JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Sea level height based on aerobics and other gibberish published in top science journals

Nature and Elsevier are agog and aghast that hundreds of junk papers filled with random word salad have been published in their esteemed journals.

It’s as bad as it sounds — one retracted title was: “‘Sea level height based on big data of Internet of Things and aerobics teaching in coastal areas’. “

They are shocked that  scammers who were “organised” and “sophisticated” found tricks to get published — wait for it — not just by hyping up, adjusting and exaggerating their cherry-picked papers and incompetent models, but with nothing more than fake e-mails “with ‘univ’ instead of ‘uni’ and ‘-ac.uk’ instead of ‘.ac.uk’”. That’s right, the highest and most intellectual “peer review” journals in the world have such inadequate, nonexistent standards, that not only do they fail to weed out weak papers, they couldn’t even defend themselves against randomized nonsense coming from fake professors with dodgy emails.

In other words, no one who matters even reads the papers before they are published.

Indeed, no one even read the titles…

Scammers impersonate guest editors to get sham papers published

Nature

Hundreds of articles published in peer-reviewed journals are being retracted after scammers exploited the processes for publishing special issues to get poor-quality papers — sometimes consisting of complete gibberish — into established journals. In some cases, fraudsters posed as scientists and offered to guest-edit issues that they then filled with sham papers.

Elsevier is withdrawing 165 articles currently in press and plans to retract 300 more that have been published as part of 6 special issues in one of its journals, and Springer Nature is retracting 62 articles published in a special issue of one journal. The retractions come after the publishers each issued expressions of concern earlier this year, covering hundreds of articles.

Guillaume Cabanac,  a computer scientist who uncovered nonsense papers, was shocked:

…it is shocking to see such papers in journals from ‘flagship’ publishers and that “it is not only predatory journals that publish bullshit”.

The papers are computer generated junk:

 71 articles have abstracts or titles that contain the words ‘dance’, ‘aerobics’ or ‘sports’ in relation to geoscience, including the articles ‘Sea level height based on big data of Internet of Things and aerobics teaching in coastal areas’ and ‘Rock stress and deformation characteristics based on SVM and sports high-intensity interval training’.

And it’s all happened before — in 2014 at least 120 papers were “computer generated nonsense” and were published and later retracted. It’s emblematic of the entire academic sector really. An industry using AI to produce nothing, discover nothing, get published, and then write papers about it?

So who benefits?

But the scammers’ motivations remain a mystery to Ivan Oransky, a journalist who runs Retraction Watch. Even the article titles, which would be listed as part of an individual’s publication record, often do not make sense, he says. “The papers are so obviously terrible, so why would you want them on your CV?”

Many of the papers were from authors based at Chinese institutions, and most contained nonsensical phrases that Elsevier thinks came from the use of reverse-translation software to disguise plagiarism.

Perhaps Western professors are trying to plump out their bios with statements about “publishing 412 Nature papers” and just paid a paper-scam generator in China. But who’d really want their name on papers like these? These papers are so bad, they look like the hoax papers done purposely to expose the rot in academia.Will a team appear next week admitting the papers were faked to test the system? Or are there just too many incentives for Chinese or other academics to “publish or perish”?

Either way, Western Civilization is paying trillions of dollars to change the weather based on “The Science” according to peer review — which appears to have no more intellectual prowess than a Nigerian 419 email scam.

Peer review is anonymous and unpaid and worth every cent.

RELATED POSTS

REFERENCE

Holly Else (2021) Scammers impersonate guest editors to get sham papers published doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03035-y

9.9 out of 10 based on 96 ratings

162 comments to Sea level height based on aerobics and other gibberish published in top science journals

  • #
    Erasmus

    It must have been one of these groups who calculated this week that the responses of all the countries to the COP demands leaves the world in grave danger of a 2.4 degree increase in lieu of the desired 1.5 degree result.
    This is all absolute b/s.

    420

    • #
      Vladimir

      How many of this website “residents” registered on and listened to Dr. Finkel (former Chief Scientist) last night?
      He started with statement, to the effect that “public demands action from the governments and institutions”

      160

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

        I did not. And I wouldn’t have even if I’d known.
        Cheers
        Dave B

        140

      • #
        RickWill

        public demands action from the governments and institutions

        I am all in on this. My priorities are:
        1. Sack the entire BoM staff and start again.
        2. Relocate the CSIRO headquarters to Alice Springs. Anyone not wanting to move is unemployed.
        3. Sell off their ABC – pay someone to take it off the pockets of Australian taxpayers if needed.
        4. No funds or in-kind support for UN programs – actively work to disband the UN.

        That will solve the climate emergency.

        481

        • #
          TdeF

          You could add ANSTO who back this carbon dioxide is evil story in a country where nuclear energy is banned. And presented with real facts and evidence, just retreat into a voice from authority story. No one speaks out, even when they know it is arrant nonsense. Climate Change pays the bills. Keep quiet or everyone is out of a job.

          So much for Big Oil and Big COal and Big Gas, no one talks about big Wind, big Solar and giant parasitic organizations. In their tens of thousands, especially the 40,000 full time people each in the UN and EU. And the armies of people administering Clean Energy finance, energy certificates and the largest carbon dioxide tax in the world, hidden in our electricity bills. Wind people can give their energy away free and still get paid and generally are paid double, which is why everyone is being forced out of coal, gas and oil, as intended.

          Anyone who believes wind and solar are cheaper than coal has to ask why electricity prices keep rocketing? Anyone who believes in rapidly rising temperatures and rapidly rising seas should just ask themselves if they really believe it based on their own personal experience.

          Deprogramming two generation of people fed lies about rapid Global Warming is the task ahead. Freezing conditions will help.

          And now we are seeing that Peer reviewed literature has been easily scammed. Who said it just started? Academics have been publishing nonsense for years, especially on global warming, climate change and that great pile of steaming nonsense called Ocean Acidification.

          210

          • #
            TdeF

            The CCP has ordered maximum coal production throughout the country. Why? Because the winter is already freezing, the coldest in history. So much for COP26 and rapid warming.

            And Wuhan flu has come back with a vengeance in this coldest winter. It’s what happens when you manufacture and release a killer virus to destabilize the West. Like the Irishman, Rick O’Shea.

            191

            • #
              Dennis

              At the Paris Conference late 2015 ending December, Australia signed the Agreement in New York during April 2016, the future target for lowering emissions was 2030 and it remains the target, the Australian Federal Government refused to agree to net zero emissions by 2050 despite the pressures applied for Australia to make the pledge.

              Net zero emissions 2050 was discussed at the Paris Conference for future consideration, the next step once 2030 was reached. But before COP26 Glasgow net zero emissions became a lever being applied to signatories to the 2030 Agreement demanding that they sign again before reaching 2030.

              What is the panic about?

              Obviously the CCP understands that cooling is underway and becoming a major concern so IPCC knows that but their panic was/is to secure commitments to net zero emissions and UN funding grants coupled to that pledge from 2022 every year thereafter. Like Joe’s New Green Deal billions that has been rejected.

              60

            • #
              Bruce

              also: “war stores”. They have bees stockpiling oil for decades. Not just a couple of barrels here and there, but in vast underground tanks scattered about the countryside, but close to road, rail and / or river transport.

              They plan to be “the last man standing”.

              20

              • #
                Dennis

                So has the USA, the agreement that Australia can access oil from US storage signed when President Trump was in office resulted in Australia placing a substantial order for oil to remain in US storage until new storage facilities can be constructed in Australia. I understand that our Federal Government is also negotiating to keep the remaining Australian oil refineries operating.

                In addition new aviation fuel storage and aircraft servicing infrastructure is being installed at RAAF Base Tindal in the NT and runways are being lengthened for the largest US bombers to use, and other facilities at various other locations. The RAN WA Collins Class Submarine Base (Sterling) is being extended for docking and servicing of UK and US nuclear submarines. A new RAN Base in Darwin Harbour is being constructed, another at East Timor and the WW2 Navy Base at Manus Island PNG is being reconstructed.

                I wonder when the vast shale oil deposits here in SA, NSW and QLD will be exploited?

                The Federal Government is talking about Future Fuel as part of the explanation for building facilities for EV and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle recharging and refuelling around the nation, and of course the private sector has been slowly providing for EV for a number of years.

