The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Oops...heh,heh,heh Options
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 5:29:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,300
Neurons: 53,388
I just had to laugh at this, and shake my head.

Headline:


Climate Scientists Discover Error in Major Ocean-Warming Study

"Two researchers have been forced to issue a major correction to a recent study indicating oceans have been warming at a significantly higher rate than previously thought due to climate change.

The paper, published October 31 in the scientific journal Nature, suggested ocean temperatures have risen roughly 60 percent higher than estimated by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, after errors in the authors’ methodology were identified, they realized their findings were roughly in line with those of the IPCC, after all.
Notice here that it was NOT the climate scientists who discovered the error, it was a skeptic of climate science!

The researchers’ alarming findings were uncritically reported by numerous mainstream-media outlets but Nic Lewis, a mathematician and popular critic of the consensus on man-made climate change, quickly identified errors.

“The findings of the . . . paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media,” Lewis wrote in a critique of the paper. “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”
[Emphasis FD.]

Ralph Keeling, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography who co-authored the paper, said he and his partner, Laure Resplandy of Princeton, quickly realized the implications of their mistake once Lewis pointed it out.

“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” he said. “We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.”
Of course they were...sure. So grateful they didn't even bother to double-check their "research" for errors, and neither did anyone else, and it was apparent on the very first page of the report.

After correcting their mistake, Keeling said their research indicates oceans are warming only slightly faster than previously thought, not dramatically faster as they initially reported. Keeling said the miscalculation was made when they were calculating their margin of error, which had a larger range (10 to 70 percent) than they initially believed.

“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.”

The IPCC released a report last month calling on governments to take drastic action to combat climate change. According to the report, global carbon emissions must be cut by 20 percent by 2030 and completely eliminated by 2075 in order to prevent temperatures from rising two degrees above pre-industrial levels, at which point coastal areas would be completely flooded and hundreds of millions of people would be in danger of starvation.
But even though they were wrong, and did sloppy work, don't think about that. Just concentrate on the fear mongering: coastal areas will be completely flooded and millions will die! (rotflmao...sure)



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
RuthP
Posted: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 5:59:54 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,383
Neurons: 76,625
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
Yes, FounDit, and note that it was an error, not a grand conspiracy.

And, note the original researchers were not at all ungracious and quickly corrected their error: "Ralph Keeling, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography who co-authored the paper, said he and his partner, Laure Resplandy of Princeton, quickly realized the implications of their mistake once Lewis pointed it out."

And also note that the ocean warming already noted, and significant enough, thank you very much, was not refuted by your skeptic, nor was the "slight increase" in warming over previous estimates.

You're chortling as though you have disproved climate change / warming. You have not. This was one error, which was a serious one, but which does not change the mass of evidence available. It fails to reverse even one indicator. It reduces a newly delineated increase. That is all.

One may persist in denial of all evidence with which one is uncomfortable. It will not change what is actually happening.
progpen
Posted: Thursday, November 15, 2018 1:56:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,908
Neurons: 329,522
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
Thank you RuthP Applause Applause Applause

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
mactoria
Posted: Thursday, November 15, 2018 5:11:14 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/13/2014
Posts: 604
Neurons: 1,376,387
Location: Stockton, California, United States
RuthP, well said. After doing some follow up, including reading the original IPCC report on climate change, it is quite clear that the scientific community has for many years now come to the conclusion that climate change in the form of warming is real, and is continuing upward. There are critics to be sure, but the IPCC report, and the research and data it's based on, has stood as scientifically sound.


Perhaps some folks just don't understand the 'scientific method' and publishing studies (like in "Nature"). Publishing studies, including method, data and results, has multiple purposes: alerting scientific disciplines of new findings; polishing one's credentials (reputations have to made or unmade based on the vigor of one's work), and possibly most importantly, to obtain feedback that might improve OR disprove the study, its methods, and its results. Lewis did what is supposed to be done: critically reviewed the study, and he found a major mistake the authors had made. The authors didn't decry it, deny it, or throw brickbats; instead they accepted the criticism, confirmed their mistake. Should the researchers have been more diligent in reviewing their data, analysis, and results before publishing? Yes; their reputations (and ability to get support for further research) will suffer for their basic, very embarrassing mistake and what looks like careless analysis. But the 'scientific method' worked: they studied, published, were critiqued and found in error, their error publicly acknowledged. That's how it all works, not just in climate science, but all scientific endeavors, it's how science establishes what's fact and what isn't.

