GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION WARNS OF COLLAPSE OF “SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY” – Michael Kelly, former Professor of Engineering at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, Clive Hambler, Science Lecturer at Hertford College, Oxford, and Professor Roger Koppl, Fellow in the Forensic and National Security Sciences Institute at Syracuse, have authored an “open review” asking how so many scientific bodies have abandoned core principles of scientific integrity, taken strong positions on unsettled science, accepted data uncritically and silenced sceptics.
The authors allege that universities have abandoned open and disinterested enquiry on behalf of humanity and “should be sanctioned by revoking their charitable status”, while MSM have been uncritical receptacles of alarmist “clickbait” and politicised scare stories, encouraging self-promotion among publicity-hungry scientists.
Pointing to the BBC for repeated gross errors and deceptions, they note: “Any reasonable observer will wonder whether Ofcom [the UK state media regulator] is asleep at the wheel, not requiring the BBC to correct the errors it has been made aware of by experts, nor return to some form of neutrality.”
GWPF’s latest paper will add to growing public concern about the scientific advice given to governments, the media and general public. Trillions of dollars now back the “Net Zero” collectivisation project and most scientists, paid for by politicians and wealthy green elites, are fully onboard the gravy train.
Gianluca Alimonti, Professor of Physics at Milan, has reviewed past weather trends and found no data to support the “climate emergency”. Dr. Patrick Brown of Johns Hopkins University, has blown the whistle on his own recent paper in “Nature” on California wildfires, stating that he got it published by following the “approved script” that boosted the role of “climate change” and downplayed arson and natural causes.
The authors are especially dismissive of computer “models”. The “gross misuse” of Covid computer models in the UK in the absence of robust data and a “paucity of challenge” to scientific advice may, they state, have contributed to “death tolls, economic decline and societal ills”. Climate models, similarly, have produced temperature forecasts two to three times higher than the actual data eventually showed and, instead of narrowing, the results are getting worse.
This “major embarrassment” would not be tolerated in any other field of science. Separation of human-induced warming from natural temperature variation is far more difficult than that portrayed by the IPCC since experimentation is “simply not possible”, creating “fatal flaws” in any system that is supposed to predict future climate change.
The IPCC remains addicted to computer models incorporating a “pathway” of 5°C global warming within less than 80 years. Over 40% of its impact predictions are based on this forecast, despite an admission it is of “low likelihood”.