                Putting all of the known factors together, and our Government refusing to enter into a net zero emissions 2050 agreement, I wonder how much is happening that cannot be talked about publicly?

                70

        • #
          Former NIH researcher

          How do we know that the Pfeizer data anout the Pfeizer produkts are real? They will not show the data Until 2025.
          Is it not very naïve to think that they will be completely honest when they test their own product and stand to make billions from a positive article. All the data could be made up. They have paid enormous sums before for fraud. Why not now?

          30

  • #
    Peter

    Impersonation is the new vogue. It’s rampant across multiple platforms and it’s very clear to me that if whites can pass as blacks then anything is possible.

    161

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Interesting idea, applicable to all Australians.

      Our “leaders” regardless of colour are too caught up in the theme of self gratification and not enough in true leadership.

      Changing this requires a push from the led rather than new laws written and implemented by the current “leaders”.

      90

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Thanks for this story, and for the link. I do appreciate the annual ‘ Peer review is anonymous and unpaid and worth every cent’ it reminds me that the silly season is almost here.

    529

    • #
      R.B.

      The silly season is year round for those who insist that publishing in peer-reviewed journals is some sort of gold standard. No amount of knowledge about how much absolute garbage gets published, how many can’t be replicated, or the staggering portion of papers that refer to papers found to be incorrect for facts will stop the belief –as long as the gate keepers have the right politics.

      261

      • #
        Ian

        This article is really very old hat as many other articles have published similar results. Wikipedia provides a very comprehensive assessment of the topic as do other sources

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_publishing
        https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00709-x

        That said it is informative that there are relatively few published papers from climate change sceptics. Perhaps they are rejected or perhaps very few climate change sceptics publish. Who knows?

        https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/
        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4
        https://skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

        226

        • #
          clarence.t

          One look at the SKS link shows you just how sad their propaganda is

          Take Fred Singer, for eg.. SKS says 0

          but a quick search reveals the following….

          Singer, S.F. 1996. Climate debate. Nature 384: 522–523.

          Singer, S.F. 1999. Human contribution to climate change remains questionable. Also, Reply. EOS: Transactions, American Geophysical Union 80 (33): 186–187 and 372–373.

          Singer, S.F. 2000. Climate policy—From Rio to Kyoto a political issue for 2000 and beyond. Essays in Public Policy 102. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

          Singer, S.F. 2001. Global warming: An insignificant trend? Science 292: 1063–1064.

          Singer, S.F. 2001. Disparity of temperature trends of atmosphere and surface. Paper presented at 12th Symposium on Global Climate Change, American Meteorological Society, Albuquerque, NM.

          Singer, S.F. 2002. Statistical analysis does not support human influence on climate. Energy and Environment 13:329–331.

          Douglass, D.H., Pearson, B., and Singer, S.F. 2004. Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observations. Geophysical Research Letters 31.

          Douglass, D.H., Pearson, B.D., Singer, S.F., Knappenberger, P.C., and Michaels, P.J. 2004. Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: new evidence. Geophysical Research Letters 31: L13207, DOI:10.1029/2004GL020212.

          Douglass, D.H., Christy, J.R., Pearson, B.D., and Singer, S.F. 2007. A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology (Royal Meteorological Society). DOI:10.1002/joc.1651.

          Singer, S.F. 2010. Viewpoints and technical communications: a response to “The climate change debates,” Energy & Environment.

          Loehle, C. and Singer, S.F. 2010. Holocene temperature records show millennial-scale periodicity. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 47:1327–1336.

          Singer, S.F. 2011. Lack of consistency between modeled and observed temperature trends. Energy & Environment 22: 375–406.

          Singer, S.F. and C.W. Monckton. 2012. Overcoming chaotic behavior of climate models. In R. Ragaini (Ed.) International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies – 44th Session: The Role of Science in the Third Millennium. World Scientific Publishing Company.

          Singer, S.F. 2012. IPCC exercise in curve-fitting to prove anthropogenic global warming (AGW), Energy & Environment 23 (4).

          Singer, S.F. 2013. Inconsistency of modeled and observed tropical temperature trends. Energy & Environment 24: 405–413.

          SKS is blatant mis-infomation from start finish… always…

          The other two bottom links have little scientific merit either.

          As Einstein says, it only takes one paper to prove him wrong, and climate science nonsense has been proven wrong by many !

          Why is it some people have to rely on “consensus”, and “numbers of papers” etc, rather than presenting actual science?

          Its as though the actual science is off no importance to them.

          250

          • #
            R.B.

            What DeSmog writes about Bill Gray says it all.

            Peter Webster, a Georgia Institute of Technology professor, participated in the anonymous peer review on several of Gray’s National Science Foundation proposals. In every case he has turned down the global warming research component because he believed it was not up to standards, but recommended that Gray’s hurricane research be funded.

            There is ideological gate keeping going so as to protect less than robust science.

            They freaked when criticism of Mann’s Hockey Stick got published, not at being duped by Mann’s methodology. They freaked out over one single paper making it through. Imagine how good it needed to be when others that are blatant gibberish get published.

            100

          • #
            Ian

            You certainly have cited many papers by Fred Singerand DH Douglass. However SKS has a pretty tacky cop out saying

            Peer-reviewed skeptic papers by David Douglass
            This page lists any peer-reviewed papers by David Douglass that take a negative or explicitly doubtful position on human-caused global warming.
            Climate forcing by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo
            (Year: 2005, Journal: Geophysical Research Letters, Citations: 0)

            Peer-reviewed skeptic papers by Fred Singer
            This page lists any peer-reviewed papers by Fred Singer that take a negative or explicitly doubtful position on human-caused global warming.
            There are no peer-reviewed climate papers by Fred Singer that meet this definition.

            Peer-reviewed skeptic papers by Christopher Monckton
            This page lists any peer-reviewed papers by Christopher Monckton that take a negative or explicitly doubtful position on human-caused global warming.
            There are no peer-reviewed climate papers by Christopher Monckton that meet this definition.

            That said however it is noticeable that your seemingly prolific list of papers primarily cites only Singer and Douglass. That really shows the paucity of scientists who publish papers sceptical of human induced climate change Why did you not mention Patrick Michaels or Richard Lindzen?

            212

            • #
              clarence.t

              Why would I waste my time on any further.

              One example proves them totally incorrect.

              We know SKS is a comic site of inepititude… time others learnt the same.

              20

            • #
              clarence.t

              You asked for Lindzen

              2014 Covey C, Dai A, Lindzen RS, Marsh DR. Atmospheric tides in the latest generation of climate models Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. 71: 1905-1913. DOI: 10.1175/Jas-D-13-0358.1

              2014 Lindzen RS. Enok Palm: Modest pioneer – An historical and personal memoir of Eliassen and Palm, 1960 European Journal of Mechanics, B/Fluids. 47: 9-11. DOI: 10.1016/J.Euromechflu.2013.11.001

              2014 Choi YS, Cho H, Ho CH, Lindzen RS, Park SK, Yu X. Influence of non-feedback variations of radiation on the determination of climate feedback Theoretical and Applied Climatology. 115: 355-364. DOI: 10.1007/S00704-013-0998-6

              2012 Rondanelli R, Lindzen RS. Comment on “clouds and the Faint Young Sun Paradox” by Goldblatt and Zahnle (2011) Climate of the Past. 8: 701-703. DOI: 10.5194/Cp-8-701-2012

              2012 Lindzen RS. Climate physics, feedbacks, and reductionism (and when does reductionism go too far?) European Physical Journal Plus. 127. DOI: 10.1140/Epjp/I2012-12052-8

              2011 Covey C, Dai A, Marsh D, Lindzen RS. The surface-pressure signature of atmospheric tides in modern climate models Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. 68: 495-514. DOI: 10.1175/2010Jas3560.1

              2011 Lindzen RS, Choi YS. On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences. 47: 377-390. DOI: 10.1007/S13143-011-0023-X

              2010 Rondanelli R, Lindzen RS. Can thin cirrus clouds in the tropics provide a solution to the faint young Sun paradox? Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres. 115. DOI: 10.1029/2009Jd012050

              2010 Choi YS, Ho CH, Kim J, Lindzen RS. Satellite retrievals of (quasi-)spherical particles at cold temperatures Geophysical Research Letters. 37. DOI: 10.1029/2009Gl041818

              2010 Rondanelli R, Lindzen RS. Comment on “variations of tropical upper tropospheric clouds with sea surface temperature and implications for radiative effects” by H. Su et al Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres. 115. DOI: 10.1029/2008Jd011189

              2010 Choi YS, Ho CH, Kim SW, Lindzen RS. Observational diagnosis of cloud phase in the winter Antarctic atmosphere for parameterizations in climate models Advances in Atmospheric Sciences. 27: 1233-1245. DOI: 10.1007/S00376-010-9175-3

              2009 Giannitsis C, Lindzen RS. Nonlinear saturation of vertically propagating Rossby waves Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. 66: 915-934. DOI: 10.1175/2008Jas2978.1

              2009 Lindzen RS, Choi YS. On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data Geophysical Research Letters. 36. DOI: 10.1029/2009Gl039628

              2008 Rondanelli R, Lindzen RS. Observed variations in convective precipitation fraction and stratiform area with sea surface temperature Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres. 113. DOI: 10.1029/2008Jd010064

              2008 Lindzen RS. Is the global warming alarm founded on fact? Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto. 21-33.

