Another important paper taking issue with the ‘settled’ climate narrative has been cancelled following a report in the Daily Sceptic and subsequent reposts that went viral across social media. The paper discussed the atmospheric ‘saturation’ of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and argued that higher levels will not cause temperatures to rise. The work was led by the widely-published Polish scientist Dr. Jan Kubicki and appeared on Elsevier’s ScienceDirect website in December 2023. The paper has been widely discussed on social media since April 2024 when the Daily Sceptic reported on the findings. Interest is growing in the saturation hypothesis not least because it provides a coherent explanation for why life and the biosphere grew and often thrived for 600 million years despite much higher atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. Alas for control freaks, it also destroys the science backing for the Net Zero fantasy.
Many scientists contend that above certain levels the ability of CO2 to warm within narrow bands of the infrared spectrum falls off a logarithmic cliff. Recently, eight Taiwanese scientists led by Professor Peng-Sheng Wei found that the sensitivity of the climate to a rise in CO2 atmospheric levels from 100 to 400 parts per million (ppm) was “negligibly small” at 0.3°C. Current levels of CO2 are around 420 ppm. Seven Austrian scientists recently concluded that a future doubling of CO2 showed “no increase in the IR [infrared] absorption for the 15 u-central peak”. At most, it was stated, this could lead to warming of 0.5°C. Yet in spite of this, Elsevier decided to retract Kubicki’s paper with only a few words of explanation, a decision that is likely to send shock waves through any group of scientists seeking to examine the role of saturation of gases in the atmosphere.
The retraction reads: “Subsequent to acceptance of this paper, the rigour and quality of the peer-review process for this paper was investigated and confirmed to fall beneath the high standards expected by Applications in Engineering Science. After review by additional expert referees, the Editor-in-Chief has lost confidence in the validity of the paper and has decided to retract.”
Retraction in a scientific journal is a serious matter, relatively rare and potentially damaging to the reputation of authors. According to Elsevier’s withdrawal policies, articles may be retracted “to correct errors that impact the findings reported by an article where they are too extensive in the view of the editors to publish a correction, or due to infringements of Elsevier’s journal policies, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like”. None of these reasons for withdrawing the Kubicki paper have been given. Instead there is the pompous reference to a ”fall beneath the high standards expected”, supposedly confirmed by additional unnamed “experts”. Further details about the retraction may emerge given the important issues raised by Elsevier’s action.
Whatever the real reasons behind this retraction, it will not be the first science paper that has met this fate following publicity in the Daily Sceptic and subsequent widespread interest on social media.
In January 2022, a group of physics scientists led by Profession Gianluca Alimonti of Milan University published a paper in a Springer Nature journal that considered past weather trends. They concluded that the idea we’re in the throes of a ‘climate emergency’ was not supported by the facts. The paper attracted little attention outside academic circles until September 14th when the Daily Sceptic reported on it – and our promotion of the story on X resulted in 9,000 retweets. The story was covered by the Australian and Sky News Australia, after which attacks were launched by activist scientists and journalists such as Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann and Graham Readfearn of the Guardian. After a year of lobbying, Springer Nature retracted the paper claiming it no longer had confidence in the results and conclusions. This surprised many, not least because much of the data came from the International Panel on Climate Change. Science writer Dr. Roger Pielke published a number of leaked emails surrounding the affair and concluded: “Shenanigans continue in climate science, with influential scientists teaming up with journalists to corrupt peer review.”
In September 2023, a departing academic, Dr. Patrick Brown, came clean about a paper he’d written in Nature saying that climate change was increasing the risk of wildfires in California. “I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival Science, want to tell,” he explained. These key aspects, of course, include considering the role of arsonists and forest management. For its part, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change can find little or no evidence of human-caused climate change affecting ‘fire weather’ to date and going forward to 2100. In Brown’s view, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world “and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change”.
The Editor-in-Chief of Nature Magdalena Skipper reacted furiously to Brown’s comments, accusing him of “poor research practices” that are “highly irresponsible”, according to the Daily Mail. Despite all the controversy, Brown’s paper has not been retracted.
Dr. Matthew Wielicki had a senior position in the Geological Sciences department of the University of Alabama. His parents were academics and he grew up on a Californian university campus surrounded by freely-exchanged competing ideas. He only ever wanted to be an academic but he gave it up during Covid, seemingly disgusted at the turn against free speech in American universities and the effect it has had on climate science. If you speak out against the accepted narrative “you are a pariah in this community”, he said. Climate change is a “taboo” subject in academia and there is a “disconnect between what the science says and what the narrative in mainstream media is”. It isn’t about finding the truth in open discussion – It’s about silencing those who disagree with you, he observed.
Chris Morrison is the Environment Editor of the Daily Sceptic.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Don’t even give it credence by publishing such utter nonsense Daily Sceptic …come on editor sort it out
Nothing to discuss here, IPSO whatever the Feck it is, has just rendered itself irrelevant, ridiculous and not fit for purpose – get rid!
