Climate Scientists Seek To Destroy ‘Inconvenient’ Research Paper

This is hardly a new phenomenon, but it’s still jaw-dropping every time it occurs…

Remember ‘Climategate’? When scientists conspired to bury research papers that threw shade on the ‘catastrophic global warming’ theory, when leaked emails showed–for one–co-compiler of the HadCRUT global temperature series Dr Phil Jones emailing the following to Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann on July 8, 2004:

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” wrote Jones. “Kevin [Trenberth, a colleague] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Well, there’s now a new saga in town, again involving Mann, that seeks to effectively destroy a peer-endorsed published paper by four Italian scientists that had the gall to conclude that ‘extreme weather and related disasters are not increasing’.

The paper, entitled A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming, has, since its publication in European Physical Journal Plus, been countered by many-a green-leaning mainstream news outlet, including The Guardian which issued a hit-piece in Sept 2022 featuring attacks from professors Lisa Alexander and Steve Sherwood, both of NSW University.

The pair alleged cherry-picking and misquoting. Their main specific complaint was that the Italians’ paper had drawn on the Fifth IPCC Report rather than the recent Sixth Report. (The Italians say they submitted the paper before the Sixth Report was even released).

The Guardian’s smear campaign was effectively copied-and-pasted across the ‘Green Axis’ of compromised, establishment-funded legacy media outlets. Agence France-Presse’s (AFP) Marlowe Hood went and penned a predictably dismissive diatribe for The Australian (also here). AFP went and branded the study “faulty” and “fundamentally flawed”, involving “discredited assertions” and “grossly manipulated data” — all before any official review of the paper was even conducted.

The AFP and The Guardian are leaders of what’s known as the Covering Climate Now (CCN) coalition, which comprises some 500 media outlets with reach to a 2+ billion audience. These outlets signed the CCN pledge that demands they peddle catastrophism as well as actively rebut/censor any and all scepticism that may arise when it comes to ‘global boiling’.

Weak men create hard times, and after this media pile-on, the journal that published the Italians’ paper, European Physical Journal Plus, via its owner Springer, were demanded to take “action”. Springer dutifully backed the witch-hunt, with its aim being to force the editor to publish at least an erratum and, preferably, retract the paper altogether, restoring climate ‘right-think’.

The publishers recently agreed on the retraction, which will occur any day now. But the process bypassed all normal protocols, desperately leaping instead to outright censorship. And the alarmists applaud such cowardice. Jaw-dropping.

Meanwhile, and in a triumphant act of defiance, those plucky Italian authors Alimonti and Mariani have successfully published an updated version of their paper, also peer-reviewed, in a different scientific journal, earlier this month (Aug 2023).

A breakdown of the four Italian researchers follows (courtesy of Tony Thomas’ article for

♦ Gianluca Alimonti, Milan University, and senior researcher, Italy’s National Institute of Nuclear Physics. Many of his papers involve work on the 7000-tonne ATLAS detector at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. He lists 300+ publications and presentations.

Renato Angelo Ricci, Padova University, Padua. He’s worked with Legnaro National Laboratories, one of the four major research centers of the Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN). He’s of such prestige that INFN dedicated to him its tenth annual Varenna Conference on nuclear reaction mechanisms. The corrupted Wikipedia Italy dismisses him as a ‘climate skeptic’.

Luigi Mariani, Milan University, also of INFN. He’s with the Lombard Museum of Agricultural History and has published 137 papers.

♦ Franco Prodi, National Academy of Science, Verona and Italian National Research Council — Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. 193 publications, 2300 citations: “Main fields of interest are physics of clouds and precipitation, hail and precipitation growth, aerosol physics, atmospheric radiation, severe storm studies and radar-meteorological investigations, satellite meteorology and nowcasting [very short term weather forecasting].”

The Guardian ignored these credentials in their smearing of the researchers, noting that three of the four Italians had recently signed a “no emergency” Skeptic Declaration, as if that disqualified them from having a reasoned take on the climate. The Guardian also failed to mention that the same declaration, with its 1,600 signatories, was led by two Nobel Laureates in Physics, John Clauser (2022) and Ivar Giaever (1973).

I’ll choose these honest, truth-seeking folk over the provenly shady dealings of AGW-pushing minions such as Michael “Hockeystick” Mann every day of the week; the same Mann who, upon noticing the limelight the Italian’s paper was stealing, issued this wholly unprofessional attack:

“…another example of scientists from totally unrelated fields coming in and naively applying inappropriate methods to data they don’t understand,” spewed Mann. “Either the consensus of the world’s climate experts that climate change is causing a very clear increase in many types of weather extremes is wrong, or a couple of nuclear physics dudes in Italy are wrong.”

Again, my bet is with the above Nobel Laureates who have risked everything to counter what they contend to be absurd AGW catastrophism; I’m with professor emeriti such as Princeton’s William Happer, and MIT’s Richard Lindzen, who routinely condemn ‘global boiling’ forecasts as being scientifically baseless; and I’m with those ‘nuclear physics dudes in Italy’ — I believe they are right, and that Michael Mann is wrong: Mann who’s notorious 1999 Hockeystick graph, which purportedly showed unprecedented 20th century global heat and so used as the ‘poster’ for the IPPC’s Third Report in 2001, was subsequently torn apart by the aforementioned skeptics and then even downplayed to near-invisibility by the IPCC itself in its Fourth Report six years later.

I’m with freethought over dogmatic declarations of “We own the science” and “Rock the boat and you’ll regret it.”

And I’m with consistent professors Happer and Lindzen over “Hide the decline” fabricators such as Jones and Mann.

“All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data,” stated Happer and Lindzen (see link below). “The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”

Also see my 2021 article ‘How Did The Global Warming Scam Survive ‘Climategate?’, now only available on The Wayback Machine due to my original site,, being censored and removed from the web.

Please help keep Electroverse online, consider becoming a Patreon.
Become a patron at Patreon!