              2007 Lindzen RS. Taking greenhouse warming seriously Energy and Environment. 18: 937-950. DOI: 10.1260/095830507782616823

              2006 Zurita-Gotor P, Lindzen RS. A generalized momentum framework for looking at baroclinic circulations Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. 63: 2036-2055. DOI: 10.1175/Jas3737.1

              2006 Zurita-Gotor P, Lindzen RS. Potential momentum and the equilibration of short Charney waves Meteorologische Zeitschrift. 15: 389-399. DOI: 10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0141

              2006 Rondanelli R, Thayalan V, Lindzen RS, Zuber MT. Atmospheric contribution to the dissipation of the gravitational tide of Phobos on Mars Geophysical Research Letters. 33. DOI: 10.1029/2006Gl026222

              2005 Lindzen RS. Deposition of Richard S. Lindzen before the Select Committee on Economic Affairs of the House of Lords Energy and Environment. 16: 625-631. DOI: 10.1260/0958305054672367

              2005 Chou MD, Lindzen RS. Comments on “Examination of the decadal tropical mean ERBS nonscanner radiation data for the Iris hypothesis” Journal of Climate. 18: 2123-2127. DOI: 10.1175/Jcli3406.1

              2004 Zurita-Gotor P, Lindzen RS. Baroclinic equilibration and the maintenance of the momentum balance. Part II: 3D results Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. 61: 1483-1499. DOI: 10.1175/1520-0469(2004)0612.0.Co;2

              2004 Zurita-Gotor P, Lindzen RS. Baroclinic equilibration and the maintenance of the momentum balance. Part 1: A barotropic analog Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. 61: 1469-1482. DOI: 10.1175/1520-0469(2004)0612.0.Co;2

              2003 Lindzen RS. The interaction of waves and convection in the tropics Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. 60: 3009-3020. DOI: 10.1175/1520-0469(2003)0602.0.Co;2

              2002 Chou MD, Lindzen RS, Hou AY. Reply to: “Tropical cirrus and water vapor: an effective Earth infrared iris feedback?” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 2: 93-98. DOI: 10.5194/Acp-2-99-2002

              2002 Chou M, Lindzen RS, Hou AY. Comments on ”The Iris Hypothesis: A Negative or Positive Cloud Feedback?” Journal of Climate. 15: 2713-2715. DOI: 10.1175/1520-0442(2002)0152.0.Co;2

              2002 Lindzen RS. Do deep ocean temperature records verify models? Geophysical Research Letters. 29: 95-1. DOI: 10.1029/2001Gl014360

              2002 Lindzen RS, Giannitsis C. Reconciling observations of global temperature change Geophysical Research Letters. 29: 24-1. DOI: 10.1029/2001Gl014074

              2002 Chou MD, Lindzen RS, Hou AY. Comments on “the Iris hypothesis: A negative or positive cloud feedback?” Journal of Climate. 15: 2713-2715.

              2002 Lindzen RS, Chou MD, Hou AY, Hartmann DL, Michelsen ML. Comment on “No evidence for Iris” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 83: 1345-1349.

              2001 Zurita P, Lindzen RS. The equilibration of short charney waves: Implications for potential vorticity homogenization in the extratropical troposphere Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. 58: 3443-3462. DOI: 10.1175/1520-0469(2001)0582.0.Co;2

              2001 Giannitsis C, Lindzen RS. Nonlinear saturation of topographically forced Rossby waves in a barotropic model Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. 58: 2927-2941. DOI: 10.1175/1520-0469(2001)0582.0.Co;2

              2001 Harnik N, Lindzen RS. The effect of reflecting surfaces on the vertical structure and variability of stratospheric planetary waves Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. 58: 2872-2894. DOI: 10.1175/1520-0469(2001)0582.0.Co;2

              2001 Sun DZ, Covey C, Lindzen RS. Vertical correlations of water vapor in GCMs Geophysical Research Letters. 28: 259-262. DOI: 10.1029/2000Gl011907

              2001 Roe GH, Lindzen RS. A one-dimensional model for the interaction between continental-scale ice sheets and atmospheric stationary waves Climate Dynamics. 17: 479-487. DOI: 10.1007/S003820000123

              2001 Lindzen RS, Chou MD, Hou AY. Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 82: 417-432. 0.92
              2000 Solomon A, Lindzen RS. The impact of resolution on a numerical simulation of barotropic instability Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. 57: 3799-3816. DOI: 10.1175/1520-0469(2001)0572.0.Co;2

              2000 Straus DM, Lindzen RS. Planetary-scale baroclinic instability and the MJO Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. 57: 3609-3626. DOI: 10.1175/1520-0469(2000)0572.0.Co;2

              2000 Kirk-Davidoff DB, Lindzen RS. An energy balance model based on potential vorticity homogenization Journal of Climate. 13: 431-448. DOI: 10.1175/1520-0442(2000)0132.0.Co;2
              62: 142-147. DOI: 10.1007/Bf00875296

              And that is just this century.. they go back to 1965

              40

            • #
              clarence.t

              ps Patrick Michaels also has some 80 or more papers, not all directly on climate though.

              Why not start to look at the actual science, rather trying to hold up a fake, meaningless consensus?

              Start at the very bottom, scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

              Not models, not bland mantra statements, not assumptions… actual scientific evidence.

              30

        • #
          James Murphy

          Ian, you seem to confuse the quality and merit of someones work with the number of papers published.
          if you have any respect for the scientific method, and have ever published, or tried to publish a decent journal paper, or even a conference paper or poster, you’d understand it is not a fast or efficient process, and that’s not including time taken doing the research beforehand.

          Of course, I’m talking about research, not “meta-studies” that seem to very often be junk.

          100

          • #
            Ian

            “if you have any respect for the scientific method, and have ever published, or tried to publish a decent journal paper, or even a conference paper or poster, you’d understand it is not a fast or efficient process, ”

            Yes I have submitted papers to reputable journals and have had my share of knock backs and requests from the peer reviewers to elaborate and/or elucidate specific points and have had papers that went through without requiring change.

            You also write “Of course, I’m talking about research, not “meta-studies” that seem to very often be junk.” Certainly are particularly those that do “meta-studies” of trials of Ivermectin.

            The papers I have published report findings based on laboratory experiments and are published in journals such as Acta Endocrinologica, Clinical Chemistry, Journal of

            16

            • #
              Ian

              Sorry I glitched

              Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and other similar journals

              14

        • #
          R.B.

          Like Jo wrote, it has happened before. These new cases are interesting because they are from mainstream publishers who new about these problems.

          50

      • #
      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        So who, or what can you trust?

        I note here that according to the published standards of this blog to comment on climate change you must be “well versed in climate model infrastructure”, have scanned for tropospheric hot spots, or Precambrian CO2 extremes” That standard would require a similar level of competence for any subject – a very high bar.

        I also note that peer reviewed publishing is the best we have for ensuring quality in research, ditch that and what is the replacement?

        214

        • #
          clarence.t

          “what is the replacement?”

          Actual replicable studies based on actual real science.

          You know, that science you have been unable to produce.

          ““well versed in climate model infrastructure”, have scanned for tropospheric hot spots, or Precambrian CO2 extremes” “

          Actual studies are well verse, so is anyone who has read those studies.

