Modis Operandi
of
Climate “Science”:
Silencing Inconvenient Evidence
I publish an article in the journal
Global & Planetary Change
(GPC-Paper) [1], which shows:
1
.
The
anthropogenic
contribution
to
increased
atmospheric
CO
2
can
be
no
greater
than
15%.
2
.
The
same
mechanism
which
can
account
for
nearly
all
of
the
modern
increase
of
atmos
-
pheric
CO
2
can
likewise
account
for
nearly
all
of
the
prehistoric
increase
which
has
been
inferred from pseudo observations.
Köhler
et
al.
[2]
submit
a
Comment
on
the
GPC-Paper,
sweeping
criticisms
that
reiterate
the
IPCC party line:
a catalogue of tenuous claims and citations that are neither definitive nor new
.
When
GPC
receives
the
Comment,
about
one
month
later
not
the
editor
but
the
publisher
of
GPC informs me about this Comment. In his email he asks:
•
If I would like to respond with a Reply to the Comment.
•
He
also
explains
that
they
were
already
starting
the
review
process
for
the
Comment,
and
due to their framework the reviewers would be the same for the Comment and Reply.
•
The
authors
of
the
Comment
have
proposed
7
reviewers
(all
known
as
representatives
of
the IPCC industry), and the review process has already started with two or three of them.
Therefore,
before
submitting
my
Reply,
I
contact
the
publisher,
how
under
these
circum
stan
-
ces a neutral review process could be ascertained without a chance to suggest also reviewers.
His answer:
•
The
intention
of
the
Comment/Reply
exchange
is
to
further
develop
the
arguments
sup
-
por
ting
the
previous
paper,
and
also
to
respond
to
critical
points
of
the
authors
of
the
Comment.
•
Even
when
the
reviewers
disagree
with
the
content
of
the
Reply,
they
would
be
aware
of
this
aspect,
and
their
comments
should
be
considered
as
suggestions
to
strengthen
the
Reply
or
to
add
clarity.
A
Reply
would
normally
only
be
rejected,
if
it
fails
to
add
significant
ly
to
the scientific debate and/or becomes a personal attack on the authors of the Com
ment
.
I submit a Reply [3] which through detailed analysis demonstrates:
1
.
The criticisms of Köhler et al. [2] are erroneous.
2
.
Fundamental
assumptions
of
the
IPCC,
upon
which
Köhler
et
al.
rely,
are
flawed.
The
foun
-
dation
of
IPCC
advocacy,
those
assumptions
do
not
obey
the
laws
of
physics
which
control
atmospheric CO
2
.
3
.
Key
failures
identified
in
[2]
invalidate
the
very
premise
of
the
IPCC.
They
render
predic
-
tion of atmospheric CO
2
on the basis of anthropogenic emission impossible.
4
.
If
climate
models
cannot
predict
atmospheric
CO
2
,
they
can
hardly
predict
climate
properties which are purportedly influenced by atmospheric CO
2
.
GPC
and
its
publisher,
Elsevier,
then
censor
the
material.
On
2
October,
2017,
the
editor
in
-
forms
me
that
reviewers
had
advised
against
publishing
the
Reply
and
therefore
he
must
reject it. Attached are two reviewer reports.
GPC
publishes
the
Comment
by
Köhler
et
al.
[2],
but
refuses
to
publish
the
Reply
[3],
which
corrects
those
erroneous
claims.
Treatment
of
this
scientific
exchange
is
unprecedented,
a
stark denial of due process.
I
did‘t
fail
to
add
significantly
to
the
scientific
debate
(see
Reply)
nor
did
I
make
any
personal
attacks
against the authors of the Comment.
Since
I
have
serious
concerns
about
the
treatment
of
the
review
process
and
particularly
concerns
over
due
process,
I
send
the
editor
a
letter
with
a
copy
to
the
publisher
explaining
in
detail
my
reservations
(Letter
to
the
Editor
[4])
and
a
clarification
concerning
the
review
re
-
ports
(Reply
Review
Reports
[5]),
which
are
full
of
misinterpretations,
unacceptable
claims
and
imputations.
Correspondence
and
objec
tions
are
never
answered.
Therefore,
I
inform
several
institutions
and
colleagues
about
this
review
process
and
the
censorship
of
GPC
with
a
link
to
the
website
https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/climate-unscience
and this homepage.
Apparently
this
link
provokes
GPC
to
publish
a
Commentary
of
the
Editor
Board
[6],
which
is
an
incredi
ble
attack
of
defaming
assertions
without
any
evidence,
not
only
against
me,
but
also
casting
doubts
on
the
reputation
of
the
previous
Chief-Editor
of
GPC
and
the
external
re
-
viewers, who were involved in the review process of the initial publication.
As
this
Commentary
with
further
statements
of
the
authors
of
the
Comment
[2]
are
presen
ted
and
discussed
on
the
Blog
Retraction
Watch,
my
response
and
clarification
to
the
Com
men
tary
of the Editorial Board can also be found on this blog [7].
