for the modified climate”, adding that “changes in atmospheric humidity would also be highly relevant”.In a lengthy response, the authors wrote that “we agree that climatic variables other than temperature are important for projecting changes in wildfire risk”, adding:
However, “accounting for changes in all of these variables and their potential interactions simultaneously is very difficult”, they said:
They added:
When these points were raised to Brown on Twitter, he responded that “the point here is that focusing exclusively on the climate change variable (temperature and, yes, acknowledging other variables but holding them constant) is what makes the study more likely to be publishable in a high-impact journal”.He added:
(Brown has also posted further comments in a piece on the Breakthrough Institute’s website where he argues that “nowhere in the peer-review process did reviewers challenge the usefulness of focusing solely on the impact of climate change when projecting long-term changes in wildfire behaviour”.)However, in an interview conducted with study co-author and meteorologist Holt Hanley the day after the paper was published, Brown – adopting a very different tone – noted he considers the study as “step one” of ongoing research:
Do you have some evidence? A link to a supporting source? Or are you having those hallucination issues again?He left out the “AGWCult members using drones to start forest fires” method as well
How does CO2 start forest fires?Dufus, I told you.
Why do you hate science?
because operation 'sober popeye' is anthropogenic proofWhy do you think so?
You shouldn't start drinking this early Frank.Peer Review Process: Have you accepted Climate Change as your religion?
There are no proofs in the natural sciences. Only evidence. And there is an ENORMOUS amount of evidence to support the theory that the largest cause of the warming observed since the Industrial Revolution is being caused by the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions.because operation 'sober popeye' is anthropogenic proof
and most likely the only proof you'll find Crick
~S~
environmental activists arrested for arsonDo you have some evidence? A link to a supporting source? Or are you having those hallucination issues again?
There are no proofs in the natural sciences. Only evidence. And there is an ENORMOUS amount of evidence to support the theory that the largest cause of the warming observed since the Industrial Revolution is being caused by the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions.
You've gotten all of this a dozen times before Frank. AR6 clearly quantifies ECS and TCR. A hundred junior high school science experiments demonstrate that CO2 absorbs IR. When I go to the dictionary and look up "One-Trick Pony" it just says "Crusader Frank".Can post evidence demonstrating the connection between temperatures and an additional 120PPM of CO2?
What's the increase at 50PPM? Does the "Increase" double when you increase CO2 to 100PPM? What?
Is that why ice ages end before CO2 levels rise, therefore blowing your myth CO2 is the cause of climate change?You've gotten all of this a dozen times before Frank. AR6 clearly quantifies ECS and TCR. A hundred junior high school science experiments demonstrate that CO2 absorbs IR. When I go to the dictionary and look up "One-Trick Pony" it just says "Crusader Frank".
I assume by "ice ages" you actually mean the cold phases of the glacial cycles that have been transpiring for the last 2.5 million years. Those cycles are driven by Milankovitch orbital cycles which, during the warming phase are reinforced by positive feedback from CO2 coming out of solution and increased water vapor in the atmosphere. This has all been posted here before. Surely you've seen it. I guess I have to presume you're suffering badly from confirmation biasIs that why ice ages end before CO2 levels rise, therefore blowing your myth CO2 is the cause of climate change?
I'm still waiting to hear why you believe AGW theory precludes climatic change prior to the Industrial Revolution.Still waiting to hear why a glacier can recede a mile a year before the industrial age even started.
Could you explain why wetter increases fire risk? Increased undergrowth that later dries?Just a reminder that several tree species in California require fire for re-seeding ... that means California wildfires have been occurring over evolutionary time scales ... millions of years ... even Redwood burns, as demonstrated in April 1906 ...
Warmer means wetter ... which increases fire risks in California ... but climate has to remain the same for this ... if you lived out West, you'd understand, otherwise you'll just have to trust me ...
It rarely rains in California in July or August ... three or four months without a drop of rain is completely normal and usual for the hot hot hot Summer ... you can bet on it ... 95ºF or higher everyday in Sacramento, no exceptions ...
=====
Lies of omission are lies ... and a sin against God ...
Oh really!I assume by "ice ages" you actually mean the cold phases of the glacial cycles that have been transpiring for the last 2.5 million years. Those cycles are driven by Milankovitch orbital cycles which, during the warming phase are reinforced by positive feedback from CO2 coming out of solution and increased water vapor in the atmosphere. This has all been posted here before. Surely you've seen it. I guess I have to presume you're suffering badly from confirmation bias
I'm still waiting to hear why you believe AGW theory precludes climatic change prior to the Industrial Revolution.
