Written Evidence Submitted by Anonymous 2

(RRE0025)

Introduction

Research lacking in integrity extends further than the medical and social science the reproducibility inquiry identifies.  Research without integrity has economic implications when governments and intergovernmental organisations rely on it for policy.  Examples abound in the research field of climate policy which is dominated by groupthink and computer-simulated, dramatic projections promoted by vocal advocates and an unchallenging media.   Computer models cannot currently handle all the climate variables (including cloud cover, moisture content, effects of sun) so the output cannot be accurate projections.  Contrary, researched evidence is drowned out by peer-reviewed groupthink (Booker, 2018), extremists and crony-capitalists.

The academic peer review process is far from perfect.  The speed at which science is released through the peer-review process delays dissemination of discoveries.   “Gold” academic publishing permits instant access to peer reviewed research provided the author pays a publishing fee; open access publishing for non-paying researchers can be delayed (and therefore dissemination of knowledge is delayed) by two years or more – by which time research could have evolved even further. 

Examples of misleading climate change advocacy

Matching dramatic, worst-case simulations to evidenced observations has shown the simulated projections are unmatched by actual climate observations.  Much of the science underpinning the most-commonly cited information and data is irreproducible.    Challengers are silenced; their work goes unpublished; advocacy prevails over research.  Well-known advocates whose irreproducible work has influenced national and international policy include:

• Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) produced one of the most influential, peer-reviewed scientific reports which included a “hockey stick” graph purporting to show centuries of minimal warming followed by a 20th century temperature spike. Among other misleading claims, the study claimed the spike coincided with industrialisation and growing energy consumption which produced increased carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.  The graph ignored the Medieval Warm Period (about AD 800–1300) and the Little Ice Age (AD 1300–1850) when CO2 levels barely changed but temperature increased.   It also misleadingly showed a rise in CO2 which they claimed exactly fitted a rise in temperature over 650,000 years.   However, the researchers had substituted ‘thermometer data for proxy data and vice versa as necessary [in order] to produce the hockey stick-shaped graph, without noting these substitutions’ (Peterson and Wood, 2015: 111). McIntyre and McKitrick (2003; 2005) (and many others) evaluated the Mann et al., data and decided that it was invalid due to multiple errors and quality control defects.  Irrespective of accuracy, the Mann et al., report was included in subsequent United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports which continue to influence global and national climate policies.  In a libel trial (Mann v Ball) (O’Sullivan, 2019) the graph was subsequently proved to be irreproducible but it is still used as evidence of a climate out of control. 
• USA ex-President Obama and latterly Climate Envoy Kerry use the frequently-quoted claim that 97% of peer-reviewed scientific articles agree global warming is manmade and that this is causing dangerous climate change.  This peer-reviewed soundbite statistic is derived from a few surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have since been contradicted.  These claims (and similar) have been proven as misleading, distorted readings of the literature and misrepresentation of findings using biased methods (Taylor, 2013; Bell, 2015; Bast and Spencer, 2014; among others).
• USA ex-Vice President Gore’s (2006) unevidenced, computer-simulated disaster projections support his evangelism for AGW capitalism.  He produced a drama documentary which incorporated Hollywood special effects, including much of which was computer-generated imagery from the cli-fi, Oscar-winning movie The Day After Tomorrow. It was 'passed off as the real thing’ (Peterson and Wood, 2015: 113).   The movie also incorporated Mann et al.,’s ‘hockey stick’ graph.  A UK parent alarmed at the inaccuracies in the film sought a determination as to whether it was “education” or “indoctrination”.  The Judge agreed it was essentially an alarmist film which exaggerated many claims and the nine key errors did not represent an impartial scientific analysis (Peck, 2007).    The film could be shown in schools if teachers corrected the scientific inaccuracies including the graphs which did not justify the assertions made.  (From my classroom observations, I find that teachers are not fulfilling the Judge’s requirements.  Only rarely do university students disagree with the film.)
• the IPCC’s pursuit of restricting global temperature increase <2oC above pre-industrial levels is not based in science but in advocacy.  This target would be achieved by limiting CO2 to 400 parts per million (ppm) (FCCC, 2015).   Investigating the origins of this aspiration determined that there is no scientific basis (Evers, Stampf and Traufetter, 2010).   The role of peer-review in this target is extremely dubious.  CO2 is now ≈411 ppm (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 2013).  Over 450 million years ago, it was 5000 ppm (Lewis, 2009; Wrightstone, 2017).  The last time atmospheric CO2 exceeded 400 ppm was during the Pliocene (around five million years ago) (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 2013).  There were no humans then and the climate was warmer than today (ibid).  This is an uncertainty in framing any climate policy.  

Climate groupthink advocacy vs science

Climate advocates and influencers use misleading information and data repeatedly and include it in their reports which influence policy.  The IPCC includes computer simulated “worst case” projections which are not matched by evidence.  Challenges are rebuffed supported by a media which makes insufficient challenge to the vast volumes of IPCC reports (latest 3949 pages) (IPCC, 2021).  The IPCC report summaries (read by media and politicians) are known to misrepresent the report contents (Koonin, 2021) and this is compounded by low levels of scientific literacy in the general public and politicians.  If life-giving, warming, trace gas CO2 (now renamed “carbon” – a cooling particulate) is the pollutant AGW supporters believe it to be and is 95% natural – how can the 5% attributed to mankind be responsible for so much devastation?  what unidentifiable havoc is the natural 95% creating? What is the residence time of CO2?  1,000 years (IPCC, 2013), 100 years (IPCC,1999)? Even the IPCC admits it does not know (IPCC, 2001) and yet encourages the world to reduce it because the quantity (in their unevidenced view) is becoming unsustainable.  Recent research concludes otherwise (Wijngaarden and Happer, 2020).   Such ponderables are unanswerable without objective research and yet asymmetric research was used to justify policies by the UK’s Climate Change Committee (CCC).  It has latterly been shown to have mislead Parliament about the costs of net zero carbon running into £trillions (GWPF, 2021).  Public policy is not always based on reason or evidence but on politics.