          Climate models are basically just computer games.

          Hot spot has never been found.

          Pre-Cambian CO2 was much higher than now. Current levels are dangerously low in Earth’s history.

          https://i.postimg.cc/MK2n7pMy/CO2-historic-levels.jpg

          Please try to the learn some basic science and facts, so I don’t have to keep correcting your lack of knowledge and understanding.

          50

        • #
          el+gordo

          ‘ … ditch that and what is the replacement?’

          Widespread criticism of the process will bring about change, particularly in medicine and atmospheric science.

          30

        • #
          R.B.

          So who do you trust to do your thinking for you?

          One’s who haven’t failed you when you checked up on them. Not the one’s who harass anyone checking up.

          20

  • #
    Greg in NZ

    Peer review spell check:
    bio’s – biographies or bios
    tillions – trillions (maybe gazillions?).

    I, for one, am not ‘shocked’ by this uncovering, or revelation, of such dodgy, lazy, corrupt non-science, or nonsense, within the publishing world and/or academia in this era of post-truth.

    BTW Jo, another great article: yet one more nail in the coffin of The Science behind cAGW.

    370

    • #
      GlenM

      There is a general cluelessness that pervades the academic sector. Largely listless in intent and lack attention to detail – a bit like the Rime of the Ancient Mariner becalmed in the Doldrums. There are parts of our universities that perform good to excellent service in research and the like but intellectual rigour and dynamism are rare. Oh, you’re a uni graduate you must be smart!

      180

      • #
        Deano

        The public’s continuing belief in the incorruptible virtue of “University scientists” has made unis a target for leeches wishing to use that reputation to promote their low quality theories. And I think decent academics just aren’t psychologically set up to recognise it or fight back. Maybe unis need a small team of retired detectives or lawyers or even reformed white collar criminals (could even be lawyers too!) to spot academic corruption before it takes hold.

        10

    • #
      Great+Aunt+Janet

      I rather liked ’tillions’.

      60

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    Pro-tip: If 8 inches of sea level rise over the last 200 years is flooding your lounge room floor, you’re living too close the sea.

    Also, further evidence that Obama failed to “slow the rise of the seas”.

    What a failure.

    401

    • #
      OldOzzie

      Mean Sea Level Trend

      680-140 Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2, Australia

      The mean sea level trend is 0.65 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.10 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1886 to 2010 which is equivalent to a change of 0.21 feet (2.52 Inch) in 100 years.

      [Data for 1886- May 1914 are based on high and low waters and on monthly mean tide levels plus a 1.7 mm correction]

      Source Data & Additional Metadata
      GLOSS Station Information

      The plot shows the monthly mean sea level without the regular seasonal fluctuations due to coastal ocean temperatures, salinities, winds, atmospheric pressures, and ocean currents. The long-term linear trend is also shown, including its 95% confidence interval. The plotted values are relative to the most recent Mean Sea Level datum established by CO-OPS. The calculated trends for all stations are available as a table in millimeters/year or a table in feet/century (0.3 meters = 1 foot).

      If present, solid vertical lines indicate times of any major earthquakes in the vicinity of the station and dashed vertical lines bracket any periods of questionable data.

      220

      • #
        clarence.t

        Data I have for Fort Denison and for the Bondi surge pool show about 1mm/year.

        Charts show trends for high, low and average. (only back to 1915 though)

        https://i.postimg.cc/NFQ7bB3X/fort-denison.png

        https://i.postimg.cc/tRdrKCN8/Bondi-surge-pool.jpg

        111

      • #
        Dennis

        Remember the prediction that by 2000 the year of the Sydney Olympic Games the Sydney Opera House would be under water?

        The list of climate hoax related predictions that have not taken place is long, so why are the deceivers not ignored?

        30

        • #
          OldOzzie

          Meanwhile – China’s Coal Output Hits Multi-Year High as Climate Conference Continues

          China’s state-run Global Times boasted on Monday – day seven of the COP26 climate conference in Scotland – that coal output has reached “the highest level in recent years,” so China’s vast array of carbon-spewing coal-fired power plants can “ensure energy supply security and residential heating during the winter.”

          China, the world’s worst polluter by far, built three times as many coal plants as all other nations combined in 2020. When power shortages and rolling blackouts began hitting China’s industrial centers in the fall of 2021, the Chinese government ordered an “all-out” campaign to “produce as much coal as possible” from both domestic mines and foreign suppliers.

          According to the Global Times, that effort has been successful:

          20

        • #
          Deano

          By 1980 the Great Barrier Reef will be destroyed by the Crown of Thorns Starfish. At least that’s what I was taught in 1972 by my leftie teacher. He also confidently predicted communism would triumph. Actually, he might have got that one right!

          30

    • #
      David Maddison

      Other pro-tips, don’t live in bush fire zones, earthquake zones, flood plains, next to volcanoes, etc..

      90

      • #
        Great+Aunt+Janet

        Or just don’t live. 100% risk of death.

        120

        • #
          Bozotheclown

          Peter Fitzroy:

          I also note that peer reviewed publishing is the best we have for ensuring quality in research, ditch that and what is the replacement?

          PF, you don’t have to replace it just stop propping it up as the Holy Grail! It’s badly flawed and shrugging that off certainly can’t help.

          Peer review could be just fine if it really was what it claims to be without political interference or other bias. Sadly it isn’t what it claims to be and is interfered with and horribly biased.

          10

      • #
        TdeF

        And if 1.5C worries you and means the end of your world, fix it by migrating upwards 150metres or 1 degree/100km/60miles South/North depending on hemisphere.

        How anyone could believe that this tiny difference in temperature is life threatening is beyond comprehension. Without instruments no one can tell you the temperature to this sort of accuracy and temperature variations of 20C in a day, 40C to 80C a year are normal outside the tropics.

        Temperature was not even an idea until a few hundred years ago and Sir Isaac Newton in his own temperature scale suggested a measure of temperature was water hot enough you could not keep your elbow in it. Now +1.5C is considered deadly. It’s laughable.

        But they keep publishing peer reviewed literature and push the idea of consensus science. Consensus science is an abomination created by the illusion that publishing paper creates a body of truth. Then every religion in the world is absolute truth, based on volume of paper.

        181

      • #
        Vlad the Impaler

        And another pro-tip: if you cannot outrun a sea level rise of about 10 centimetres per century, you deserve what happens to you …

        Courtesy of George Carlin.

        50

  • #
    el+gordo

    The practice is widespread.

    ‘Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away. Famously, it is compared with democracy: a system full of problems but the least worst we have.’ (JRSM R Smith 2006)

    121

    • #
      OldOzzie

      Unscientific Method

      An astronomer’s peer-reviewed work is passed under the “equity” lens and found wanting.

      Heather Mac Donald

      November 8, 2021

      Another day, another retraction of a scientific paper for violating the code of diversity. On November 1, astronomer John Kormendy withdrew an article from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), after a preprint version that he had just posted on the web drew sharp criticism for threatening the conduct of “inclusive” science. Three days later, the preprint version was scrubbed as well (though a PDF can still be found here.) The paper had passed the journal’s three-person peer-review system and was awaiting publication. Kormendy’s forthcoming book on the same topic had also passed peer review and had been printed for distribution. Now distribution of the book has been put on hold, likely permanently.

      Kormendy, an expert on supermassive black holes and professor emeritus at the University of Texas at Austin, acknowledges no errors in his research. “I didn’t do anything [methodologically] wrong,” he told me. “I trust my techniques; I trust the results. I checked for bias in great detail.” Nevertheless, he issued an apology on November 1: “I now see that my work has hurt people. I apologize to you all for the stress and the pain that I have caused. Nothing could be further from my hopes. I fully support all efforts to promote fairness, inclusivity, and a nurturing environment for all.”

      What was so hurtful in his article?

      130

      • #
        Gerry

        The problem is “super massive black holes” ……holes are “containers” of nothing except air, zilch, NO THING…..and he’s clearly referring to black people when he says “black” because any mention of the colour black (or the no-light black) clearly refers to “blackpeople” because, well because it does….everyone knows that.

        So we have a combination of black people and nothingness …and to add injury to insult, “supermassive” ….what was he thinking ??

        100

      • #
        RickWill

        What was so hurtful in his article?

