‘Alarming’ Study Claiming Global Warming Heating Up Oceans Based on Math Error

[Cow Poke]

It's effectively a suicide cult.

You changed your mind about the way you misrepresented it the first time, so you tried again?

[One Bad Pig]

It's effectively a suicide cult.

Your opinion is duly noted. Maybe you could present it again, in case we missed it the first 20 times.

[JimL]

There was no such implication except in your big empty pointed head.

Yeah, actually that was the exact implication, CP, and everyone knows it, including yourself.. High priests of the order of the warming planet, set me straight.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, actually that was the exact implication, CP, and everyone knows it, including yourself.. High priests of the order of the warming planet, set me straight.

You are STILL triggered by that little bit of sarcasm, Peewee? You poor widdle thing, you. Need a tissue?

[Cow Poke]

Certainly, it happens occasionally and is rectified when it occurs, as happened here. My objection to the OP was the implication that it happens a lot in science, with the corollary that scientific research cannot be trusted.

For the record, here is where Tassman goes off the rails, concluding that me providing ONE EXAMPLE means that I believe scientific research (in general) cannot be trusted. It is specifically the ALARMISTS I don't trust, not science in general.

[Mountain Man]

A skeptic is not necessarily "anti-science".

It's the people who insist that "the science is settled" and demean anyone who challenges their conclusions who are anti-science.

[Cow Poke]

It's the people who insist that "the science is settled" and demean anyone who challenges their conclusions who are anti-science.

It's kinda like they're not really confident in their own assertions, so they have to try to combat dissension in the ranks.

"weak point -- yell louder -- and BLAST anybody who dares to question...."

[Tassman]

For the record, here is where Tassman goes off the rails, concluding that me providing ONE EXAMPLE means that I believe scientific research (in general) cannot be trusted.

The "one example" was your OP about an error in science without qualifications of any sort. It can only be seen as a "gotcha" for science.

[Tassman]

You are STILL triggered by that little bit of sarcasm, Peewee? You poor widdle thing, you. Need a tissue?

Why would you use "sarcasm" in an OP about global warming?

[Cow Poke]

The "one example" was your OP about an error in science without qualifications of any sort. It can only be seen as a "gotcha" for science.

Well, to an easily triggered Drama Queen, sure!

[Sparko]

gore.jpg



[yes I know there is no USS Al Gore]

[Leonhard]

The OP posted by Cow Poke seems to be science working. An independent researcher finds an error in a new report in early circulation, the original team verifies the flaw and retracts the problem.

Am I missing something especially controversial about the report?

[Leonhard]

I exaggerate only slightly; China essentially promised to start thinking about doing something 15 years after the pact. The other G20 countries also seem to be having issues actually meeting their targets - which appears to be fine because there's no enforcement mechanism.

I agree that the Paris Accord was just empty fluff. We need actual action. Using the inaction of China as an excuse doesn't strike me as a good one though.

[Leonhard]

Why didn't the "peer review" concept work?

Two words: Confirmation Bias

It's GOOD to have skeptics around to check your work.

Pretty much though Nic Lewis isn't a climate denialist. He agrees the Earth is getting warmer, that CO2 is the cause and that the increase in CO2 is man-made activity. What he questions specifically is whether the water-vapor feedback mechanism reinforces the warming caused by the CO2.

And yes peer review is not perfect. Science keeps developing, and sometimes someone from the left field points out a flaw.

This is good. His reasoning in this case was confirmed to be sound. So its not like this is a story of a lone wolf either. He finds a flaw, its confirmed by others, and that leads to the article being withdrawn.

[Starlight]

I agree that the Paris Accord was just empty fluff. We need actual action.

I don't see it that way. The Paris Agreement required the countries to commit to publicly reporting their emissions, creating a strategy for lowering their emissions and publicly reporting that, and set up a framework for regular future meetings where all the countries can come together and analyse how everyone's doing and cross-compare. That's exactly what's needed to solve the global problem: Transparency with regard to strategy and data, and regular comparative analysis. If and when it becomes clear that one country in particular isn't doing enough, the international community can do whatever it likes to them at that time.

Using the inaction of China as an excuse doesn't strike me as a good one though.

Yup, it's "Sad!" as Trump would say.