The basic scientific fact of the original IPCC climate report is intact: our climate is warming, doing so based on mankind's inventions/interventions, and is endangering both our natural environment and humans. Thankfully, it's just not warming as alarmingly fast as Keeling/Resplandy's flawed research predicted; there's still no good news here on climate change.
Absinthius
Posted: Thursday, November 15, 2018 7:09:03 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/23/2015
Posts: 371
Neurons: 24,166
Location: Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands
Thanks for bringing our attention to this Foundit, it very nicely illustrates how the scientific mindset is supposed to work and why this is by far the best methodology to approach any kind of challenge.

Scientists also make mistakes, they are only human after all, but when confronted with facts that contradict their earlier convictions they are willing and quick to adapt! A beautiful example of great scientific conduct and a clear example of why the scientific method is the best we got!

Look, how about this? Let's pretend we've had the row and I've won. See? It saves a lot of effort.
Romany
Posted: Thursday, November 15, 2018 6:33:50 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 15,133
Neurons: 47,476
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

I was listening to a Creationist woman who called in to The Atheist Experience the other day: "Oh you guys just think your precious scientific method is the only way to prove something! And anyway, what's the scientific method ever done for me, personally...?"

The article in the OP and others like it, should be spread more widely in the public forum so that more people like her realise the utter fatuity in what she said.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, November 16, 2018 11:31:23 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,510
Neurons: 48,696
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I recently found a new satire site that looks at many topics.

https://outabouter.com

Here's an example re climate change.

https://outabouter.com/2018/10/16/experts-say-vast-deserts-absence-of-life-may-indicate-mars-was-once-run-by-conservatives/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
will
Posted: Monday, November 19, 2018 12:09:53 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
It’s worth noting that FounDit’s “skeptic” (in bold, no less) in fact agrees with the science relating to greenhouse gases, he also agrees with the consensus view that global temperatures have risen in recent times and that human activities are responsible for that rise.

As in this thread, in relation to the opinions of Patrick Michaels, FounDit is conflating Nic Lewis’ position with his own personal ideology. FounDit’s position is that there is absolutely no evidence that humans are responsible for any temperature rise and (absurdly) that no policy should be made until the future can be predicted with absolute proof and certainty… this is a million miles away from even the most vocal climate contrarians such as Michaels and Lewis. I confess I hadn’t fully appreciated how far off the scale FounDit’s position was until it was compared to that of Patrick Michaels (and now Lewis).

The main point where Lewis disagrees with the consensus is in his assessment and predictions regarding the future impact of climate change and what form mitigation policy should take. To find out if his assessment is correct, his calculations will have to survive the same rigorous standards that Keeling and Resplandy – and everyone involved in scientific research – subject themselves to. The fact that Lewis blogged, just two days after the authors were made aware, that “Unfortunately, they have every incentive to conclude that they don't need to take any action! So do Nature; journals don't like being made to look foolish” indicates to me that he has neither the professionalism nor the integrity.


.
will
Posted: Monday, November 19, 2018 12:11:23 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
Hope123. The Onion did a good parody recently, making a point about how absurdly unlikely it is that so many people where conspiring to lie about climate change. Then several (Koch funded) sites picked up on the piece and pointed out that the parody was ironic because it suggested there was a conspiracy to lie about climate change… which is what they have been claiming all along – completely missing the point that that was the claim The Onion was parodying. Brick wall


.


Hope123
Posted: Monday, November 19, 2018 6:28:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,510
Neurons: 48,696
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Will,

Regarding response to the satire of those who can't accept reality - Faulty logic, from assuming the future death rate will be the same as the past when the climate is changing, not taking into account all the reasons why deaths may have declined and may no longer work, to whataboutism.

"Part of the answer is a deep-seated bias against humankind’s quest to tame and overcome the limits from nature, the latest manifestation being climate alarmism."

This statement doesn't even make sense. Climate scientists are against humankind trying to overcome nature's limits? That's exactly what scientists DO, fgs.

They say they know the Onion piece is satire, but they either have no idea what satire us, what the point of the satire was, or they are deliberately lying to mislead. I go with the last one. Critical thinkers would be able to see that.

"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
Hope123
Posted: Monday, November 19, 2018 9:29:26 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,510
Neurons: 48,696
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Saw this tonight, Will. Sums up the satire fairly well.




"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.