Category Archives: Science

Even Nobel Laureates can make a mistake needing correction

Edward J. Calabrese. Muller’s Nobel Prize data: Getting the dose wrong and its significanceEnvironmental Research 176 (2019) 108528

This paper evaluates the significant historical paper of Muller and Mott-Smith (1930), which successfully disputed the proposal of Olson and Lewis (1928) that background ionizing radiation is the driving mechanism of evolution. While the present analysis supports the general conclusion that background radiation is not a quantifiable factor affecting evolution, the paper reveals methodological errors and questionable conclusions in the Muller and Mott-Smith (1930) paper, which may have impacted the acceptance of the linear non-threshold (LNT) model. Most importantly, this paper reveals that in Muller’s (1927) Nobel Prize research he used a treatment exposure (total dose) that was 95 million-fold greater than the average background exposure, a value far greater than the 200,000 fold reported by Muller and Mott-Smith (1930). Such a large exposure rate dis- crepancy may be historically important as it may have led to the over-reliance on Muller’s research in support of the derivation and use of the LNT single-hit model.

Marcel Crok TEDx climate talk censorship unwarranted

“I gave my first TEDx talk during Tedx Roermond. Roermond is a city in the south of The Netherlands. The experience was quite interesting. The motto of Ted is “ideas worth spreading”. Apparently, not all ideas are worth spreading because soon after the organization of Tedx Roermond sent my name and a short description of my ideas to the TED headquarters they received a rather threatening email back that the ultimate consequence could be that they would lose their TEDx license.” click here

A “Wittenberg door” statement on climate science as dogma

“In 1517, a 33-year-old theology professor at Wittenberg University walked over to the Castle Church in Wittenberg and nailed a paper of 95 theses to the door, hoping to spark an academic discussion about their contents. The same is happening today in Italy concerning climate science as dogma.” click here

Climategate and NASA data tampering are real

“It really doesn’t matter in what order you rearrange the Climategate emails. You get the same result every time: a bunch of second-raters bullying dissenters, troughing lavish grants, racking up air miles on conference freebies, cooking the books, manipulating the evidence, torturing the data till it screams in order to make man-made global warming look like a much more significant and well-understood problem than it actually is.” click here

NASA attempts to rewrite climate history

“In 1998, NASA showed 1934 as the hottest year on record in the US, and declining temperatures for the rest of the century. They have since rewritten the data to eliminate the post 1930s cooling.” click here

Are some climate scientists unnecessarily experiencing pre-traumatic stress syndrome?

“There’s deep grief and anxiety for what’s being lost, followed by rage at continued political inaction, and finally hope that we can indeed solve this challenge. There are definitely tears and trembling voices.”

“Professionally coping with grief is part of the job training for doctors, caregivers, and those working in humanitarian or crisis situations. But for scientists?”  click here

Bias in historical England and Wales precipitation data

Conor Murphy, Robert L. Wilby, Tom, K.R. Matthews, Peter Thorne, Ciaran Broderick, Rowan Fealy, Julia Hall, Shaun Harrigan, Phil Jones, Gerard McCarthy, Neil Macdonald. Multi‐century trends to wetter winters and drier summers in the England and Wales precipitation series explained by observational and sampling bias in early records. International Journal of Climatology, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6208

Globally, few precipitation records extend to the 18th Century. The England Wales Precipitation (EWP) series is a notable exception with continuous monthly records from 1766. EWP has found widespread use across diverse fields of research including trend detection, evaluation of climate model simulations, as a proxy for mid‐latitude atmospheric circulation, a predictor in long‐term European gridded precipitation datasets, the assessment of drought and extremes, tree‐ring reconstructions and as a benchmark for other regional series. A key finding from EWP has been the multi‐centennial trends towards wetter winters and drier summers. We statistically reconstruct seasonal EWP using independent, quality‐assured temperature, pressure and circulation indices. Using a sleet and snow series for the UK derived by Profs. Gordon Manley and Elizabeth Shaw to examine winter reconstructions, we show that precipitation totals for pre‐1870 winters are likely biased low due to gauge under‐catch of snowfall and a higher incidence of snowfall during this period. When these factors are accounted for in our reconstructions, the observed trend to wetter winters in EWP is no longer evident. For summer, we find that pre‐1820 precipitation totals are too high, likely due to decreasing network density and less certain data at key stations. A significant trend to drier summers is not robustly present in our reconstructions of the EWP series. While our findings are more certain for winter than summer, we highlight i) that extreme caution should be exercised when using EWP to make inferences about multi‐centennial trends, and; ii) that assessments of 18th and 19th Century winter precipitation should be aware of potential snow biases in early records. Our findings underline the importance of continual re‐appraisal of established long‐term climate datasets as new evidence becomes available. It is also likely that the identified biases in winter EWP have distorted many other long‐term European precipitation series.