        Pulling the race card on holes! Black Holes (are) Matter

        80

    • #
      TdeF

      And institutions receive cash on the basis of the number of papers published, even if no one reads them. Academics are rated by papers published. It is a huge money scam and paying for papers has come full circle with a fake paper industry which has handed publication to random paper generation, where it has belonged for some time.

      110

  • #
    Bruce

    Pretty much systematic “debasement” of the currency of research in general. Given the morass of politically-loaded “science” being forced upon the world in the Kung Flu Kaper, and The Great Klimate Krisis Kon, one should not be surprised.

    Possibly a bit of self-aggrandizement in there somewhere and possibly one or two ‘student pranks”, but basically this all looks like an organized attack on academic integrity and its rapidly-vanishing value to society.

    As a famous totalitarian psychopath ones posited: “Who, whom?”

    Expanded version: “Who is doing what to whom and who is paying for it.” This is a FUNDAMENTAL political question. See also the perennial “handy hint”: “FOLLOW THE MONEY!”

    Further regarding “debasement of the language, since at least the 1970’s folks have been amusing themselvs and other with things like this:

    https://www.atrixnet.com/academic-bs-generator.html

    It brings back nasty memories of mandatory “attitude adjustment training” in the workplace. This sort of thing may fly with paper-shufflers and the terminally bureaucratic. With middle aged, highly experienced technicians who daily work with equipment and systems that can kill or maim the ‘unwary? Not so much.

    170

    • #
      Ronin

      “It brings back nasty memories of mandatory “attitude adjustment training” in the workplace. ”

      We had ‘contact counselling’ in the carpark.

      40

    • #

      All of the other comments here should be removed, or at least this one should be highlighted. Peer review is revealed as a total wreck in the above post, in this, the Insane Left and Complicit Right era, and anyone with any authority in its process are criminals. Criminals, people, and only hence the “incompetence” and “intransigence to new ideas”.

      Any observer asking, “why are there no papers critical of “global warming/climate change” reveal themselves as deluded sheep — it’s because the publication process is itself anti-science, which is to say, criminal. And that is entirely because criminals, not scientists, have been put in charge, throughout the system. (This is also why the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOS, DOJ, President, Congress, etc. ad infinitum, are criminal today…)

      This is particularly true of any “research” in fields that have been co-opted by illegitimate politicians (see “Insane Left” and “Complicit Right”, just above).

      20

  • #
    TdeF

    And that’s not counting the fake papers from pseudo scientists like the ones at James Cook University. Including fake data, fake photographs. And anyone who questions this practice is fired without compensation and dragged through the courts at a cost in the millions of taxpayer money, as with the head of Physics at JCU, Dr. Peter Ridd. And the same JCU has investigated Dr Munday and found nothing wrong. Nothing to see here folks. Just keep sending that cash.

    A river of money is flowing into fake research supporting Climate Change, Global Warming, Ocean acidification so the difference between fraudulent research and computer generated nonsense is increasingly zero. The models never lie because they are programmed to lie. All part of hide the decline science.

    320

  • #
    Neville

    Why would anyone be surprised by these clueless studies? Of course we already know that their so called mitigation of their so called “Climate Crisis or EXISTENTIAL threat” is the greatest + most expensive fr-ud and con trick in history.
    But then again we’ve just been told that Aussies are the winners of the wooden spoon at Flop 26. BIG SURPRISE NOT.
    Morrison should’ve stayed at home and told them to “go Brandon themselves”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/09/australia-ranked-last-of-60-countries-for-policy-response-to-climate-crisis

    181

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Last year I was at a fun run as a volunteer to help stop traffic using a lollipop stop/slow sign when the other volunteer who happens to be a psychologist said something like “the grape vines will get out and start running on the road”. A few seconds later I said to him “what are you talking about” and he said “nothing Hilly, I just wanted to find out if you were listening to me”!

    While edit flags can be put into automatic checking systems, nothing can replace the human factor.

    “sports high-intensity interval training” – yeah, that sure causes earthquakes!

    40

  • #
    el+gordo

    Michael Mann has done away with the AMO, blames aerosols for the dimming from the late 1940s to the Great Climate Shift of 1976.

    ‘They showed that the detrended AMO approach yields an inflated apparent AMO signal with precisely the features mentioned above: positive peaks near 1940 and 2000 and negative peak near 1980.

    ‘Those features were shown to be largely an artifact of the substantial 1950s–1970s aerosol surface cooling trend masquerading as part of an AMO oscillation. Mann and Emanuel came to a similar conclusion.’ (Mann et al 2020)

    He seems to think that the PDO is also unreal.

    92

    • #
      Travis T. Jones

      “Our research addresses one of the biggest questions about the largest climate change we had since the onset of the ice ages,” said Yehudai.

      “It was one of the most substantial climate transitions and we don’t fully understand it.

      Our discovery pins the origin of this change to the northern hemisphere and the ice sheets that evolved there as driving this shift towards the climate pattens we observe today.”

      Why did glacial cycles intensify a million years ago?
      Researchers find clues on the bed of the Atlantic Ocean

      https://phys.org/news/2021-11-glacial-million-years-clues-bed.html

      >> “If only Fred Flintstone had a carbon (sic) tax,” laments Michael Mann, 97% settled science advocate.

      50

      • #
        el+gordo

        ‘Why did glacial cycles intensify a million years ago?’

        Desertification.

        20

      • #
        RickWill

        Why did glacial cycles intensify a million years ago?

        The Panama Isthmus emerged around 2Mya. That altered heat transfer between the oceans causing glaciation around the land masses abutting the North Atlantic to occur over multiple precession cycles rather than the single cycle observed before the tropical ocean connection disappeared.

        40

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Does this mean my paper “Gender neutral inclinations among crinoline wearing armadillos – do these indicate rising global warming?” won’t be published?

    290

  • #
    GlenM

    It left me in tears and great distress to read that our rankings have slipped so much. What will the rest of the world think? what will China think? such troubles are these times. I don’t think I’ll sire any more children – that’s what I’ll do and make my statement to the mother goddess of the Earth (Erda) Meanwhile the modern version of the Children’s Crusade of 1212 continues….

    40

  • #
    David Maddison

    FROM 2016

    Nonsense paper written by iOS autocomplete accepted for conference

    New Zealand professor asked to present his work at US event on nuclear physics despite it containing gibberish all through the copy

    Elle Hunt

    Fri 21 Oct 2016 17.58 EDT

    A nonsensical academic paper on nuclear physics written only by iOS autocomplete has been accepted for a scientific conference.

    Christoph Bartneck, an associate professor at the Human Interface Technology laboratory at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, received an email inviting him to submit a paper to the International Conference on Atomic and Nuclear Physics in the US in November.

    “Since I have practically no knowledge of nuclear physics I resorted to iOS autocomplete function to help me writing the paper,” he wrote in a blog post on Thursday. “I started a sentence with ‘atomic’ or ‘nuclear’ and then randomly hit the autocomplete suggestions.

    “The text really does not make any sense.”

    SEE LINK FOR REST

    200

    • #
      Tel

      Allegedly … quite a lot of financial journalism and sports reports are written mostly by autocomplete these days, with a few key numbers plugged in like the latest prices and the scores.

      When some journalist explains to you why the market went up or down, they have no idea but they are presuming that the readers have even less of an idea.

      180

    • #
      Ronin

      the more ‘gibberish’ in it, the better it looks to leftards.

      50

  • #
    David Maddison

    This software was written in 2005 to generate “scientific papers”.

    From Wikipedia.

    SCIgen

    Random text generating software

    SCIgen is a paper generator that uses context-free grammar to randomly generate nonsense in the form of computer science research papers. All elements of the papers are formed, including graphs, diagrams, and citations. Created by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, its stated aim is “to maximize amusement, rather than coherence.” Originally created in 2005 to expose the lack of scrutiny of submissions to conferences, the generator subsequently became used, primarily by Chinese academics, to create large numbers of fraudulent conference submissions, leading to the retraction of 122 SCIgen generated papers and the creation of detection software to combat its use.

    SEE LINK FOR REST

    100

  • #
    David Maddison

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/

    What an Audacious Hoax Reveals About Academia

    Three scholars wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions.

