Stopping The Flood Of Fraudulent Global Warming Papers
Each year we are confronted with countless “academic” global warming publications which soon after publication are shown to contain data errors or misinterpretations.
Shown, to put it bluntly, to be frauds.
The authors are almost always tenured professors. And in one major case of 2018, there were 10 co-authors and there was a major “math” error.
The new book, A Global Warming Primer For Those On the Political Left, which is meant to clear the minds of those on the political Left, is of course already known to the astute readers of this website.
The book is not meant for them but is meant for their relatives, friends, and co-workers who are part of the climate change hysteria movement.
After reading this book, the formerly mesmerized relatives/friends will either flip to our side…or at least shut up about climate. Either way a victory.
The book contains several examples in detail of recent papers which have strange math errors. One is the ten-author Resplandy et al. Ocean Heat Uptake paper, whose lead author is Dr. Laure Resplandy…a key member of the Department of Geosciences and Princeton Environmental Institute.
Very impressive of course. In fact, all ten authors have very impressive credentials.
The paper was published by the prestigious journal Nature.
Within a few days of publication of this paper, which was intended to be the sledgehammer that destroyed any academic opposition to global warming hysteria, substantial math errors were spotted and became public.
This was not before the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Democrat Media Complex had heralded this paper as the end of “climate denial.”
“Startling!” and “This changes everything!”
Then after the findings of the paper were completely discredited within days (see the math problems here), one of the ten authors Professor Ralph Keeling, a global warming proponent of a leading American Institute of Oceanography, made a public statement.
To paraphrase Dr. Keeling’s statement: “We seem to have made a teeny-weeny little math error. It wasn’t very serious. But in fact, it did make our findings inaccurate.”
“But,” he said, “What is important in science is not making mistakes. It’s correcting your mistakes.”
He said this exactly:
“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean…We really muffed the error margins.”
“Unfortunately, we made mistakes here, I think the main lesson is that you work as fast as you can to fix mistakes when you find them.”
Global warming support scientists are always the reincarnation of goody two shoes.
All was forgiven. The global warming paper that was hyped by the Washington Post, New York Times, and the whole Democrat Media Complex as the final proof that global warming exists, turned out to be scientific garbage.
Sorry about our little mistake, said the authors. But now we fixed it and everything is OK.
Remember, there were ten global warming “scientists” who authored that paper. All professors or similarly academic “experts.”
It’s fair to assume that all of the “Gang of Ten” actually read this magnum opus they wrote and signed. And that they can do the basic math of a freshman high school student.
In other words, professor Keeling’s statement finally paraphrased: “Sorry we got caught.”
Now, it’s simply part of the unending global warming hysteria fudging academic data. In this case, wholesale falsification according to leading experts.
Being a climate change supporting “scientist” means never having to say you’re sorry. Except after getting caught.
This and several other similar cases are covered in the book.
REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF ACADEMIC GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD
A rapid and effective way to stop this mudslide of academic fraud would be to cut off the federal funding. More than two billion dollars of federal money gets poured into the open mouths of opportunists who will gladly tell white lies for cash.
This is the result of the Obama regime working with the intent to utilize global warming as a power grab.
But while terminating funding is a great way to reduce fraud, because the American government is now largely a bureaucratic state, cutting off funding is easier said than done.
Departments are staffed with employees who can’t be fired due to unions and federal regulations. Employees who are dedicated to global warming warriors or simply don’t care about overspending.
Another approach to reducing the academic blood of false research papers would be judicial. Such papers cause material damage.
However, judicial methods are not simple and have a tendency to get into the “thought police” realm. A realm most people likely don’t want to go.
But there is another way. And that is something which was taught to me by my Aunt Edith.
Starting at about five-years-old, she always brought me a bag of peanuts when she came to visit us. I think they were shelled, roasted, and salted if I remember correctly.
In any case, I absolutely loved them. I would run down the stairs at the first sign of her appearance.
But there was a catch. When I got the peanuts, I also got a loving pinch on the cheek.
Pinching children on the cheek is not done anymore and was a quaint American habit from her own childhood I suppose.
The problem was that because she loved me (and I, of course, loved her too), she squeezed sort of hard without realizing it. As in, when someone gives a relative a hug, the greater the loving intent involved, the warmer the hug.
The pinching hurt a bit, but I didn’t say anything. Because I didn’t want to say something mean to my aunt, and because the peanuts were part of the deal.
Eventually, I decided that I didn’t want to get my cheek pinched any more, and I made a catastrophic decision. I told my mother about it.
That approach was very foolish, even for a five-year-old. I simply could have told Aunt Edith that it hurt a little, and asked if she could squeeze a little less.
And then offer my cheek with a loving smile. My five-year-old daughter today would have the smarts to do something like that right away.
But no… instead of taking the kind and diplomatic way, I told my mother.
That, in fact, stopped the pinching. It also stopped the peanuts.
While that was an unhappy event which I still remember today, I provide a template for dealing with the flood of fraudulent global warming academic papers.
Stupidity has a price.
GLOBAL WARMING ACADEMICS…AND APPLYING THE AUNT EDITH PRINCIPLE
Money, and to a much lesser extent, virtue signaling, is the motivation for writing global warming hysteria papers. It’s mostly money.
But what if… along with the funding provided for the writing of these papers, there was a document. A small one-page statement, that the prospective authors would be required to sign…
This tiny document states: If the paper contained fraudulent or manipulated data or if the conclusion contradicted the data in an obvious manner, the taxpayer money received for the paper would have to be returned in full.
This approach is a serious one, and in a more government regulatory-formulated effort is realistic. This is a real proposal which could have some good results.
And it is absolutely not “thought police” regulation.
It’s not imprisoning anyone. It’s not putting anyone before a firing squad. It’s simply requiring that, in exchange for government funding, there is a basic level of measurable accuracy in the papers that even a high school student could produce.
So while the best way to reduce the endless little white lies in global warming support publications, is to cut off the government funding…meanwhile, if the authors make a bad decision, meaning in this case if they lie, fudge data, misrepresent, cheat … they give back the peanuts.
Dr. Glass is an alternative energy engineer, who works in hydropower and solar thermal power design teams for projects in the US, Canada, China, Malaysia, South Korea, and the EU. His technical areas are thermodynamics and biomimetic engineering.
His new global warming fraud book, 438 exciting pages, is intended for our family and friends who believe in the global warming hoax, to help them out of the darkness. And also contains information on the totalitarian structure and propaganda utilized by the Climate hysterics.