FrankRep
02-25-2010, 02:40 PM
The authors of a scientific paper published in Nature Geoscience on July 29, 2009 predicting that sea levels would rise due to global warming by as much as 2.7 feet by the end of the twenty-first century have retracted that assertions. by Warren Mass
Rising Sea Theory Retracted (http://www.jbs.org/environmental-stewardship-blog/6008-rising-sea-theory-retracted)
Warren Mass | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
25 February 2010
The authors of a scientific paper published in Nature Geoscience on July 29, 2009 predicting that sea levels would rise by as much as 2.7 feet by the end of the twenty-first century have retracted that assertions.
A report in Fox News noted that the paper had also “reinforced the conclusions of the U.N.'s controversial Fourth Assessment report, which warned of the dangerous of man-made climate change.”
In Nature Geoscience for February 21, authors Mark Siddall, Thomas F. Stocker, and Peter U. Clark published a retraction (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo780.html) of their earlier findings, noting:
One of the main conclusions of the Letter was that the model results supported the projections of sea-level rise during the twenty-first century that are reported in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unfortunately, we have since found that our projections were affected by two oversights in our model approach.
After noting the specific research errors that led to the earlier false conclusion — such as “an overestimation of the sea-level response to warming in the simulations for [the twentieth and twenty-first centuries]” — the authors issued their new conclusion:
Thus we no longer have confidence in our projections for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors retract the results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900.
In a commentary on this retraction, a Fox News writer noted:
Since the leak of emails from the U.K.'s top global warming scientists in early December, many other errors and sloppy mistakes have been uncovered in leading report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Flaws in weather stations have led some to question claims of rising temperatures, sloppy math led to holes in postulates that the Himalayas were rapidly melting and fears of a man-made food shortage in Africa seem unsubstantiated as well.
And a blog (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/9699/comment-page-2) published by the Charleston, West Virginia, Daily Mail in reaction to this latest blow to the credibility of global warming doomsayers:
Once again, forecasts of the ill-effects of global warming prove to be inaccurate and poor science.
So far, scientists seem disinterested in the benefits of global warming. Perhaps because government grants are for finding dangers [due] to global warming, which make it easier to sell cap-and-trade taxes to an unaware public.
The admitted errors contained in this “rising seas” report add to the loss of credibility already being cast on anthropogenic (man made) global warming theories following the “Climategate” episode, wherein hackers stole (and published online) hundreds of incriminating emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA), revealing correspondence between British and American researchers engaged in fraudulent reporting of data to favor their own climate change agenda. (Read: “IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2377-ipcc-researchers-admit-global-warming-fraud).”)
While it has taken much of the world’s media a long time to question the validity of global warming claims, there has been a substantial dissenting group of scientist protesting for years that such theories are based on bad science. And while those challenging the prevailing views that the Earth is warming, the seas are rising (and perhaps even that the sky is falling!) have had difficulty in getting their message out, they have made their voices heard, for those willing to listen.
Among the many leading scientists who have disagreed publicly with the more widely publicized position that made-made emissions have had a warming effect on the Earth’s climate are John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel; S. Fred Singer, a top environmental scientist and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service; Dr. Patrick Michaels, a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia; and Professor Benny Peiser of Liverpool’s John Moores University.
Dr. Singer has published some of the best-written research on the subject of global warming, including Hot Talk, Cold Science, and Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years. Other common-sense books on the subject include The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) and Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed by Christopher C. Horner; and Meltdown, by Patrick Michaels.
Global WarmingSpeaking to a reporter from the British Guardian newspaper, one of the report’s authors, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, England, explained his team’s need to retract their findings as follows: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science."
Very true. Research is, after all, a series of trials and errors finally leading to a provable conclusion. No one wants to castigate a scientist for making a mistake, particularly one honest enough to admit them.
The problem with the current global warming controversy is not science, but politics. Scientists left free to perform their work free of outside influences would soon enough arrive at the truth about the many unexplained forces affecting our environment.
But when scientists are pressured to serve a political agenda that attempts to exploit a false global warming scenario to empower governments and destroy personal and economic freedom, the truth will remain clouded by deliberate obfuscation.
For an example of the political pressures that can be made to bear on scientists who oppose the political establishment’s anthropogenic climate change agenda, read James Heiser’s report: “Scientist's Climate Change Dissent Vindicated (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/3007-scientists-climate-change-dissent-vindicated).”
