Skip to main content

Another one bites the dust. Pogo is going to be the last one to jump ship.

quote:
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi...ence-retract-siddall

Run Sarah Run

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Science Organizations' 'Consensus' Statements Do Not Reflect Members' Views - by Joseph D'Aleo - Environment & Climate News
Publication date: 04/01/2008

http://www.heartland.org/polic...t_Members_Views.html
The American Geophysical Union, the world's largest organization representing earth and space scientists, has issued a new statement on the causes and consequences of recent climate change and possible responses.

Similarly, in the past few years the Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing a so-called consensus view that human activities are driving global warming.

What you don't hear is that these societies never allowed member scientists to vote on these climate statements. Essentially, in each case only two dozen or so members on ad hoc committees and governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements.

Rank and File Disagree

With my experience as chief meteorologist for two large weather companies, and with many personal contacts in operational meteorology, climatology, and broadcasting, I believe the majority of rank-and-file members within those specialties (as many as 60 to 70 percent) do not buy the notion that man is entirely responsible for climate change. Yet the societies use their statements to imply full support of all the scientists involved.

Joseph D'Aleo (email form Link) is a certified consultant meteorologist, was the first director of meteorology at the Weather Channel, and is executive director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project.
did any of you even read this article???????

one of the two mistakes made was because they did NOT fully allow for temperature change.
doesnt it seem logical that after allowing for the full temp change the end result would end up being greater than in their report?

and:



quote:
Originally posted by SS97:
The article states it is the first time a paper has been withdrawn due to errors. Ooops, rushing too fast with false data to prove the unprovable?


you are using a partial sentence to misconstrue the truth. it is the first time a paper has been retracted from Nature Geoscience since the journal began publishing in 2007. BUT,"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."
quote:
doesnt it seem logical that after allowing for the full temp change the end result would end up being greater than in their report?

Not according to their guy.

............................................
Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." 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.
quote:
Originally posted by tcf531:
one of the two mistakes made was because they did NOT fully allow for temperature change.
doesnt it seem logical that after allowing for the full temp change the end result would end up being greater than in their report?

No. Not at all. Models also show that as temperatures on the California coast rise, fog will increase. Guess what, fog has decreased for several years. There 'models' say one thing. Actual fact shows something totally different. They are guessing. They (too often) guess wrong. They are creating hysteria among the "the sky is falling" crowd.
quote:
Originally posted by SS97:
Einstein was ridiculed as well. He proved he was right against all the other scientists.

Wonder why the GW fear mongers can't do that?

If this was a settled science of a consensus, we would not be debating it.


Actually, scientists flocked to him after the Relativity Theorem. Not so much, the Unified Field Theory.
I was actually thinking of a more abstract idea taken from a debate.
When Hitler forced 200 scientists to call Einstein a quack, he was asked by a reporter why he was not bothered by 200 saying he was wrong, he said, "It only takes one to PROVE me wrong".
Nice little side note. I did not make that clear at all. My fault. My thoughts seem to blur some days. Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by SS97:
Einstein was ridiculed as well. He proved he was right against all the other scientists.

Wonder why the GW fear mongers can't do that?

If this was a settled science of a consensus, we would not be debating it.


Actually, scientists flocked to him after the Relativity Theorem. Not so much, the Unified Field Theory.


Uh, obviously you slept through physics class. First of all Einstein had two separate theories of relativity (special and general) which came 7 years apart. Secondly, he did indeed face some opposition (not so much with Special as he did with General since General overturned Newton's laws of gravity). Third, Einstein had nothing to do with the Unified Field Theory; he did work on the problem later in his life but never got far with it.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×