View Single Post
Old 11-18-2018, 12:45 AM   #3792 (permalink)
redneck
Master EcoModder
 
redneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SC Lowcountry
Posts: 1,610

Geo XL1 - '94 Geo Metro
Team Metro
Boat tails and more mods
90 day: 72.22 mpg (US)

Big, Bad & Flat - '01 Dodge Ram 3500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 21.13 mpg (US)
Thanks: 208
Thanked 1,252 Times in 640 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead View Post
I read the piece.They say that the central argument remains the same,just not with as much statistical precision.
Not as bad as ENRON and Arthur Andersen though.They just completely made stuff up.
So you read the article but not the paper that showed that there was no statistical increase in the current rate ?

They claimed 60 percent.

60 percent.

There was zero percent.

Zero...


https://www.nicholaslewis.org/wp-con...906ff-36424229

(quote)

Conclusions

The findings of the Resplandy et al paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.
Moreover, even if the paper's results had been correct, they would not have justified its findings regarding an increase to 2.0°C in the lower bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity range and a 25% reduction in the carbon budget for 2°C global warming.

Because of the wide dissemination of the paper's results, it is extremely important that these errors are acknowledged by the authors without delay and then corrected

Of course, it is also very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the paper’s findings now correct the record too.

But perhaps that is too much to hope for.

Nicholas Lewis

6 November 2018

(End quote)



That peer reviewed premier scientific journal was ”Nature”.

Which is one of the trusted sources you touted previously.

It will be interesting if they post a retraction or correction in a upcoming issue.


P.S
I’m not holding my breath.




Also.

I’m trying to figure out why you posted in your last two replies to me references to the 2008 meltdown and Enron.

Is it because we were lied to, had our money siphoned away then dragged our economy thru financial hell for the benefit of a few who ran a Ponzi scheme ...???

Sorta like AGW, carbon credits and the associated lower living standards that come along with it...???

If so...

I’m right with you...






>
 
The Following User Says Thank You to redneck For This Useful Post:
aerohead (11-20-2018)