    By Yascha Mounk

    OCTOBER 5, 2018

    Over the past 12 months, three scholars—James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian—wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions, and tried to get them placed in high-profile journals in fields including gender studies, queer studies, and fat studies. Their success rate was remarkable: By the time they took their experiment public late on Tuesday, seven of their articles had been accepted for publication by ostensibly serious peer-reviewed journals. Seven more were still going through various stages of the review process. Only six had been rejected.

    We’ve been here before.

    In the late 1990s, Alan Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, began a soon-to-be-infamous article by setting out some of his core beliefs:

    that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in “eternal” physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the “objective” procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.

    Sokal went on to “disprove” his credo in fashionable jargon. “Feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western scientific practice, revealing the ideology of domination concealed behind the façade of ‘objectivity,’” he claimed. “It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical ‘reality,’ no less than social ‘reality,’ is at bottom a social and linguistic construct.”

    SEE LINK FOR REST

    120

  • #
    David Maddison

    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/01/its-surprisingly-easy-get-fake-study-published-academic-journal/357006/?utm_source=feed

    It’s Surprisingly Easy to Get a Fake Study Published in an Academic Journal

    Sting operations of fake studies getting published in academic journals points to serious flaws in academic publishing at large: Journals are too eager to publish surprising studies, and the rigor of peer review is faltering.

    By Ritchie King, Quartz and Quartz

    JANUARY 15, 2014

    SHARE

    This article is from the archive of our partner .

    From January to August of last year, John Bohannon submitted an academic study to 304 peer-reviewed scientific journals. All of the them were open access journals, a newer breed of digital-only academic publications that are free for readers but often charge researchers to publish. Bohannon’s study concerned a molecule, extracted from a lichen, that appeared to show promise as a treatment for cancer. It was accepted for publication by 157 of the journals—slightly over half.

    There was only one problem. Bohannon isn’t a scientist; he’s a journalist. And he completely made up the study.

    Actually he did more than that. He deliberately inserted unscientific material to test whether or not it would be caught by the journals’ peer reviewers. The “cure for cancer” proposition of the study, for instance, should have seriously raised some eyebrows, though in 157 cases, it did not. 

    SEE LINK FOR REST

    80

  • #
    David Maddison

    In President Eisenhower’s famous “farewell address” of 18th January, 1961 He warned against government funded scientific research.

    [..]

    “Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields… ,”

    [..]

    “Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.”

    [..]

    “We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

    [..]

    90

  • #
    Steve of Cornubia

    As for “who and why”, with perhaps a few exceptions for actual low quality papers, my guess would be China is behind this sort of thing, in pursuit of it’s enormous online program to weaken, debase and disrupt all western systems.

    I see their fingerprints almost everywhere, from major institutions down to paid trolls and troublemakers on blogs and forums. The purpose of the latter is to sow division or simply drive people away from sites they don’t like, and which are gaining traction.

    100

    • #
      David Maddison

      You can regularly see that on this very blog whereby certain prominent Leftists support the Chi-comms to an irrational degree and constantly denigrate the West and Western Civilisation.

      They are not necessarily paid however. Useful idiots do it for free. And the Chinese are smart so don’t waste their money.

      171

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        David:
        very noticeable that the number of trolls resident increased until the start of the COP26, as indeed it did on an previous occasion.
        I thought it was more likely that they are worried about the drop in support for GlobalWarming (under whatever scary name) and are trying to make it appear as if they are the only ones who know.

        51

        • #
          Steve of Cornubia

          Global Warming is another issue being exploited by China, as a means to weaken the west, so I believe many of those trolling sites such as Jo’s, and other blogs sceptical of AGW, are doing so on behalf of China. That’s how this blog originally got infected.

          Those same trolls have unsurprisingly mobilised against the whole Covid discussion herein, promoting the creeping totalitarianism that is being implemented under cover of the pandemic.

          Different subject, same trolls, same objective.

          40

          • #

            Except they pay me in AUD dammit.

            210

          • #
            David Maddison

            China certainly pays domestic trolls but I think outside China, many of the trolls just hate Western Civilisation and love Chinese totalitarianism and do it for free.

            https://www.propublica.org/article/leaked-documents-show-how-chinas-army-of-paid-internet-trolls-helped-censor-the-coronavirus

            Leaked Documents Show How China’s Army of Paid Internet Trolls Helped Censor the Coronavirus

            As the coronavirus spread in China, the government stage-managed what appeared on the domestic internet to make the virus look less severe and the authorities more capable, according to thousands of leaked directives and other files.

            by Raymond Zhong, Paul Mozur and Aaron Krolik, The New York Times, and Jeff Kao, ProPublica

             Dec. 19, 2020, 5 a.m. EST

            SEE LINK FOR REST

            20

          • #
            David Maddison

            https://www.cfr.org/blog/chinas-internet-trolls-go-global

            China’s Internet Trolls Go Global

            Chinese trolls are beginning to pose serious threats to economic security, political stability, and personal safety worldwide.

            More than a meme, China’s trolls are the scaffolding to the Chinese state’s international bully pulpit. As China continues to flex the muscles of a great power, foreigners inside and outside the country should expect to face more threats from the CCP’s army of trolls. It is up to democratic governments and global social media platforms to address China’s growing capacity to disinform.

            SEE LINK FOR REST

            20

          • #
            Simon

            Global Warming is another issue being exploited by China, as a means to weaken the west, so I believe many of those trolling sites such as Jo’s, and other blogs sceptical of AGW, are doing so on behalf of China.

            Interesting theory, but I doubt China is paying Jo anything 🙂

            111

            • #
              clarence.t

              And they certainly wouldn’t bother paying any of the AGW “tragics” that troll this blog.

              They are totally incapable of producing anything remotely scientific to back up even the most basic memes of the AGW farce.

              40

          • #
            Paul Siebert

            Steve of Cornubia,
            Suppose we do accept that China is supporting our return to the caves – is it “gratitude” for all the “assistance” we gave them some decades back, in the form of shiploads of opium?
            When they got around to refusing this help, the West carved off a couple of lumps of territory.

            00

  • #
    Ross

    The publishing of results from scientific studies was always open to , well, fraud. Its basically an honour system where scientific honesty is assumed. Because, essentially you have to believe what the scientific researchers have presented as their findings. The agchem industry faced the same problem with trial data fraud back in the US in the 1990’s. There was an instance of trial data produced by consultant research companies being manipulated. As a result, Good Laboratory Practice/ Good Field Practice (GLP:GFP) was implemented in the main western countries as a comprehensive audit system. The industry themselves implemented this system with encouragement from regulators. Strict guidelines regarding research work have to be adhered to via standardized protocols with sponsors. There’s extensive planning prior to establishment of trials including number and location. An external auditor monitors the quality control of a contractor and there is an internal audit system as well. Very comprehensive reporting has to be completed to verify trial methodology and trial(s) assessment data has to be verified. Its not quite blue/ red team stuff but it is very effective and is now virtually the industry norm worldwide.

    40

  • #
    Earl

    There is big money in articles and the removal of the gibberish ones that are the subject of this article may mean that the truly serious ones get more viewing space. University of WA’s Farida Fozdar is a case in point. Fozdar made the headlines with her paper on how anyone who flies an Australian flag from their car leading up to or on Australia Day is more likely to be racist. That one ranks along side ‘Sperm Milkshakes with Poo Sprinkles’: The Challenges of Identifying Family Meals Practices through an Online Survey with Adolescents’

    Here is an article on just how lucrative it has been for her.

    40

  • #
    Neville

    Perhaps we need more co2 in the atmosphere if we’re trying to limit the length of full glacial periods?
    These glacial periods are now about 100,000 years but a million years ago they were only about 41,000 years.
    Never forget that co2 levels dropped to about 180 ppm during the last glaciation and that’s just 30 ppm above the near death of so many plant species.
    And at the start of our Holocene there were only a few million Humans on earth and life was very BRUTAL and SHORT.
    If we really helped to pull ourselves out of the next full glaciation via the Industrial REV we should be celebrating and jumping for joy. Because there’s no fun being locked away AGAIN for another 100,000 years and anyway billions would die in a very short time interval.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/09/why-did-glacial-cycles-intensify-a-million-years-ago/

    41

    • #
      Ronin

      “Because there’s no fun being locked away AGAIN for another 100,000 years and anyway billions would die in a very short time interval.”

      That would be Gaia getting her revenge.

