Guardian.UK: Climate Priests withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
-
This IS peer review. "He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion." That's peer review. Other scientists pointing out mistakes so they can be corrected. "One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes." Oh look, they made a mistake. They were corrected by their PEERS. This is science at work. The only difference between this and a million other studies is that this error was caught after publication instead of before. This does not prove GW/AGW, and this does not disprove them. As before, it just confirms that we don't yet know the answer.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
I'm not even going to dignify it with a response, as it's already been shown to be a false accusation.
Bull-fucking-shit!
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
Ah, the words of a true believer.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Noooooo, peer review is before it gets published, not after.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
So after it gets published, it should be assumed to be infallible? Peer review means getting other people to look at the findings, run their own experiments, and confirm or refute them. It doesn't guarantee that every error is caught. Of course, once it's published, particularly in something as well known as Nature, it'll attract more attention both from the public and from other scientists, giving more opportunities for said scientists to investigate and review the findings. This is science at work. We should be commending Vermeer and Rahmstorf for finding the errors, not lambasting the original team for being human and therefore fallible.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings. The STUPID PIECE OF SHIT Climate Cultists need whipped with a leather belt. Stomped on, cursed at, spit on, and whipped some more. Filthy slimy pieces of trash. Whip their faces.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
So after it gets published, it should be assumed to be infallible? Peer review means getting other people to look at the findings, run their own experiments, and confirm or refute them. It doesn't guarantee that every error is caught. Of course, once it's published, particularly in something as well known as Nature, it'll attract more attention both from the public and from other scientists, giving more opportunities for said scientists to investigate and review the findings. This is science at work. We should be commending Vermeer and Rahmstorf for finding the errors, not lambasting the original team for being human and therefore fallible.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
So after it gets published, it should be assumed to be infallible?
Of course, didnt you know that? (Sarcasm intended).
Ian Shlasko wrote:
This is science at work. We should be commending Vermeer and Rahmstorf for finding the errors, not lambasting the original team for being human and therefore fallible.
But we should lambast the general lack of effective peer review of papers relating to AGW. Such as the IPCC AR4, which as you nkw know, is riddled with errors.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
If you're going to start on the "hide the decline" stuff, I'm not even going to dignify it with a response, as it's already been shown to be a false accusation. Anyway, it sounds to me like they found a bug in their model, and are letting everyone know that the data is invalid and needs to be corrected. That earns them respect in my book, as if they were politicians, they would probably do anything they could to hide the problem until they were no longer responsible for it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
it's already been shown to be a false accusation.
Where?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Anyway, it sounds to me like they found a bug in their model, and are letting everyone know that the data is invalid and needs to be corrected
And Phil Jones's statement after the CRU email exposure is not a similar retraction? After all, he now states the debate is not over and that the recent warming is not significant.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They are criminals
Please can you inform us all what laws have been broken.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Listen, they knew they were f***ing lying
Oh of course... Because they're all-knowing and infallible, so they couldn't possibly have made a mistake. [/sarcasm]
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Oh of course... Because they're all-knowing and infallible, so they couldn't possibly have made a mistake. [/sarcasm]
GISS NCDC CRU: Its not a mistake to use 80% less weather stations today than in the 1980s. Its not a mistake to send emails to colleagues telling them to delete raw data. Its not a mistake to use 'tricks' to 'hide the decline'. Its not a mistake for Hansen to adjust decades old data downwards. Yes, they know they are manipulating data to show warming. IPCC: Every 'mistake' in the IPCC AR4 tends towards alarmism. This is stastically imporbable otherwise the mistakes would go either way. So, are they mistakes? Not onky that the scientist bahind the Glacier scam knew the data had been misrepresented in order to make governments take notice. This is an intentional lie.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Don't care. They need to be punished.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
That's all fine and dandy but if you persist with that attitude the people whose opinions you wish to change will simply ignore you as a foul mouthed ignoramous.
Tychotics: take us back to the moon "Life, for ever dying to be born afresh, for ever young and eager, will presently stand upon this earth as upon a footstool, and stretch out its realm amidst the stars." H. G. Wells
-
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings. The STUPID PIECE OF SHIT Climate Cultists need whipped with a leather belt. Stomped on, cursed at, spit on, and whipped some more. Filthy slimy pieces of trash. Whip their faces.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
it's already been shown to be a false accusation.
Where?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Anyway, it sounds to me like they found a bug in their model, and are letting everyone know that the data is invalid and needs to be corrected
And Phil Jones's statement after the CRU email exposure is not a similar retraction? After all, he now states the debate is not over and that the recent warming is not significant.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
After all, he now states the debate is not over
The debate is NEVER over. That's what science is all about. We're constantly learning. Everything we know today, could be proven wrong tomorrow.
fat_boy wrote:
Where?
Here's someone on your side of the fence (Anti-AGW) explaining it... See the "Divergence Problem" section: http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/mann_and_briffa_explaining_the_micks_nature_trick/[^] In short, the "decline" they were hiding was the result of tree ring data that ceased to reflect actual temperatures after 1950 or 1960. If you have an indicator that ceases to be accurate, as compared to ALL of the other indicators, you don't use it. Been through this before, on this very forum. "hide the decline" was merely a poor choice of words, since they had no idea that their private e-mails were going to be circulating world-wide.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Listen, they knew they were fucking lying. They destroyed the data, they made up a load up bullshit, and they attacked any scientist who disagreed with their findings. Capeesh? They need to be fucking whipped with jellyfish laced steel cables.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings. The STUPID PIECE OF SHIT Climate Cultists need whipped with a leather belt. Stomped on, cursed at, spit on, and whipped some more. Filthy slimy pieces of trash. Whip their faces.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The STUPID PIECE OF sh*t
Possibly a term more aptly reserved for someone who takes weeks to document a simple algorithm that has been around for years.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Climate Cultists need whipped with a leather belt. Stomped on, cursed at, spit on, and whipped some more. Filthy slimy pieces of trash. Whip their faces.
