[redneck]

.

Scientists acknowledge key errors in study of how fast the oceans are warming

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energ...=.1d5810467715


Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...113-story.html


SCIENTISTS ACKNOWLEDGE KEY ERRORS IN STUDY OF HOW FAST THE OCEANS ARE WARMING

https://www.thegwpf.com/scientists-a...s-are-warming/


Delingpole: ‘We Really Muffed’ It – Scientist Admits Error in Hyped Global Warming Study

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...warming-study/

Scientists behind a major study that claimed the Earth’s oceans are warming faster than previously thought now say their work contained inadvertent errors that made their conclusions seem more certain than they actually are.

“Unfortunately, we made mistakes here,” said Ralph Keeling, a climate scientist at Scripps, who was a co-author of the study.

In a paper published Oct. 31 in the journal Nature, researchers found that ocean temperatures had warmed 60 percent more than outlined by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

However, the conclusion came under scrutiny after mathematician Nic Lewis, a critic of the scientific consensus around human-induced warming, posted a critique of the paper on the blog of Judith Curry, another well-known critic.

“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. “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”

If you calculate the trend correctly, the warming rate is not worse than we thought – it’s very much in line with previous estimates,” says Lewis.

In fact, says Lewis, some of the other claims made in the paper and reported by the media, are wrong too.

“Their claims about the effect of faster ocean warming on estimates of climate sensitivity (and hence future global warming) and carbon budgets are just incorrect anyway, but that’s a moot point now we know that about their calculation error”.

There are broader lessons here which — as so often before — are likely to be completely lost on the climate alarmist establishment.

One lesson is that climate skeptics are not scientific ignoramuses. They boast a huge range of independent experts like Nic Lewis who on many occasions have proved themselves more intellectually agile and better informed on climate science than the alarmist “consensus” gatekeepers in academe and at institutions like NASA and NOAA.



Another lesson is — as has been clear since Climategate — the peer-review system for scientific papers, especially if they have anything to do with climate change, is bust. Too often it is just a pal-review system in which chums on the climate change gravy train pass their colleagues’ work for publication nem con. Such is the appetite among alarmists for “evidence” that supports their doomsday thesis that the scarier it is, the more likely it is to get published.

Another lesson is that the mainstream media simply cannot be trusted to apply any kind of professional scrutiny to alarmist papers. No environmental correspondent, it’s true, would have had the advanced math skills that Nic Lewis used to find the paper false.

But the fact remains that there is not one science or environment correspondent attached to any mainstream media publication prepared to do their due diligence on global warming scare stories. They are all so wedded to the alarmist consensus that they scarcely even bother to alter the press release.

Finally, do not expect this humiliating retraction to be given anywhere near the prominence afforded the original story. This is how the climate scare machine works: the hysteria is only ever ratcheted upwards, never dialed down.

>