      20

  • #

    Thankfully it is a special issue issue and shows that the journal’s are still operating in the print era admin processes and technological awareness.

    110

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      While some may take the contrary view, on this occasion I agree wholeheartedly.
      With few exceptions.

      30

      • #
        Peter C

        Yes, Pal review remains the same at Nature and Elsvier, Nothing has changed in the digital era.

        40

        • #

          Gee Aye, Given that these same journals published gibberish in 2014, and years later many were caught in the Sokal hoax papers, it rather shockingly suggests the journals haven’t learnt and haven’t changed.

          Even after those debacles, they were still putting their editorial reputation on the “Special Issue” papers which were so NOT reviewed, no one had even read the headlines.

          It speaks of an industry with no standards.

          160

          • #

            It didn’t notice that they were the same journals. Yes, whatever happened last time didn’t lead to change across all their operations.

            Just a note – Nature and Elsevier are not equivalent entities. Nature is specifically the journal name. Elsevier is a publisher of journals. Nature is part of Springer Nature or Nature publishing house (I admit I don’t know how the hierarchy of these)

            113

  • #
    David Maddison

    These fake papers with their fake research to fit a political agenda of the Left is the ultimate consequence of Rudi Dutschke’s “long march through the institutions” and the complete Leftist domination of everything.

    It is also about the Left’s war against Enlightenment values in general such as science, reason, free speech, freedom of association, freedom of action as long as you harm no others, the pursuit of happiness, ongoing progress, tolerance of other opinions, rule of law etc..

    60

  • #
    Daffy

    The nadir of science publishing. But wait, the UN publishes hoax papers every few years on climate and our governments and media swallow HL&S.

    110

  • #
    David Maddison

    Important factors for progress in academia or government research institutions today are:

    1) Complete subservience to standard Leftist dogma on “climate change”, gender and race issues, the environment, support of opposition to Enlightenment values, unwillingness to question standard Big Pharma dogma or government policy on covid, among other issues, even defence and foreign affairs issues.

    2) You can then be promoted higher in academia or go on to lead government institutions.

    3) If you dare question anything you will be brutally dealt with by long and expensive legal cases (lawfare) or sacked and your reputation trashed, among other punishment.

    4) When I see an “academic” today, I have zero respect for them due to the above, and they have very likely written fake papers to get to their positions. Only paper count matters, not the quality of their knowledge as represented in just a few classic publications.

    90

    • #
      Ronin

      “3) If you dare question anything you will be brutally dealt with by long and expensive legal cases (lawfare) or sacked and your reputation trashed, among other punishment.”

      Peter Ridd, anyone.

      100

      • #
        Ross

        Correct on Peter Ridd. He has also commented many times as to the lack of “checking” or auditing of of scientific studies coming out of JCU. Peer review is virtually useless it would appear in most science disciplines unless there is some form of Quality Control implemented. But QC can be expensive and delay research and so would increase R& D budgets greatly. We need red team/ blue team type review of important science, but politics will get in the way for sure.

        80

  • #
    Catherine

    https://unherd.com/2021/10/boris-johnson-is-no-green-superhero/
    reader’s comments:
    – The global climate system is hugely complicated and chaotic. It is fiendishly difficult to spot any signal amidst the noise. A fairly cursory look at even the IPCC reports will confirm that there is no agreement amongst climate scientists as to the degree to which rising CO2 emissions may affect the global average temperature, even after decades of research and millions of dollars paid to thousands of “experts”. So, we face what may prove to be a big problem in the long term and we should think carefully about the best way to respond to it; all in the context of uncertainty.
    What we absolutely shouldn’t do is panic, announce a crisis or an emergency, or hurl ourselves over a precipice in an attempt to get rid of the very fossil fuels upon which we currently all depend; crushing humanity now in the hope of saving it in the future.

    -There are some good points in this article about improving British farming. Sadly, they were all pretty well negated by the childish Boris/Brexit bashing. Next time please just focus on delivering a grown-up article!

    – CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we are producing much more of it than in geologically recent times. Do you think it is scientifically and conceptually impossible that humans could be contributing to climate change? If so, why? Presumably massive volcanic activity can’t then influence the climate either. In the Carboniferous period, CO2 levels were much higher, and the climate a lot warmer. That is when the coal seams were laid down.

    – I agree with the above and also with the comments below supporting James Rebanks. The problem is, as was stated by another contributor, that most people will not pay the price for food that is produced as James Rebanks would like. His only hope is that people will learn and some will cough up as I do. However, many people simply cannot afford such food. The result is a population that is largely not physically well and an overloaded health sysem. Professor Tim Spector in his books has shown the importance of taking considerable care with what we eat.
    How disappointing that much of the discussion degenerated into a slanging match over climate change…

    ———–

    “…of research and millions of dollars paid to thousands of “experts””: agree, a big chunck of this money could have been spent elsewhere!
    ———-

    (The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm — about 18 times higher than today. The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today.

    During the Carboniferous Period the atmosphere became greatly depleted of CO2 (declining from about 2500 ppm to 350 ppm) so that by the end of the Carboniferous the CO2-impoverished atmosphere was less favorable to plant life and plant growth slowed dramatically.)

    50

    • #

      Catherine,
      Could you please try to use the “quote” function to differentiate reported text from your own comments.
      It is not clear to us readers where your own comments fall in that post !

      20

    • #
      RickWill

      The idea that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causing climate change is, in simple terms, a faith or belief. It has no scientific basis. The “greenhouse effect” is simplistic nonsense.

      Oceans have been retaining more heat for about the last 400 years due to the water cycle slowing down as perihelion occurs increasingly later than each year than the austral summer solstice. 400 years ago, the ocean heat input peaked while the land heat input reached its minimum for the current precession cycle. That gradual decline in the different between ocean and land insolation reduces the rate of upwelling in the oceans and they retain more heat.

      Each year 60,000Gt of water gets lifted from the oceans and dumped on land. The atmospheric water turns over almost 6 times. Water is a unique gas in the atmosphere because it can exist in all three phases and has very high latent heat associated with vaporisation and solidification. It is the means by which heat can be transferred from the oceans to land.

      Ocean heat uptake reaches a MAXIMUM in January when ocean surface temperature is at its MINIMUM. Just like land, water evaporation has a cooling effect over the oceans as cool water from depth upwells. The idea that the oceans have stored the “missing heat” is ridiculous. Oceans are heating up because the water cycle is slowing down.

      No climate model has predicted the gradual decline in global freshwater runoff that has been observed over the last 70 years.
      https://www.bafg.de/SharedDocs/Bilder/Bilder_GRDC/fwf_total.jpg?__blob=poster

      40

  • #
    David Maddison

    Gaia nature worship is another example of junk “science” well on the way to “scientific” acceptance by the Left. They are certainly discussing it.

    https://theconversation.com/gaia-theory-is-it-science-yet-4901

    Gaia theory: is it science yet?

    Ian Enting, The University of Melbourne

    February 12, 2012 10.31pm AEDT

    SEE LINK FOR REST.

    20

  • #
    William

    I wonder how many papers like this made it into John Cook’s laughable analysis of climate change papers that came up with the equally laughable claim that 97% of the papers support MMCC/AGW. Just by coincidence of course, that matched the, again, laughable 97% of climate scientists blah blah blah.

    110

  • #
  • #
    David Maddison

    Junk and fake science also kills people. E.g. a paper claiming Ivermectin was useless was found to have invalid references.

    Discussed by Dr John Campbell.

    https://youtu.be/zy7c_FHiEac

    80

    • #
      Ronin

      “Junk and fake science also kills people. ”

      Too right it does, there is a need for a standard such as ISO to be applied, that should put the skids under their scatological scribblings.

      20

  • #

    In the Scientific World, I write Papers under the name of Professor Bullshitstein.

    Recently, I put forward a Paper that proved that if you threw enough big rocks into the Oceans then the sea levels would rise. The paper was then subject to the usual Peer Review where a load of Academics “peered” at my Paper. The main question from this Peer Review centered around “How many rocks and how big are the rocks”? I said, “Well, the number of rocks are as many as all of the rocks in the heads of most of the Academics in the World”. And then I said “Well also those rocks will be as big as those Big Heads”.