It’s an important issue. If you want to remain ignorant about it, then don’t read it, and allow the rest of us the choice of whether to remain ignorant about it or not.
“important”….go on…
What’s “important”is that we are being lead in to WW3 intentionally…
What’s also “important” is the relentless assault on free speech.
There’s no life rule saying one can only find one thing at a time important.
This article is more about “gender identity” than free speech
If it wasn’t for “a man who claims to be a woman”.. This article wouldn’t even exist…
No one was saying there was…………
Ignorant about “gender identity” are you having a laugh..
It’s been rammed down our throats on a daily basis for the past 25 years…. Not sure about you, but I’m done with the bs… You keep giving it attention if you want, but that won’t achieve anything at all….
“ignorant”…..blimey..
Not ignorant about “gender identity”, ignorant about the IPSO ruling. Nobody is forcing you to know anything about IPSO if you don’t want to know.
If the Spectator prints the ruling on its website stating that indeed Mr Dawson is a woman, will it be guilty of misinformation? After all, as Michael Grove says: “Dawson may have a gender recognition certificate but no piece of paper, whatever it may say, can alter biological reality. Parliament may pass laws, but they cannot abolish Dawson’s Y chromosome.”
It does get very confusing.
I agree. It’s DS clickbait. The press doesn’t matter anymore. We get balance from within the Network Society
the Phrase “A Man Who Claims to Be a Woman” is Discriminatory
It’s an interesting idea that speaking or writing a phrase that corresponds to reality constitutes “discrimination”. But what do the Clown-Wolders really mean by “discrimination” in a case like this? What they mean is that some people still insist on noticing reality, and that that must not be allowed. Thus we’ve reached the stage where speaking the truth is heresy.
Indeed…..right think, is the only think.
Nothing new. Once upon a time you could have lost your life for stating that you don’t see any evidence of the existence of a God.
We just haven’t evolved as much as we think we have.
If journalists are not allowed to say that Juno Dawson is “a man who claims to be a woman”, then they should say that Juno Dawson is “a man who claims to be a trans woman”, which cannot be proved to be inaccurate, as it is literally impossible to distinguish a trans woman from a man pretending to be a trans woman.
How about they just ignore it …
Not everyone has your “Close your eyes and it might go away” attitude.
“Trans woman” is gibberish.
What would a trans goldfish or trans tulip be?
Nevertheless it’s a reality that some men claim to be trans women.
War Is Peace.
Freedom Is Slavery.
Ignorance Is Strength.
Truth is Thoughtcrime.
What will such types do, when it becomes completely obvious, that all those self same types lied about the Covid Vaccinations.
If saying “a man who claims to be a woman” is discriminatory, what should one say to describe a man who claims to be a woman?
Exceĺlent question but easily answered: it’s “a man-without-a-certificate-from-the-state that claims he’s a woman.”
Telling the Truth Now a Crime
Both parents onboard with ‘transing’ their 18 month old son who now thinks he’s a girl called ‘Violet’. WTAF?
Child abuse takes many forms and this is just one. Take that child off these terrible parents!
https://x.com/Artemisfornow/status/1866104931867877385
I wonder how many Britons are suddenly realising they live in a totalitarian state in which something called a “Press Watchdog” has the power and authority to dictate what can and cannot be said.
So…. If I put on black makeup and claim to be black, would a journalist be found guilty of discrimination if they described me as a “white person who claims to be black”?
Ali G…
It doesnt matter how rarified and abstracted a culture becomes. In the end the body is still the final arbiter. You will learn that in the horror to come. Imposture won’t help pretence won’t help. You will either have the spunk or you won’t. Keep your nutsack full as a bulwark against the coming attack. No cheeky little wanks. If you feel the strain is too much then grip the base of your penis and give two squeezes. After a few weeks the desire will disappear completely.
Has anyone read any of Juno Dawson’s works? Would the phrase “a man who claims to be an author” be ok?
It isn’t rocket science. Why do you think that all the nasty major corporations of this world are pushing this agenda? Do you think it is because they care about minority groups? And so why are they actually pushing it. It is just to make you feel itchy and irked in certain places whilst they carry your possessions off. Either you tune into the real game or you don’t. We live in merciless times you can’t afford to be all over the place and stupid.
It is very easy to become a fuckwit, especially in our time. How about the spirit that rebals against becoming a fuckwit. I mean a genuine impulse to avoid that fate.
Membership of IPSO is not compulsory. Spectator should leave and like Guardian, Evening Standard, Financial Times be free of it.
The phrase ‘ you are factually correct but not politically correct’ originally came from Stalin’s Russia
Shame Gove didn’t push to get the “gender” lies and nonsense scrapped when he was in a position to do it.