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 circumstan- 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- porting 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 significantly to the scientific debate and/or becomes a personal attack on the authors of the Comment. 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 objections 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 incredible 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 presented and discussed on the Blog Retraction Watch, my response and clarification to the Commentary 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. 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