The Design of the Dopey Dispute
When disputing a theory, assessment, or claim, whether in the field of science or any other discipline, the appropriate method would be to capture the facts in dispute and then substantiate why it is incorrect or inaccurate while showing evidence or testing that has been proven or believed to be correct.
Apparently not the case when one is a climate scientist.
This year, a peer-reviewed study appearing in the European Physical Journal Plus and published by the Springer Nature group asserted that there was a lack of scientific data to support the view of a climate crisis. The study entitled, “A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming” was published in January of this year. I link that subject study here.
As an aside, it took a myriad of clicks, and a wide variety of search words, to discover the study in question. It would seem that the tech oligarchs had already performed their due diligence in concealing the research.
The principal author of the study, Gianluca Alimonti, is a physicist from the institute of nuclear physics at the Università degli Studi di Milano (University of Milan). Its three co-authors are Luigi Mariani, an agricultural meteorologist, and physicists Franco Prodi and Renato Angelo Ricci. I bring these four scientists into focus because one of the contesting scientists says that the study was done, “by people not working in climatology and obviously unfamiliar with the topic and relevant data”.
Carelessly and callously the disputing scientist suggests that physicists are too brainless to assess statistics and data and further, those that ‘peer-reviewed’ the paper must also have graduated from that same mindless class. Satirically, a decrease in the frequency or intensity of rainfall, hurricanes cyclones, tornadoes, droughts, and other extreme weather events have been shown by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the United Nations. The latest assessment report, AR6, from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows a decline in disastrous weather episodes, but its “Summary for Policy Makers”, in other words, a rundown for radical climate politicians seems to differ.
Richard Betts of Britain’s Met Office claims, “The paper gives the appearance of being specifically written to make the case that there is no climate crisis, rather than presenting an objective, comprehensive, up-to-date assessment.” This is a statement of complete hypocrisy coming from a British Agency smeared over the years for its prejudicial reporting on anthropogenic climate change.
As is the norm for advocate climate scientists, those well-funded to the cause, ad hominem attacks, discrediting character, and hostility are steadfast arguments when their biases are challenged. This again is attempted censorship, plain and simple, yet customary.
The reality and truth in this situation, as well as the basis for the dubious objection, are that the gravy-train dissenters of this factual research, without climate change, become instantly unemployed.
The linked article will prove the point.