The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Oh joy, more good climate news (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next]
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16247 Posts

Profile of tommy
Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20......-siddall
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Another victory for science. Scientists review, revise and sometimes withdraw their opinions in the face of evidence.

Will the deniers even once be this honest?

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20565 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Ummm John, I think the "deniers" are more on your side now LOL.

I am happy to see science is winning the battle against politics. I really am. I hope science wins and gets back to being science and not social driven opinion.

So all the oh my house will be under waer claims, pretty much not as were predicted?

I am glad that they are willing to put forth what is fact, and weed out what is not. It will make the debate a lot easier in the future. As I said I hope this keeps up. (I mean the weeding process, much of a weeding process is knowing what to keep as well)
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Payne
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle
4572 Posts

Profile of Payne
Quote:
On 2010-02-22 11:26, Dannydoyle wrote:

So all the oh my house will be under waer claims, pretty much not as were predicted?



No, that is not what the article says. It simply stated that one study was withdrawn due to errosr discovered in the study.

You seemed to have missed this part.

"Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100."

Glaciers and ice sheets are still melting at increasing rates. The sea level is still rising. The only question is how quickly and how high the seas will rise because of it. your house is still going to be underwater by the end of the century Smile
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-02-22 11:00, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Another victory for science.
John


Wow, no Russian judges for science! You can miscalculate, not allow fully for the temperature changes, not have the peer review process catch the errors prior to publication, and STILL get a victory.

I'd call it primarily a win not for science, nor for the deniers, but for those of us who question the degree of certainty being touted.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20565 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16247 Posts

Profile of tommy
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
It's business as usual for science. Errors get corrected. Results get reviewed. It's been that way for several centuries.

Every correction is a step forward. Humility is success.

"Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate."

According to Siddall:

"Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."

I like honesty. Do you?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-02-22 12:27, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
It's business as usual for science. Errors get corrected. Results get reviewed. It's been that way for several centuries.

Every correction is a step forward. Humility is success.

"Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate."

According to Siddall:

"Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."

I like honesty. Do you?


Absolutely! But while science is correcting itself, legislators and lobbyists are working up legislative fixes with potentially disastrous consequences, supported by (lay) people who view science not as a "best available information" work in progress, but rather religious certainties handed down from on high.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Isn't the catch phrase now "The science is settled"? Well, perhaps not entirely.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16247 Posts

Profile of tommy
No apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for glacier fallacy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20......glaciers
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
How many people read "Nature Geoscience," anyway? How many of Global Warming's most vocal supporters think that per the most recent science, the rising sea levels might be at issue? Al Gore's already won a Nobel Prize and an Oscar (ok, Guggenheim got the actual Oscar) for telling us how much they were going to rise in 2006. Four years later, the conclusion is that they'll rise from 18-59 centimeters, or more, or less, or they won't.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16247 Posts

Profile of tommy
Well Lobo, who knows but this was is in The Wall Street Journal yesterday which sort of answers your question perhaps:

Climate Change and Open Science
In the Internet age, transparency is the foundation of trust.

'Unequivocal." That's quite a claim in this skeptical era, so it's been enlightening to watch the unraveling of the absolute certainty of global warming caused by man. Now even authors of the 2007 United Nations report that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal" have backed off its key assumptions and dire warnings.
Science is having its Walter Cronkite moment. Back when news was delivered by just three television networks, Walter Cronkite could end his evening broadcast by declaring, "And that's the way it is." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report likewise purported to proclaim the final word, in 3,000 pages that now turn out to be less scientific truth than political cover for sweeping economic regulations.
Equivocation has replaced "unequivocal" even among some of the scientists whose "Climategate" emails discussed how to suppress dissenting views via peer review and avoid complying with freedom-of-information requests for data.

Phil Jones, the University of East Anglia scientist at the center of the emails, last week acknowledged to the BBC that there hasn't been statistically significant warming since 1995. He said there was more warming in the medieval period, before today's allegedly man-made effects. He also said "the vast majority of climate scientists" do not believe the debate over climate change is settled. Mr. Jones continues to believe in global warming but acknowledges there's no consensus.

Some journalistic digging into the 2007 U.N. climate change report revealed that its most quoted predictions were based on dubious sources. The IPCC now admits that its prediction that the Himalayan glaciers might disappear by 2035 was a mistake, based on an inaccurate citation to the World Wildlife Foundation. This advocacy group was also the basis for a claim the IPCC has backed away from—that up to 40% of the Amazon is endangered.
The IPCC report mistakenly doubled the percentage of the Netherlands currently below sea level. John Christy, a former lead author of the IPCC report, now says the "temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change." As the case collapsed, the top U.N. climate-change bureaucrat, Yvo de Boer, announced his resignation last week.