So, what exactly did Siddall et al do to upset you? Oh, science. They modelled the sea-level changes versus global temperature changes over the past 22,000 years. And, hey, it worked! They then used the model to project sea-levels up to 2100, and published in July 2009. Hang on! Said Vermeer and Rahmstorf, surfacing from the publication of a similar paper (December 2009), we think you've overlooked a couple of points. So we have, Siddall et al replied, and withdrew their paper. That is how science works. It is, over time, self correcting.
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So after it gets published, it should be assumed to be infallible?
Of course, didnt you know that? (Sarcasm intended).
Ian Shlasko wrote:
This is science at work. We should be commending Vermeer and Rahmstorf for finding the errors, not lambasting the original team for being human and therefore fallible.
But we should lambast the general lack of effective peer review of papers relating to AGW. Such as the IPCC AR4, which as you nkw know, is riddled with errors.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
But we should lambast the general lack of effective peer review of papers relating to AGW.
Since when does "peer review" guarantee that every error will be immediately caught? They're looking at 22,000 years of data, from all sorts of different sources (There was no such thing as a thermometer in 20,000BCE), and trying to put all of that together to predict what's going to happen a hundred years in the future, in a system so complicated that we can't even predict what the weather is going to be like two weeks from now. Why does it surprise you that mistakes were made?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Don't care. They need to be punished.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Don't care.
How very adult.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They need to be punished.
Why? They have committed no crime. Have any policies been adopted as a result of their paper? No. Has any money been spent as a result of their paper? No.
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
They are criminals. When you commit a crime, you've made a mistake.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
fat_boy wrote:
After all, he now states the debate is not over
The debate is NEVER over. That's what science is all about. We're constantly learning. Everything we know today, could be proven wrong tomorrow.
fat_boy wrote:
Where?
Here's someone on your side of the fence (Anti-AGW) explaining it... See the "Divergence Problem" section: http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/mann_and_briffa_explaining_the_micks_nature_trick/[^] In short, the "decline" they were hiding was the result of tree ring data that ceased to reflect actual temperatures after 1950 or 1960. If you have an indicator that ceases to be accurate, as compared to ALL of the other indicators, you don't use it. Been through this before, on this very forum. "hide the decline" was merely a poor choice of words, since they had no idea that their private e-mails were going to be circulating world-wide.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
The debate is NEVER over
Tell that to the eco-nazis not me.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Here's someone on your side of the fence (Anti-AGW) explaining it...
What, RealClimate? You gotta be kidding me, thats a site maintained by one of Hansens employees. Its as biassed as it comes. However, to quote the section you indicated: "the trees react weakly to any further temperature increase." SO its not a decline its a weak increase? I hardly think then they have answered the quesiton!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
One? So how about the rest of them?
-
They committed outright fraud and perpetuated a fear-mongering lie using taxpayer dollars, and broke various other laws in the process. They destroyed science.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They committed outright fraud
No they didn't, they hadn't considered a couple of points that two other scientists pointed out to them.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
perpetuated a fear-mongering lie
Who is frightened, exactly? Why would anybody be afraid of a rise of 1.5m over 100 years? Not exactly a tsunami. Where is the lie? They published a paper giving sea-level projections and how they were arrived at. Are hurricane forecasts fear-mongering lies; or do they merely enable people to prepare appropriately, even though, in the event, the hurricane does not strike them?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
using taxpayer dollars
Taxpayers' pounds, actually.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
and broke various other laws in the process
Oh, do tell! Riding a bicycle without lights?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They destroyed science
No, the incident shows that science is alive and well.
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The debate is NEVER over
Tell that to the eco-nazis not me.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Here's someone on your side of the fence (Anti-AGW) explaining it...
What, RealClimate? You gotta be kidding me, thats a site maintained by one of Hansens employees. Its as biassed as it comes. However, to quote the section you indicated: "the trees react weakly to any further temperature increase." SO its not a decline its a weak increase? I hardly think then they have answered the quesiton!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
What, RealClimate? You gotta be kidding me, thats a site maintained by one of Hansens employees. Its as biassed as it comes.
Well, sorry, I don't keep track of which websites are political shills. I just grabbed the first google link, because I don't want to be at this all day.
fat_boy wrote:
However, to quote the section you indicated: "the trees react weakly to any further temperature increase." SO its not a decline its a weak increase? I hardly think then they have answered the quesiton!
I'm no expert, but it looks like the particular trees in question are from one small region, and that region had some unusually-hot weather...Now, this link[^] shows some of the raw data, and it seems that one particular tree had a really odd growth pattern, and that was throwing off the calculations in the tree-ring study. Keep in mind that all of this data is going through some kind of formulaic translation, since they're getting tree ring data (Widths, I'd assume) and using those to derive temperature changes. "React weakly" does not necessarily translate to "weak increase"... You're playing with the words without understanding the context.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