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/environmental-stewardship-blog/6008-rising-sea-theory-retracted
Rising Sea Theory Retracted (http://www.jbs.org/environmental-stewardship-blog/6008-rising-sea-theory-retracted)
Warren Mass | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
25 February 2010
The authors of a scientific paper published in Nature Geoscience on July 29, 2009 predicting that sea levels would rise by as much as 2.7 feet by the end of the twenty-first century have retracted that assertions.
A report in Fox News noted that the paper had also “reinforced the conclusions of the U.N.'s controversial Fourth Assessment report, which warned of the dangerous of man-made climate change.”
In Nature Geoscience for February 21, authors Mark Siddall, Thomas F. Stocker, and Peter U. Clark published a retraction (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo780.html) of their earlier findings, noting:
One of the main conclusions of the Letter was that the model results supported the projections of sea-level rise during the twenty-first century that are reported in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unfortunately, we have since found that our projections were affected by two oversights in our model approach.
After noting the specific research errors that led to the earlier false conclusion — such as “an overestimation of the sea-level response to warming in the simulations for [the twentieth and twenty-first centuries]” — the authors issued their new conclusion:
Thus we no longer have confidence in our projections for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors retract the results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900.
In a commentary on this retraction, a Fox News writer noted:
Since the leak of emails from the U.K.'s top global warming scientists in early December, many other errors and sloppy mistakes have been uncovered in leading report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Flaws in weather stations have led some to question claims of rising temperatures, sloppy math led to holes in postulates that the Himalayas were rapidly melting and fears of a man-made food shortage in Africa seem unsubstantiated as well.
And a blog (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/9699/comment-page-2) published by the Charleston, West Virginia, Daily Mail in reaction to this latest blow to the credibility of global warming doomsayers:
Once again, forecasts of the ill-effects of global warming prove to be inaccurate and poor science.
So far, scientists seem disinterested in the benefits of global warming. Perhaps because government grants are for finding dangers [due] to global warming, which make it easier to sell cap-and-trade taxes to an unaware public.
The admitted errors contained in this “rising seas” report add to the loss of credibility already being cast on anthropogenic (man made) global warming theories following the “Climategate” episode, wherein hackers stole (and published online) hundreds of incriminating emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA), revealing correspondence between British and American researchers engaged in fraudulent reporting of data to favor their own climate change agenda. (Read: “IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2377-ipcc-researchers-admit-global-warming-fraud).”)
While it has taken much of the world’s media a long time to question the validity of global warming claims, there has been a substantial dissenting group of scientist protesting for years that such theories are based on bad science. And while those challenging the prevailing views that the Earth is warming, the seas are rising (and perhaps even that the sky is falling!) have had difficulty in getting their message out, they have made their voices heard, for those willing to listen.
Among the many leading scientists who have disagreed publicly with the more widely publicized position that made-made emissions have had a warming effect on the Earth’s climate are John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel; S. Fred Singer, a top environmental scientist and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service; Dr. Patrick Michaels, a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia; and Professor Benny Peiser of Liverpool’s John Moores University.
Dr. Singer has published some of the best-written research on the subject of global warming, including Hot Talk, Cold Science, and Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years. Other common-sense books on the subject include The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) and Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed by Christopher C. Horner; and Meltdown, by Patrick Michaels.
Global WarmingSpeaking to a reporter from the British Guardian newspaper, one of the report’s authors, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, England, explained his team’s need to retract their findings as follows: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science."
Very true. Research is, after all, a series of trials and errors finally leading to a provable conclusion. No one wants to castigate a scientist for making a mistake, particularly one honest enough to admit them.
The problem with the current global warming controversy is not science, but politics. Scientists left free to perform their work free of outside influences would soon enough arrive at the truth about the many unexplained forces affecting our environment.
But when scientists are pressured to serve a political agenda that attempts to exploit a false global warming scenario to empower governments and destroy personal and economic freedom, the truth will remain clouded by deliberate obfuscation.
For an example of the political pressures that can be made to bear on scientists who oppose the political establishment’s anthropogenic climate change agenda, read James Heiser’s report: “Scientist's Climate Change Dissent Vindicated (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/3007-scientists-climate-change-dissent-vindicated).”
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/environmental-stewardship-blog/6008-rising-sea-theory-retracted