The climate topic is important in itself, but it is also a leading indicator of how our expectation of full access to information makes us deeply skeptical when we're instead given faulty or partial information. In just three years since the report was issued, we have gone from purported unanimity among scientists to a breakdown in any consensus. Opinion polls reflect this U-turn, with growing public skepticism.

Skeptics don't doubt science—they doubt unscientific claims cloaked in the authority of science. The scientific method is a foundation of our information age, with its approach of a clearly stated hypothesis tested through a transparent process with open data, subject to review.

The IPCC report was instead crafted by scientists hand-picked by governments when leading politicians were committed to global warming. Unsurprisingly, the report claimed enough certainty to justify massive new spending and regulations.

Some in the scientific community are now trying to restore integrity to climate science. "The truth, and this is frustrating for policymakers, is that scientists' ignorance of the climate system is enormous," Mr. Christy wrote in the current issue of Nature. "There is still much messy, contentious, snail-paced and now, hopefully, transparent, work to do."
Mr. Christy also makes the good point that groupthink—technically known as "informational cascades"—is a particular risk for scientists. He proposes a Wikipedia-like approach in which scientists could openly contribute and debate theories and data in real time.
The unraveling of the case for global warming has left laymen uncertain about what to believe and whom to trust. Experts usually know more than amateurs, but increasingly they get the benefit of the doubt only if they operate openly, without political or other biases.
We need scientists who apply scientific objectivity, or the closest approximation of it, and then present their information with enough transparency that people can weigh the evidence. Instead of a group of scientists anointed by the U.N. telling us what to think, the spirit of the age is that scientists need to provide open access to information on which others can make policy decisions.

The lesson of the chill of the global-warming consensus is this: Those who want to persuade others of the truth as they see it need to make their case as transparently as possible. Technology enables access to information and leads us to expect open debates, conducted honestly and in full view. This is inconvenient for those who want to claim unequivocal truth without having the evidence. But that's the way it is.
Source: Wall Street Journal By L. GORDON CROVITZ FEBRUARY 21, 2010
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20565 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2010-02-22 12:27, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
It's business as usual for science. Errors get corrected. Results get reviewed. It's been that way for several centuries.

Every correction is a step forward. Humility is success.

"Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate."

According to Siddall:

"Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."

I like honesty. Do you?


John you sort of make my point for me and I thank you. Yes science can simply remove a paper and take a mulligan on it and bamo it is fine. No harm no foul. BUT when legislation is put into place, and even entire political opinions about the foundations of our very government are being changed based on a flawed premise, it can not be fixed by simply removing a paper.

This is why I say caution is better than moving fast.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-02-22 22:27, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-02-22 12:27, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
It's business as usual for science. Errors get corrected. Results get reviewed. It's been that way for several centuries.

Every correction is a step forward. Humility is success.

"Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate."

According to Siddall:

"Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."

I like honesty. Do you?


John you sort of make my point for me and I thank you. Yes science can simply remove a paper and take a mulligan on it and bamo it is fine. No harm no foul. BUT when legislation is put into place, and even entire political opinions about the foundations of our very government are being changed based on a flawed premise, it can not be fixed by simply removing a paper.

This is why I say caution is better than moving fast.


The question is this: does the addition or subtraction of one paper make a bit of difference to the overall picture? Sometimes, yes. In this case, no.

But don't worry. The forces of ignorance have much stronger lobby than do the forces of knowledge. There is no hope of political action so long as the rules of debate have scientists being honest and the deniers saying whatever fool nonsense they like, and being quoted all over the internet.

I won't name names, but we have a few dogged posters here at the Café that will post links to any old crap that agrees with their position. When it is pointed out that the link is crap, or that it doesn't say what the OP claims it did....well, we all know what the reaction is.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16247 Posts

Profile of tommy
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
And the relevance of this is?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16247 Posts

Profile of tommy
Would you agree John that, this “The Rules of the Game” isn't just the use of traditional PR communications methods. It's the use of totalitarian indoctrination techniques designed to manipulate public opinion, and that is what the authorities have been using?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Who wrote it for whom? Who has ever used it?

But no, it I don't agree that "It's the use of totalitarian indoctrination techniques designed to manipulate public opinion, and that is what the authorities have been using?"

Whatever the document is, and whoever has been using it, there is nothing in the document that indicates that lies or fraud be put forward. It looks like rather straightforward advertising advice of the sort that any political party or corporate entity might use.

This is not to say that I approve or disapprove of it. But it's a rhetorical strategy and it seems rather harmless.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Carrie Sue
View Profile
Veteran user
Auburn, MI
332 Posts

Profile of Carrie Sue
In what I considered a wonderful tweak on the "climate change" orthodoxy, Ann Coulter remarked at CPAC over the weekend that due to the effects of global warming, Miami was just awarded the Winter Olympics for 2014.

Love her sense of humor.

And God's.

Carrie
www.proximityillusions.com

ASLAN IS ON THE MOVE!
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Oh joy, more good climate news (0 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2~3~4 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.67 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL