An article published last January in a physics journal attracted attention for its conclusion that–contrary to mainstream climate science–extreme weather events have not become more intense or more frequent as the temperature of the earth’s surface has increased.
Now, the journal’s editors have retracted the article after a post-publication review found “that the conclusions of the article were not supported by available evidence or data provided by the authors.”
In the abstract of “A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming,” published in The European Physical Journal Plus, the authors wrote:
On the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.
That conclusion found favor on social media, as well as in The National Review, The Epoch Times, and other outlets, but articles in The Guardian and AFP quoted climate scientists who said the authors had “cherry-picked” the data they analyzed and the paper should be retracted.
Soon after the critical coverage was published, on Sept. 30, 2022, the journal added the following editor’s note to the paper:
Readers are alerted that the conclusions reported in this manuscript are currently under dispute. The journal is investigating the issue.
Nearly a year later, on August 23, as AFP first reported, the journal pulled the paper. According to the retraction notice:
The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Concerns were raised regarding the selection of the data, the analysis and the resulting conclusions of the article. The authors were invited to submit an addendum to the article, but post publication review of the concerns with the article and the submitted addendum concluded that the addendum was not suitable for publication and that the conclusions of the article were not supported by available evidence or data provided by the authors. In light of these concerns and based on the outcome of the post publication review, the Editors-in-Chief no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions reported in this article.
The authors disagree with this retraction.
The first and corresponding author of the paper, Gianluca Alimonti of the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare and Università degli Studi in Milan, Italy, has not yet responded to our request for comment. [See update at end of post.]
A spokesperson for Springer Nature, the publisher of the journal where the paper appeared, told us:
The Editors-in-Chief of the European Physical Journal Plus have retracted this article. When they became aware of concerns, the Editors — with advice and assistance provided by Springer Nature Research Integrity Group — launched a thorough investigation following an established process in line with best-practice Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. This process included a post-publication review by subject-matter experts of the article and an addendum submitted by the authors during the investigation.
After careful consideration and consultation with all parties involved, the Editors and publishers concluded that they no longer had confidence in the results and conclusions of the article. The addendum was not considered suitable for publication, and retraction was the most appropriate course of action in order to maintain the validity of the scientific record.
The paper has been cited 23 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.
Update, 1630 UTC: In response to our request for comment, Alimonti did not answer our specific questions but pointed us to a blog post published by Roger Pielke Jr.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
I have just read the paper in question. I’m not an expert in this field and did not perform due diligence on the data presented in the paper. I would say that its conclusion section contains inappropriate commentary which suggests a bias.
However, in this case, I think it was a mistake to retract the paper. It would be much more valuable for the journal to publish a proper reply from the scientists who took so much issue with the article. It would be beneficial to the community to see a proper article outlining their criticisms.
I would like to understand what was so incorrect about the paper. Maybe it is obvious to experts in this field, which is why a reply with detailed criticism would be useful.
If you read the link in the blog post (https://phys.org/news/2022-09-scientists-urge-publisher-faulty-climate.html), you will find some brief descriptions of the errors. The big problem is that, like you, the authors are not experts in the field but, unlike you, lacked the humility to recognise that. It’s the same as if I, a non-physicist, decided to step into the most important area of their field of study with a paper that refutes conclusions based on decades of legitimate research. I think I might approach some real physicists first to see if I was making grievous errors, which I am certain I would be.
I read the article you linked along with one of the papers by Rahmstorf about increased frequency of extreme weather events. I also read the relevant sections of the IPCC report. I think the retracted paper is not of high quality in comparison.
My concern is, now that it was published, to issue the retraction will feed the idea that it is political censorship. I still think it is better for another scientist to write a reply with their criticisms of the paper. It is routine for scientists to write proper reports or articles critical of a paper they have issue with.
I think this outcome is embarrassing for everyone involved. The journal and editors look silly for publishing a poor quality paper. The authors feels wronged because they feel they were silenced, (Which is what led to the leak of the communications with the journal, no doubt). Finally, the other scientists that took issue with the paper missed an opportunity to use proper scientific channels to inform the community why the paper is not rigorous.
I agree with much of what you say, except that it is perfectly acceptable to call for the retraction of a paper that draws demonstrably false conclusions. You say this is embarrassing for everyone involved, but ignore the widespread mis-reporting after publication. The authors bear sole responsibility for that.
This is one of the reasons why Retraction Watch exists.
It would be interesting to know if the authors first submitted their paper to journals that regularly cover climate change like ‘Nature’. If they had, the feedback they would have received would, surely, assuming they had no agenda, have led them to reanalyse and correct their paper before publication. Maybe they thought they knew best. They’ve discovered they do not.
After reviewing the paper it seems the retraction is a mistake. Perhaps there are errors in the paper but those are far from obvious. I think the better courses would have been to accept a detailed review and analysis. This retraction will merely fuel conspiracy theories and distrust in science.
My view after reading the paper is that the authors are probably correct. And their work seems consistent with the data in the Ipcc reports. So I think it is incumbent on those that disagree to show why their analysis of the same core data is different. Or if the data was missing something then pointing out what is missing. Claiming it is cherry picked with no evidence is suspect.
I will read Pielke’s blog now.
As above, please read the links in the story that don’t support your viewpoint. Try: https://phys.org/news/2022-09-scientists-urge-publisher-faulty-climate.html
The errors are errors of omission. This is the very definition of cherry-picking. You can only draw the author’s conclusions by ignoring over a century of observational date from around the planet. It is not hard to find that data. It is widely published. To ignore it shows bias. Hence the retraction.
This seems to be political censorship not a scientific based retraction.
At least there is no evidence there is anything wrong with the paper.
Science was not done.
It may be worth following the link to Phys.org, and going from that.
As an outsider, it seems obvious to me that the entire field of climate “science” is too heavily politicized to deserve the name science. The existential fear that so many people, both in science, in journalism, and among the general public seem to be experiencing makes them unable to see that they are behaving irrationally. And worse, they are not following the “science” but are really following their “gut”.
As above, please read the links in the story that don’t support your viewpoint. Try: https://phys.org/news/2022-09-scientists-urge-publisher-faulty-climate.html
The errors are errors of omission. This is the very definition of cherry-picking. You can only draw the author’s conclusions by ignoring over a century of observational date from around the planet. It is not hard to find that data. It is widely published. To ignore it shows bias. Hence the retraction.
(1) “. . . said Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts Research at Britain’s Met Office.”
(2) “. . . said Friederike Otto, a senior climatologist at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment.”
(3) “. . . said Stefan Rahmstorf, Head of Earth Systems at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.”
(4) “. . .Peter Cox, a professor of climate system dynamics at the University of Exeter, said . . .”
Four climate scientists* invested up to their eyeballs in the so-called “climate crisis” see to it that an article that dares to come to a conclusion that is diametrically opposed to the climate crisis consensus retracted and the author’s humiliated in the scientific press. Tell me again how this wasn’t a politically motivated retraction.
*Those are the only four mentioned in the article linked so I assume they are the ones that made the complaint(s) about the journal article to the journal publisher.
The critics of the retraction might have had a stronger point if:
(a) The journal had been a reasonable choice for the paper of this topic;
(b) The journal had flawless reputation with respect to the peer-review.
None of the above holds.
“The scope of EPJ Plus encompasses a broad landscape of fields and disciplines in the physical and related sciences – such as covered by the topical EPJ journals and with the explicit addition of geophysics, astrophysics, general relativity and cosmology, mathematical and quantum physics, classical and fluid mechanics, accelerator and medical physics, as well as physics techniques applied to any other topics, including energy, environment and cultural heritage.”
What kind of “physics techniques” can we see in this paper?
For the quality of peer-review, I invite the readers to check papers published in this journal by some known actors, e.g., Masoud Afrand and Davood Toghraie, to name two. Or, if we want really extreme cases, here is even Alireza Sepehri: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2018-12127-6
Finally! Now that Scholarly Communication has adopted the flash mobs, cancel culture, and irrationality of social media, we can henceforth select Nobels via popularity contest. [/sarcasm]
Lowell Boggs (commenting above) is right: This whole field is no longer a science, but a belief system.
Cool. Evidence? Do you mind pointing out the errors in the various IPCC reports and they studies they rely on? Saying “I don’t like it” hasn’t worked to disprove germ theory or evolution either.
This is the article that started the retraction:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/22/sky-and-the-australian-find-no-evidence-of-a-climate-emergency-they-werent-looking-hard-enough
The article in the Guardian criticises the authors and the paper “The authors – three Italian physicists and an agricultural meteorologist – did little original work, but instead reviewed selected papers from other scientists.” – Yes, Mr Readfearn, these are known as review papers and are very common in the scientific literature.
The article also links to a previous article by Mr Readfearn – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/20/tropical-cyclones-have-become-more-destructive-over-past-40-years-data-shows – which tries to link a finding in the paper referenced of higher frequency and higher energy tropical cyclones striking the Americas (which the data supports) to a higher frequency and higher energy cyclones striking Australia. In which the data shows the opposite trend: http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml
Please note that page has a notice of impending removal – because it doesn’t agree with the narrative? Now who is guilty of omission?
http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/tropical-cyclone-knowledge-centre/history/climatology/
Much newer, with data all the way up to 2023, so of course they consider removing the old one. A little bit less conspiracy ideation, please!
“if you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go thrught offical AGU channels to get him ousted”
from Dr Tom Wigley UCAR foia2011 email
‘recently rejuected two papers from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews,hopefully successfully.If either appears I will be very surprised’
Michael Mann foia 2004 email
This science has been corrupted
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/09/peer-review-block-scientific-papers#term16
“But Emails” is kinda boring:
https://climateball.net/but-CG/
Meanwhile, contrarians keep publishing:
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/9/179
That special issue has been curated by the one and only Ned Nikolov.
If Scott knows about CG I, II, and III (forthcoming since 2015), I’m sure he knows about Ned.
Here’s a good assessment of what’s going on in the world of climate “science” publishing. And it’s not pretty:
https://realclearwire.com/articles/2023/09/13/heres_the_climate_dissent_youre_not_hearing_about_because_its_muffled_by_societys_top_institutions_978511.html
People can choose to ignore the problem or go along under the illusions of the precautionary principle (hey, what’s the harm, right?). But science isn’t about the PP. It’s about reproducible results. Sadly it’s been hijacked by the moneyed gatekeepers.
[I]gnoring over a century of observational dat[a]” sounds very close to something purely anecdotal–which, by the way, is a logical fallacy.