The Global Warming Fraud
Interesting how some of the alarmists are walking back and admitting to making false statements in the past:

:comp:


Article Wrote:Link to Original Article
phys.org
Journal 'Nature' retracts ocean-warming study
by Joshua Emerson Smith


[Image: 3-ocean.jpg] Credit: CC0 Public Domain

The journal Nature retracted a study published last year that found oceans were warming at an alarming rate due to climate change.

The prestigious scientific journal issued the formal notice this week for the paper published Oct. 31, 2018, by researchers at the University of California, San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

They released a statement published on the journal's website that read in part:
"Shortly after publication, arising from comments from Nicholas Lewis, we realized that our reported uncertainties were underestimated owing to our treatment of certain systematic errors as random errors.

"Despite the revised uncertainties, our method remains valid and provides an estimate of ocean warming that is independent of the ocean data underpinning other approaches."
Lewis, a mathematician and critic of the scientific consensus supporting the climate crisis, posted a critique of the paper shortly after its publication.

Co-author and climate scientist Ralph Keeling at Scripps has taken the blame for the mistake.

The report used a new approach to measure the ocean's temperature based on measuring the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide rising off the oceans' plants. Much of the data on ocean temperatures currently relies on the Argo array, robotic devices that float at different depths.

The retraction of the article came on the same day that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report on the impacts warming on oceans and ice-covered regions.

The findings were some of the most dire to date, warning that if emissions continue, sea level rise could reach 3 feet by the end of the century, a more than 10% increase from 2013 predictions. At the same time, the report found that in some cities and islands hundred-year floods will become yearly events.


More information: L. Resplandy et al. Retraction Note: Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition, Nature (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1585-5
L. Resplandy et al. Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0651-8
2019 The San Diego Union-Tribune

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Citation: Journal 'Nature' retracts ocean-warming study (2019, September 30) retrieved 8 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-09-journal-na...rming.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
  
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
C.S. Lewis
Reply
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/new...12-minutes
[-] The following 1 user Likes cassini's post:
  • Zedta
Reply
(10-13-2019, 01:05 PM)cassini Wrote: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/new...12-minutes

Nice find. Another true science expose' of the actual, factual data.
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
  
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
C.S. Lewis
Reply
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
  
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
C.S. Lewis
Reply
Interesting update on Global Warming, er, Climate Change:


One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
  
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
C.S. Lewis
Reply
(07-16-2019, 11:12 AM)Zedta Wrote:
(07-15-2019, 11:54 PM)Stanis Wrote:
(07-15-2019, 05:31 PM)Zedta Wrote: Another group of non-'bought-out' scientists, boldly tell the scientific truth of global warming: It ain't human caused.


Article Wrote:Link to Original Article 11 July, 2019  Paul Joseph Watson

The paper, titled ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’ was published by Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi.

This is a manuscript posted on ArXiv. It has not been peer reviewed.

Why would you automatically consider this "boldly telling the truth"? Is it not also possible the paper is just wrong?

I really don't want to get into discussing the science details; it's not my field. (Though I doubt most people commenting here have any better background in climate science.) However, I skimmed the article and it appears to be making an error in correlation and causation, an error in scientific reasoning.

You generally oome to a conclusion based on sources. Doing the reverse tends to lead to echo chambers.

So, you 'skimmed' the article, but didn't look at literally texts worth of data on this thread that supports the article's findings, then your conclusions aren't well grounded any more than one could tell what is in a box by it's appearance and not by its contents.

Watch, for instance (ya you may have to sit for a while and watch a dissertation by 'someone in the field' at this point () in the thread). It may actually educate you! Many are like you appear to be; of the global warming/change crowd. Perhaps you should put your glasses on and look closer?

Interesting. So when someone points out nonsense with one source, your response is "here look at this other source"?

How do you evaluate the other source, if you don't have the education in the field?
Reply
(12-08-2019, 03:12 AM)Stanis Wrote: How do you evaluate the other source, if you don't have the education in the field?

I does not take a degree in Pharmacy to know how to take an aspirin.

I have many decades on this planet and I have, since childhood, been an avid amateur weather observer, beginning in earnest when I was in flight school. Things are changing, but on one facet of the change, man, in recent times may be the reason, due to geoengineering efforts with climate modification (ie: Chemtrails). The  CO2 from humans argument, is utter balderdash. More to the point, the Sun is the culprit for the vast majority of Climate Change. There has ALWAYS been 'Climate Change'; its called in the vernacular: WEATHER.

I point out the absurdity of the carbon based global warming fraud, that was perpetrated upon humanity by a group of social scientists, media magnets and 'futurists' at the Club of Rome. The main players were the Rockefellers and Ted Turner.

Please get this part straight: I am an observer and I cite things that are peculiar.

The reasoning of MSM brand of Climate Change or Global Warming is illogical. If you look at the hype, it is big time gaslighting of things that don't make sense and the darkening of those arguments that do make sense. It is illogical, in a very big way, with the realization of one point: If global climate change is man-made, then man must be influencing the weather all over the solar system, because there is very obvious climate change on every planet we have a satellite orbiting, because it is being observed on every planet. The glove does not fit, even by the very simplest of reasons.

