Written Evidence Submitted by Anonymous 2
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 Challengers are silenced; their work goes unpublished; advocacy prevails over research.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:
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.
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.
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