    Apparently, they “Apeered” happy with that and my Paper was then published in that renowned Scientific Journal, “The Bullshit Times”……

    Since then, I have been on many number of Zoom Conferences and made shed loads of money. Happy days……………..

    20

  • #
    David Maddison

    Richard Feynman only published 37 papers.

    Albert Einstein published 300 including book chapters and it was quality work.

    These days some “academics” such as “professors” publish 40 to 50 papers per year.

    It used to be considered that 3 or 4 quality papers per year was a decent amount. That was back in the day when quality mattered.

    80

    • #
      James Murphy

      even working as part of a team, it’s hard to imagine any individual in a science or engineering field being involved with enough projects to warrant tens of new and unique papers being published per year, not to mention the time it takes to write said papers.

      I know in some cases it’s also a bit of a pyramid scheme, and people get added as authors because they are “the boss” or similar.

      40

      • #

        I’ve known some who can do this. Theoretical papers and rejigging data with a different stat plus a meta analysis or two. It sounds like gaming but it does take a lot of time and effort and the test of the value of the research is not measured by paper numbers anyway.

        17

  • #
    David Maddison

    Don’t forget that the Left claim that mathematics is “racist”. Presumably it’s OK to publish 2+2=5.

    In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Nineteen Eighty Four.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-cancel-math-class-11621355858

    20

    • #

      My goodness. Everyone since Adam and Eve knows that one and one makes three (and more). But in their case, it made four with two boys. So how did the Human Race manage to begat and multiply? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

      20

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        With that framework 2 + 2 = 5 may be the sort of situation you wouldn’t discuss in polite company.

        30

      • #
        Yonniestone.

        You should ask China, going by their centuries of high populations they must be begating their brains out.

        20

  • #
    TdeF

    Also consider this is the predictable result of the publish or perish mentality. It was only a matter of time.

    And with consensus science permeating the media, we are told that skepticism is the problem, that skeptics are heretics and to be fired, pilloried, driven out of universities. This was the case with the firing of the head of History at Melbourne University Geoffrey Blainey, with the attempts to remove Dr. Jordan Petersen and by the expulsion of Dr. Peter Ridd.

    Universities have become bastions of leftist activists in every field and are now invading hard science with their idea that science too is part of the male patriarchy which allegedly dominated Western thinking and is therefore evil.

    So it’s down with science, down with mathematics, chemistry, physics, meteorology. We are told Meteorology is not Climate. Only Climate scientists like Tim Flannery are to be believed, even if he has no real science above school boy level. It’s Down with skeptics. You will believe! If not, you will be driven out. Science will be by consensus and disagreement will not be tolerated. Just like every other part of the university scene. Or you will be fired, defunded, doxed, assaulted.

    Publication volume is now the only way to measure truth and if you disagree, you will not be published anyway. However nonsense and non reproducible experiments, conclusions without data and conjecture presented as unassailable fact will sail right through. This is post modern science. Truth by volume, not content. No data. Flannery, the Truth Teller. More science fiction than science. More Climate Scientology, a very profitable religion.

    80

    • #
      Ronin

      What I don’t understand is how Flanners wasn’t laughed out of town.

      30

      • #
        TdeF

        Like Greta Thunberg, his enthusiastic ignorance serves a political purpose. And the money flows like a river while such self appointed and ignorant Climate experts predict imminent Climate disaster.

        Tim should know. He has been making utterly wrong predictions for two decades now. Or as he said about hot rocks, ‘the technology is straightforward’. Perth the ghost city. And even the rains which fall will not fill the dams. And we mug taxpayers invested $93million in his hot rock scheme. All the directors were University types on $400K a year handouts to be wrong too. They disposed of over $100Million in cash very quickly. It would have saddened them, all those people losing all their money.

        00

  • #
    Bill Hall

    My question is : If the seal level rises, with the atmosphere rise to compensate ? =8-)

    20

  • #
    Dennis

    Climate Change ….. run while you can!

    Sky News

    Heavy rain and flood warning for parts of NSW, Queensland, Victoria as regions prepare for one month worth of rainfall
    Climate change has been blamed for severe weather warnings issued for parts of New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria as heavy rain, thunderstorms and flash flooding is expected to rip through the east coast over the next few days.

    60

  • #
    another ian

    Sounds like the latest CDC definition of a vaccine is also being applied to “peer review”

    20

  • #
    PeterS

    Not that this was necessary but this ought to put to rest the question of whether so called “esteemed journals” have lost all credibility; they most certainly have.

    40

  • #
    Ronin

    Is there an ISO standard for peer reviewed research, and if not, why not, to produce jet fuel, ISO 9001 applies.

    00

  • #
    • #
      another ian

      An example cited there

      “Cite This Article: “Distribution of earthquake activity in mountain area based on embedded system and physical fitness detection of basketball” ”

      00

  • #
    speedbird

    Because academics are rated on number of papers published in high impact journals.

    00

  • #
    Roger+Knights

    The Real Scandal About Ivermectin – The Atlantic

    Oct 23, 2021 — Claims about the drug are based on shoddy science—but that science is entirely unremarkable in its shoddiness. By James Heathers.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwin2p-crI30AhWiHjQIHf2EADcQFnoECA4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fscience%2Farchive%2F2021%2F10%2Fivermectin-research-problems%2F620473%2F&usg=AOvVaw3exNIJvvq6dKQfD-eesy4z

    00

  • #
    Ronin

    Sea levels and hydrogen, the two things I’ve never seen so much tosh written about.

    60

  • #
    KP

    We’re looking at this from the wrong end! Don’t worry about the science being correct, worry about what is done with it to affect you!

    If some some scientist colours a mouse with a felt-tip marker in his genetics experiment, so what?

    If some private company picks up on that and tries to sell you ‘black and white pet mice’, let the buyer beware.

    If Govt gets involved and tries to use his work to force you to do something, THAT is the time to worry.

    Let them publish all the fake science they want, if you want the truth about something you will have to look for yourself. But keep the Govt from using anything like that to force something upon you.

    So, global warming.. its voluntary! If you worry about it, go convince everyone else on you’re own dollar. Covid? The Health Dept can publish what they know and let people decide themselves. If there’s a queue at the hospital, too bad. The weather next week? Read up on whatever private guru you prefer, its not a Govt responsibility..

    When ‘science’ can explain water divining within their paradigm I will take them seriously again.

    21

    • #
      Old45Model

      I like that last sentence, KP.
      They need to be brought up here into Brigalow country and tasked with not only finding water but also demonstrate their abilty to distinguish salty, brackish and fresh water streams – that is, if they can even find a stream of any consequence.
      Very few have such critical skills, although many more can divine a stream, without the attendant abilty to distinguish its quality.
      Of course, they have to pay the driller from their own pocket.

      00

  • #
    CHRIS

    I love the way that Capitalist Garbage like Twiggy Forrest is spruiking Hydrogen (green, blue, purple or otherwise). You’ve got the Greens stating that nuclear submarines are like ” little Chernobyls ” floating around. I therefore suppose that they support hydrogen-powered cars running around like “little Hindenburghs”. CONCLUSION: Nuclear and Hydrogen- based energy sources are NOT suitable for any sort of “net zero” CO2 emissions in the near future (unless there is a technological breakthrough that makes these 2 energy sources safe).

    30

  • #
    roman

    I’d welcome a sea level rise. I’ve always wanted to live near the water.

    20

  • #
    Wet Mountains

    I am not a climatologist, only know what I read and hear. I watch TV that is somewhat educational and continue to be surprised by the unintentional information made available while investigating one subject only to have very informative information disclosed about another subject.
    While watching “Secrets Unlocked: Americas Lost Pyramids,’ regarding the ancient city of Cahokia near present day St. Louis, the investigators determined that around 1150 AD (according to tree ring data) the climate became warmer and wetter, allowing corn to grow year around, resulting in rapid population growth. Further, about 250 years later the climate became drier resulting in the demise of the city.
    We now know about one thousand years ago corn was growing year around in the area of St. Louis. Corn cannot be grown year around in that area of North America today. Climate change not related to man?

    50

    • #
      el+gordo

      That was the Medieval Warm Period and the effect was universal, climate change is beyond the hand of man.

      50

  • #

    […] More stuff you could not invent. From Jo Nova. […]

    00

  • #

    […] Sea level height based on aerobics and other gibberish published in top science journals […]

    00