If I am in error, please point it out and cite an argument to support your position. I'd love to hear it. Don't just be a skeptic or do personal attacks. I am just a messenger.

In the meantime, perhaps you can watch this video on the subject. It would be seemingly well aimed at someone like you, who don't seem to see the obvious and ignore the sublime underpinnings of deceit in the main stream views of so many 'scientists' who are behind the Climate Change issue and have no background in climate science. Most are social scientists and the like.

Try this. Perhaps it is basic enough for you:

One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
  
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
C.S. Lewis
Reply
(12-08-2019, 10:21 AM)Zedta Wrote:
(12-08-2019, 03:12 AM)Stanis Wrote: How do you evaluate the other source, if you don't have the education in the field?

I does not take a degree in Pharmacy to know how to take an aspirin.

Perhaps not, but if a trained medical doctor prescribes 81mg aspirin daily, would you change that to a 325mg daily on your own untrained view?

If you don't have training in a field, you are also not equipped to recognize errors in process or research in that field. 

Also, in practically every field that I know of, there are scientists who argue against methods commonly used by other scientists. And they usually have a point. Does that mean they are right? No, they usually go too far with it. But to understand how requires expertise in the field.

My own field has a method accepted by 95+% of those working in the field, but rejected by a few, including one professor in the US who has co-authored papers with every significant scientist in the field. He says the method isn't trustworthy because it doesn't work all the time. He is correct that it doesn't work all the time, but those in the field understand when it can't be used. Understanding when and why it works requires at least a masters-degree level training, though.
Reply
(12-08-2019, 11:11 PM)Stanis Wrote: If you don't have training in a field, you are also not equipped to recognize errors in process or research in that field. 

Also, in practically every field that I know of, there are scientists who argue against methods commonly used by other scientists. And they usually have a point. Does that mean they are right? No, they usually go too far with it. But to understand how requires expertise in the field.

My own field has a method accepted by 95+% of those working in the field, but rejected by a few, including one professor in the US who has co-authored papers with every significant scientist in the field. He says the method isn't trustworthy because it doesn't work all the time. He is correct that it doesn't work all the time, but those in the field understand when it can't be used. Understanding when and why it works requires at least a masters-degree level training, though.

But that's the problem. The predictions of climate science have been wrong over and over again for decades. New York was supposed to be underwater by 2000. Yet we're supposed to give up our cars and turn off the AC and abort our children because the climate scientists say so. And the plans to address global cooling global warming climate change are going to cost huge numbers of jobs and make all sorts of things more expensive, which hurts the poor. If it really is that dire, and they want people to make such drastic changes to their lives and their society, they better be able to explain to the common man. As it is, it's hardly any different that the guy who says the world is going to end on such-and-such a date, it doesn't, and then wonders why nobody listens to him anymore. And it also doesn't help when any scientist who disagrees is treated as a nut and just dismissed. Science is supposed to challenge its own methods and findings, but these days, that's the quickest way to become unemployed.
[-] The following 2 users Like Paul's post:
  • antiquarian, Zedta
Reply
(12-08-2019, 11:11 PM)Stanis Wrote:
(12-08-2019, 10:21 AM)Zedta Wrote:
(12-08-2019, 03:12 AM)Stanis Wrote: How do you evaluate the other source, if you don't have the education in the field?

I does not take a degree in Pharmacy to know how to take an aspirin.

Perhaps not, but if a trained medical doctor prescribes 81mg aspirin daily, would you change that to a 325mg daily on your own untrained view?

If you don't have training in a field, you are also not equipped to recognize errors in process or research in that field. 

Also, in practically every field that I know of, there are scientists who argue against methods commonly used by other scientists. And they usually have a point. Does that mean they are right? No, they usually go too far with it. But to understand how requires expertise in the field.

My own field has a method accepted by 95+% of those working in the field, but rejected by a few, including one professor in the US who has co-authored papers with every significant scientist in the field. He says the method isn't trustworthy because it doesn't work all the time. He is correct that it doesn't work all the time, but those in the field understand when it can't be used. Understanding when and why it works requires at least a masters-degree level training, though.

You are ignoring the big gorilla in the room (no pun intended: re my avatar):

I am not an evaluator of the science. I am an observer of the data and who is presenting the data. I have not posted anything from me as anything for or against the issue of Climate Change. I only present others who are credentialed and support viewpoints that contradict or otherwise do not support what appears from the data to be a purely political or monetary priory for the idea of Climate Change or Global Warming as a human caused phenomena. The video I posted is quite good at presenting this viewpoint.

I don't believe, from the vast and long data set of this thread, that over the years, the weight of that data supports that the climate change as a human caused and human controlled issue is a hoax, bottom line.

If you can dispute this issue, please submit your data.
One should have an open mind; open enough that things get in, but not so open that everything falls out
Art Bell
  
I don't need a good memory, because I always tell the truth.
Jessie Ventura

Its no wonder truth is stranger than fiction.
Fiction has to make sense
Mark Twain

If history doesn't repeat itself, it sure does rhyme.
Mark Twain

You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.
C.S. Lewis
[-] The following 1 user Likes Zedta's post:
  • antiquarian
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)