Role for the National Committee on Research Integrity

In my view, the proposed National Committee on Research Integrity has two roles.  First, it should provide objective assessment of any research before it is fed into expensive policy.  At the root of the world’s ruinously expensive climate policies is some very doubtful science.  Policy moves slowly becoming ever more deeply entrenched in national and international fabric.  Science results appear frequently often challenging the basis on which policy has been written – but is ignored because it is neither noticed nor debated by policy formers.   There is currently no means of rolling back climate policy because the volume of policy-influencing “noise” from vested interests which drowns out scientific discoveries.

A secondary role would be to introduce red team/blue teams of opposing research findings.    Currently, there is no debate about climate change because of groupthink belief that the science is settled.  Government and philanthropic research monies fund only research which supports AGW groupthink.  It does not fund the pursuit or validity of the minority, contrary view.  Asymmetric climate information has led to inefficient and expensive policy – the pursuit of zero carbon. 

Conclusion

No polices should be formed on the basis of irreproducible research.  Climate research monies are unfairly distributed to AGW proponents.  This has led to the current imbalance in information and data and the implementation of ruinously expensive policies.   The need for a national committee on research integrity under UKRI has never been greater.

REFERENCES

Bast, J. and Spencer, R. (2014), The myth of the climate change ‘97%’ available from http:// www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136  accessed 11 September 2021

Bell, L. (2013), The U.N.’s Global Warming War On Capitalism: An Important History Lesson available from The U.N.'s Global Warming War On Capitalism: An Important History Lesson (forbes.com) accessed 22 September 2021

Booker, C. (2018) GLOBAL WARMING A case study in groupthink How science can shed new light on the most important ‘non-debate’ of our time available from https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/02/Groupthink.pdf accessed 21 September 2021

Evers, M., Stampf, O. and Traufetter, G. (2010), A superstorm of global warming research (Part 8) available from Spiegel online http//www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-catastrophe-a-superstorm-for-global-warming-research-a-686697.html accessed on 21 January 2021

Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) (2015) Wake up call ahead of Paris 2015 - 400 ppm CO2 level breached available from https://unfccc.int/news/wake-up-call-ahead-of-paris-2015-400ppm-co2-level-breached  accessed 11 January 2021

Gore, A. (2006) An inconvenient truth film: available from https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/  accessed 20 January 2021

GWPF (2021) Climate Change Committee misled Parliament about the cost of net zero, available from https://www.thegwpf.com/climate-change-committee-misled-parliament-about-the-cost-of-net-zero/?mc_cid=89da40cf09&mc_eid=cd94bcf6b9 accessed 28 September 2021

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1999) IPCC special report: aviation and the global atmosphere available from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/aviation-and-the-global-atmosphere-2/ accessed 20 January 2021

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2001a) Climate change 2001: synthesis report available from https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_TAR_full_report.pdf accessed on 24 January 2021

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2013) Climate Change 2013: the physical science basis available from  http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf accessed 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2021) Climate change 2021 – the physical science basis available from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf

accessed 20 August 2021

Koonin, S. (2021) Unsettled: what climate science tells us, what it doesn’t and why it matters, Dallas. Tx, BenBella Books

Lewis, J. (2009), History, politics and claims of man-made global warming, Social Philosophy and Policy 26(2) 231–271 available from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/history-politics-and-claims-of-man-made-global-warming/857B1236C2438F7F323082FA5FE2DBCF accessed 21 January 2021

Mann, M., Bradley, R.S., and Hughes, M.K. (1998) Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries, Nature 392 (779-787) available from https://www.nature.com/articles/33859 accessed 4 January 2021

McIntyre, S. and McKitrick, R. (2003) Corrections to the Mann et al., (1998) proxy data base and northern hemispheric average temperature series. Energy and Environment, 14 (6) 751–772 available from  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830503322793632  accessed 20 January 2021

McIntyre, S. and McKitrick, R. (2005). Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance, Geophysical Research Letters, 32 1-3 available from  https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL021750  accessed 6 March 2021

National Post (2007), U.K. judge rules Gore film ‘exaggerated’ available from http://www. nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=44943ea6-410e-4285-afaf-508f9b606867 accessed 12 February 2015

O’Sullivan, J.  (2019) Breaking news: Dr Tim Ball defeats Michael Mann’s climate lawsuit, available from https://principia-scientific.com/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/  accessed 10 September 2021

Peck, S. (2007), Al Gore’s ‘nine inconvenient Untruths’ available from http://www.telegraph. co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html accessed 14 February 2015

Pielke, R. (2014), An Obama advisor is attacking me for testifying that climate change hasn’t increased extreme weather available from Does Climate Change Cause Extreme Weather? I Said No, and Was Attacked | The New Republic  accessed 28 September 2021

Scripps Institution of Oceanography (2013) What does 400ppm look like? available from

https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/2013/12/03/what-does-400-ppm-look-like/ accessed on 20 January 2021

Taylor, J. (2013), Global warming alarmists caught doctoring ‘97 per cent consensus’ claims available from Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims (forbes.com) accessed 8 September 2021

Wijngaarden, W. and Happer, W. (2020) Dependence of Earth’s thermal radiation on five most abundant greenhouse gases, Atmospheric and ocean physics available from https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf accessed 2 July 2021 

Wrightstone, G. (2017), Inconvenient Facts: the science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know, USA, Silver Town Products LLC

(September 2021)