Professor Gianluca Alimonti
Executive summary
Professor Gianluca Alimonti is an Italian physicist and senior researcher tied to the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) and the University of Milan, with a research profile in high-energy/particle physics and detector development [1] [2] [3]. He gained broader public attention as lead author of a 2022 paper arguing that evidence for a worsening “climate crisis” in extreme weather was not evident, a paper that drew sharp criticism from climate scientists and was later retracted after journal re-review [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. Background and credentials
Alimonti’s professional footprint in physics is well documented: institutional pages and academic profiles list him as affiliated with INFN and the University of Milan and note his teaching and research roles in energy fundamentals and high-energy physics, and his publication record and citation profiles are available on Google Scholar and ResearchGate [1] [2] [3]. Specialized directories also identify him as a top Italian experimental high-energy physicist, and he appears in particle-physics author lists for large collaborations, consistent with a career focused on detectors and particle experiments rather than climate science [8] [3] [9].
2. The 2022 paper and its claims
In January 2022 Alimonti was first author of a paper titled “A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming,” which compiled and analyzed evidence on trends in extreme weather and agricultural productivity and concluded that trends of worsening extremes were not yet evident—a conclusion that directly challenged mainstream interpretations of climate-attributed changes in extremes [4]. The paper was identified as authored by Alimonti and three co-authors from meteorology/related fields, and it was circulated widely online and cited by commentators skeptical of mainstream climate messaging [4] [6] [10].
3. Scientific reaction and retraction
The paper prompted rapid and pointed responses from climate scientists and media fact-checkers who argued the study was methodologically flawed or too narrowly scoped to support its high-level claims; prominent experts said its scope was insufficient to overturn broader evidence for climate change impacts on extremes [5] [7] [11]. After re-review, the journal retracted the article in 2023, a development reported by multiple outlets; reporting notes that Alimonti, as corresponding author, did not respond to some press requests about the retraction [6] [7].
4. Expertise versus domain limits
Observers emphasize a distinction between Alimonti’s clear technical expertise in physics and instrumentation and his role as an interdisciplinary commentator on climate attribution: institutional profiles and publication histories document his physics pedigree, while critiques center on the mismatch between that background and the specialized methods used in climate attribution studies [2] [3] [11]. Several sources explicitly describe him as a nuclear or particle physicist and note his public stance questioning consensus on anthropogenic warming, a stance that has drawn scrutiny from climate specialists [5] [12].
5. Why this episode attracted attention — agendas and information flows
The story became a flashpoint because the paper’s contrarian conclusions were amplified by outlets and commentators skeptical of climate policy, and because calls to withdraw or retract it provoked debates about censorship versus scientific quality control [5] [10]. Media watchdogs and fact-checkers later flagged social posts that used the paper to downplay a climate “emergency,” arguing those posts cherry-picked findings and overgeneralized beyond the paper’s narrow scope [11]. Reporting therefore highlights both the potential for a technically credentialed author to influence public debate beyond his specialty and the incentives for partisan amplification of contrarian studies [10] [11].
6. What remains unclear and reporting limits
Available sources document Alimonti’s affiliations, the paper and its retraction, and the scientific criticisms, but they do not fully disclose the detailed editorial or peer-review correspondence that led to retraction, nor do they include a comprehensive response from Alimonti explaining methodological choices beyond public statements noted by outlets [7] [6]. Where sources are silent, this analysis does not speculate; instead it flags those gaps for further reporting.