It
sounds
more
than
preposterous
when
these
board
members
write:
“The
Reply
by
Harde
to
the
Comment
by
Köhler
et
al.
(2018)
was
rejected
because
it
did
not
add
any
significant
information
to
the
argument
put
forward
in
the
original
paper.
In
reviewing
the
Reply,
the
reviewers
felt
that
Harde's
argument
is
“…too
simplistic,
based
on
invalid
assumptions,
ignores
a
whole
body
of
observational evidence, and cites selectively literature that has long-time been disproved”
.
It
is
the
easiest
way
to
insult
a
publication
ex
post
and
to
suppress
any
further
discussion
in
a
highly
polarized
debate
between
two
scientific
positions,
in
which
the
pre-selected
reviewers
exclusively
advocate
the
fundamentally
restricted
view
of
the
IPCC's
interpretation
of
the
car
-
bon
cycle.
The
reader
may
convince
himself/herself,
if
the
Reply
[3]
to
Köhler
et
al's
Comment
[2] wouldn't contain any significant information.
By
the
way,
it
is
already
a
well
documented
procedure
to
defame
authors
and
publications
that
contradict
the
IPCC's
claims.
In
the
"Climategate"
release
of
emails
the
reader
can
find
a
discussion,
which
specifically
outlines
the
tactics
(including
names
of
editors
and
journals
that
would
be
amenable
to
it)
to
write
a
Comment
on
an
unpleasant
article,
in
which
the
results
of
the
paper
are
impeached.
This
mostly
happens
without
any
serious
refutations,
only
the
standard
claims
of
the
IPCC
have
to
be
echoed.
The
author/s
of
the
Comment
propose
their
own
reviewers,
as
done
in
this
case,
the
rest
is
disposed
by
the
editorial
process
of
the
journal
as
described
before.
So,
any
serious
disputation
of
the
paper's
content
can
be
suppressed,
and
in
the
future
it
is
simply
argued
that
with
the
published
Comment
it
has
been
shown
that
the paper is erroneous, is in conflict with observations or violates physical laws.
This
is
our
so
highly
recognized
and
independent
science
and
publication
process,
which
in
-
deed
urgently
needs
reformation.
It
stays
for
itself,
when
the
editors
and
publisher
of
GPC
allege
in
the
addendum
of
their
commentary
that
my
article
attracted
considerable
attention
due
to
its
flawed
content
,
a
defaming
assertion
without
any
evidence.
The
arbiter
of
this
high
-
ly
polarized
subject
cannot
be
prejudiced
editors.
Nor
shall
it
be
individual
reviewers
–
certain
-
ly
not
reviewers
who
have
been
discriminated
to
one
side
of
this
polarized
debate.
The
arbiter
must be the scientific community – inclusive of both sides of the debate.
As
a
scientific
publisher,
Elsevier’s
responsibility
should
have
been
to
provide
the
scientific
community with both opposing positions, to enable the community to judge for itself.
Elsevier’s
publication
charges
are
paid,
in
significant
part,
with
public
funds.
Its
conduct
of
this
scientific exchange begs the following question:
Should the public be footing the bill for activities that sequester scientific knowledge
from the public – even from the scientific community, those who are best qualified to
understand its importance?
References
1.
H. Harde, Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO
2
residence time in the atmosphere, Global and Planetary
Change 152, pp. 19-26, (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.02.009.
Free download of the Manuscript
2.
P. Köhler, J. Hauck, Ch. Völker, D. A. Wolf-Gladrow, M. Butzin, J. B. Halpern, K. Rice, R. E. Zeebe,
Comment on “Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO
2
residence time in the atmosphere” by H. Harde,
Global and Planetary Change (2017), doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.09.015
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117301364?via%3Dihub
3.
H. Harde, Reply to Comment on "Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO
2
residence time in the atmo-
sphere" by P. Köhler, J. Hauck, C. Völker, D. Wolf-Gladrow, M. Butzin, J. B. Halpern, K. Rice, R. Zeebe,
2017
Download
4.
H. Harde, M. L. Salby, Correspondence to GPC and Publisher, October 14, 2017
Download
5.
H. Harde, Reply to Reviewer Reports, October 22, 2017
Download
6.
M. Grosjean, J. Guiot, Z. Yu, Commentary: H. Harde: “Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence
time in the atmosphere”.Global and Planetary Change, Volume 164, May 2018, Pages 65-66,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117306586
7.
H. Harde, Reply to the Commentary of GPC:
Blog Retraction Watch https://retractionwatch.com/2018/04/23/flawed-climate-science-paper-exposed-
potential-weaknesses-in-peer-review-process/
#comment-1596587 and, #comment-1596592 or
PDF-File
See also: https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/climate-unscience,
https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/harde-2017-censored
Physics & Climate