Climate Scientists Withdraw Rising Sea Level Claims

Another British media piece on the rising tide of recent global warming scandals that the U.S. mainstream media REFUSES to acknowledge or cover (except for Fox News, which still won't cover it very much). As certain scientists have been exposed, they're now frantically turning to damage control measures to mitigate the harm to themselves personally. I predicted this would happen a long time ago.

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

***

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.

[From Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels | Environment | guardian.co.uk ]

Jo Nova Responds to New Scientist's "Denier-gate" Story

Alarmists at the New Scientist, sensing their reputations are in big trouble following all the recent mounting scandals (including Climategate), have decided to respond by creating "Denier-gate" out of thin air (as if they hadn't done that years ago). However, Jo Nova does a phenomenal job of parrying the ad hominem attacks against climate skepticism by turning the tables on the global warming cultists. She keeps bringing them back to the fundamental question: Is CO2 in its current quantity within our atmosphere warming the planet? Let's talk evidence, not "debate's over," not bluster, swearing, name-calling, etc.

The answer from alarmists is: "DENIER!! How can you question the CONSENSUS? The debate's over!" Get the picture? Where is the scientific debate?!? Without the name-calling?

And spot the appearance of the mythical “HUGE body of evidence”. Can anyone at New Scientist find that one mystery paper with empirical evidence showing that carbon causes major warming? Just ONE? That’s major warming, not minor. And that’s empirical, i.e., by observation, not by simulation.

This is the paragraph where New Scientist proves it has become Non Scientist:

“If we are going to judge the truth of claims on the behavior of those making them, it seems only fair to look at the behavior of a few of those questioning the scientific consensus. There are many similar examples we did not include. We leave readers to draw their own conclusions about who to trust.”

Alarm bells are ringing from Galileo’s grave. We’re trying to figure out if the world is warming due to man-made carbon right? New Scientist’s method is not to look at the evidence, but to look at the behavior of the sceptics. Did you see the black hole of ad hominem that this once esteemed journal just stepped into? Logic and reason were reduced in a flash to a naked singularity. Follow its reasoning through the black hole, and you don’t emerge on the other side.

Did you see the black hole of ad hominem that this once esteemed journal just stepped into?

Who to trust indeed? Let’s trust people who can reason, and scientists who don’t hide their data. It doesn’t matter how “sceptics behave”; it matters whether the data can be independently analyzed and interpreted; whether the conclusions are robust. But, since the data is g-o-n-e , no one can verify anything. So in a way, it does come down to “trust”: In the new quasi-religious form of science, you have to trust those who hold the global data. Isn’t postmodern “science” an awful lot like the old religions?

[From New Scientist becomes Non Scientist « JoNova]

Journal NATURE Calls for Climate Science Reform

Of course, the AP article insists that the first IPCC report is sound, but that's if you believe the data coming out of the CRU at East Anglia, a major contributor to that report. We've seen that the CRU has its own share of problems, such as destroyed data that can NO LONGER be verified or studied by peers and purposefully blocking skeptical climate scientists from prestigious publications. This means that the first report that the AP proclaims as "sound" is likely bullshit too. I know it is, because it's the report with the erroneous "hockey stick" graph that has since been proven wrong because it omits the Medieval Warm Period. Why omit that MWP? Because it doesn't fit the template of a steady-state baseline followed by precipitous warming.

WASHINGTON -- A steady drip of errors in the top report on global warming -- and the erosion they are causing in public confidence of the science behind it -- have some scientists calling for drastic changes in how future United Nations climate reports are done.

A push for reform being published in Thursday's issue of the prestigious scientific journal Nature comes on top of a growing clamor for the resignation of the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The work of the climate change panel, or IPCC, is often portrayed as one massive tome. But it really is four separate reports on different aspects of global warming, written months apart by distinct groups of scientists.

[From FOXNews.com - Top Science Journal Calls for Climate Science Reform]

Atmospheric CO2 Remains at Pre-Civil War Levels

1850. The beginning of the Industrial Revolution and just before the Civil War kicked off. Today's CO2 levels haven't changed since then IN THE ATMOSPHERE! Where does it go? The oceans absorb it, of course.

Alarmist scientists aren't going to like that this little tidbit got out there in a scientific journal.

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

[From No rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide fraction in past 160 years, new research finds]

Climatologists' Emails: Spurn Denying Scientists' Papers

More on that crazy email leak. Seems that there's no way these idiots can claim their emails were taken 'out of context' when it comes to examples like this. Here, we see open violations of science and extreme examples of what can be found in Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. These climate scientists prove by their very actions that they're full of crap. Their 'science' is baloney, as they try to ostracize and silence their critics.

In other words--just like Al Gore (their patron saint)--they will AVOID DEBATE at all costs!

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

[From In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes]