An important part of the scientific method is for others to be able to reproduce results. With so many references, it is surprising that errors were not reported until 2003.
A recent estimate is that 11% of studies had errors. However, these were somewhat more obscure than major exhibits in IPCC’s global warming reports, the scientific basis for the UNFCC Kyoto Protocol.
The Corrigendum is in Nature (July 1 2004).
There is a large Supplementary Information collection.
.
So the environmentalists, all upset with “global warming”, really had nothing much to back up their shouts of “SUV’s suck”, “save the forests”, “the ice caps are melting!”, “there’s a hole in the ozone”, or “stop polluting our atmosphere”. Why doesn’t that surprise me?
Those people are probably the same ones who are terrified that the sun will nova or the Earth suffer another ice age in their lifetime.
The article and links were a good but preponderous read.
I’m sure the hard-core treehugg…er, i mean, environmentalist will continue the fight. After all, the mis-information has become the politically correct thing.
One word: idiots.
jon
Yes, the MBH authors say the results were not affected.
The big problem is that despite so much “climate research” these errors were not corrected earlier. And how did the authors create several related studies?
If indeed the new information is correct, it is hardly surprising if the results were not affected. They could have done the study as originally described and changed the results. Instead they kept the same results and showed how to create that result.
If there are errors in the new information, will corrections require another six years? Has the IPCC published any corrections yet?
“Results were not affected.“
.
You don’t get it, obviously, and refusing to identify yourself and hiding behind the name “Anonymous Hero” puts you in the same league as my targets: environmentalist (aka idiots).
It’s another case of scientists “adjusting” the parameters of the experiment to obtain the result that they had theorized. If the “published data” was wrong, the “methods” were wrong, then the results HAVE TO BE wrong.
Like I said, the mis-information has become the politically correct thing. Will those that follow the environmentalist herd please say, “moooo”…?
jon
.
Several points:
…..The comment was addressed to “Anonymous Hero” (unless you are revealing yourself).
…..A reading of the article showed that there WAS mis-information.
…..I am sorry you’ve had to breath smoke in the summers. I have one suggestion: move!
…..The hole in the ozone has been shown to be fairly inconsequential worldwide.
…..Your suggestion that I become aware of the world beyond Texas is petty. It’s not what you’re aware of, it’s what you do with it.
Now let’s be a little grown up about this. My comment(s) concerned the article. Yours attacked me. I will not deny that I try to be a little controversial, but isn’t the purpose of the comment to say something? Can we please stay focused here?
The original article talked about inaccuracies in the “published data” and the “methods”. You can’t have errors in the study(s) without errors in the result(s). That’s all I was saying.
I do not particularly like using this forum to discuss our differences (which probably are less than you think). Please, email me at the above address if you’d like to talk further.
jon
In reference to the report of a meteor fall, Thomas Jefferson reputedly said, “It is easier to believe that Yankee professors would lie than that stones would fall from heaven.” Even smart people can have a hard time accepting new ideas, but at least they’re eloquent when they’re defending their positions. Name-calling and accusing thousands of scientists of mis-information may seem easier than using data and reasoned arguments to prove your points, but only reveals you to be the idiot. It doesn’t help when you use made-up words like “preponderous.”
For the last 4 summers I have had to breathe the choking smoke of forest fires burning all around me, due to an extremely persistent drought. This spring I hiked through miles of blackened waste. Those forests should have been saved, and even the Republican-owned State and Federal Governments thought so, or they wouldn’t have spent millions of dollars fighting the fires. And there really is an ozone hole. Just because you’re not currently battling skin cancer in a hospital in Punta Arenas, Chile, doesn’t mean the ozone hole isn’t a problem for millions worldwide. There is a world beyond the borders of Texas. Please become familiar with it.
you would know I was replying to your original “fascinating” post, not that I have any beef with what A.H. said. If you want to be grown up about it, stop calling large groups of people idiots.
I’m not sure what the point is of your comments. Are you talking about people having a hard time accepting new ideas such as the existence of global warming, or that their vague idea of humans causing it are based upon weak science?
“Name-calling and accusing thousands of scientists of mis-information may seem easier than using data and reasoned arguments to prove your points…”
Well, we’re talking about scientists who for years proved their points with bad data and methods. And now they say that they had proved their points, but with different data and methods.
What was your point about the “thousands of scientists” who didn’t examine this report? Or are you saying they did…and what have they been doing for six years?
” forest fires … due to an extremely persistent drought. Those forests should have been saved”
So if the forest fires were due to a drought, why weren’t you watering them? Or are you saying there is a connection between the drought and the ozone hole? You don’t mention where you are, but it must be around the Arctic Circle as there aren’t many forests around Antarctica. And I doubt you’re referring to the persistent drought in southern Argentina, as that started when the Andes rose.
… to date, with lots more in the pipeline, necessarily must be utterly inconsequential unless and until consequences are shown beyond reasonable doubt. No, it’s disastrous, disastrous.
I can’t make that dialogue, or pair of monologues, stop, and have no wish to try.
Here are consequences of fossil fuel use of a kind that everyone tacitly acknowledges will continue to occur.
Maybe improved standards will reduce their frequency per terawatt-hour by two-thirds. Let’s take that as given, and therefore agree that those who live substantially from the public purse, with its large fossil fuel tax component, will continue, in so doing, to gain a certain price for each innocent committed to the flames — although by our hypothesis, that price will be three times greater in the future than it has been in the past.
Consider the below-linked, if you want a place to stand where that bullet’s not going.
— Graham Cowan
How individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
(MS Word format.) Link if you want it to happen
P.S. Would it be possible for the “Serenity” panel to stop saying, “The Official Fan We bite”,
space added for emphasis?
Ask legitimate questions and I’ll answer.
For the last 4 summers I have had to breathe the choking smoke of forest fires burning all around me, due to an extremely persistent drought. This spring I hiked through miles of blackened waste. Those forests should have been saved, and even the Republican-owned State and Federal Governments thought so, or they wouldn’t have spent millions of dollars fighting the fires.
And there really is an ozone hole. Just because you’re not currently battling skin cancer in a hospital in Punta Arenas, Chile, doesn’t mean the ozone hole isn’t a problem for millions worldwide.
There is a world beyond the borders of Texas. Please become familiar with it.
Breaking the “Hockey Stick”
National Center for Policy Analysis
Brief Analysis
No. 478
Monday, July 12, 2004
by David R. Legates
“…five independent research groups have uncovered problems with this
reconstruction, calling into question all three components of the
“hockey stick.”…”
There are several oddities about carbon dioxide increase and the greenhouse effect, one of which is that it is already saturated.
Carbon dioxide is already absorbing about as much heat as it can, so adding more doesn’t add much more warming. Similar to how putting a mirror behind a mirror does not cause more reflection.
I thought what I was saying was obvious, but then so did jxliv7. Numbers refer to your bullets in order….
1. I was referring to jxliv7.
2. Jxliv7 said “I’m sure the hard-core treehugg…er, i mean, environmentalist will continue the fight. After all, the mis-information has become the politically correct thing.” Since the article was about scientists who study climate, jxliv7 seems to conflate climate scientists with environmentalists. Proof that a few have provided bad information is not proof that they all have.
3. Jxliv7 wrote “So the environmentalists, all upset with “global warming”, really had nothing much to back up their shouts of “SUV’s suck”, “save the forests”, “the ice caps are melting!”, “there’s a hole in the ozone”, or “stop polluting our atmosphere”.” It’s poorly written, but I took it to mean that jxliv7 didn’t think there was any evidence of the validity of these events/statements. I was providing evidence that even the administration recognizes that forests are in danger, even though it doesn’t recognize global warming. Forests in my area aren’t healthy, ironically because of decades of fire suppression. Fires should clean them out occasionally. But add a multi-year drought to the dog-hair trees, and fires will sterilize soil and destroy even the largest trees (which have seen and survived a few fires in the centuries they’ve been alive), rather than simply clearing out the underbrush.
4. Australians, to name a few. Not all of them are getting cancer, but that’s because of a wide-scale behavior modification campaign. Slip! Slop! Slap!
5. There’s some evidence that suggests jxliv7 has a broader vision than that.
It’s not only a matter of how much infrared is absorbed (at particular wavelengths) but where in the atmosphere the absorption occurs. The more CO2, the closer to the surface (the emitter) the absorption occurs. This is one of the reasons ground-based thermometers have measured more of an increase in average temperatures than satellite-based measurements. Also, there are plenty of unsaturated CO2 lines at wavelengths smaller than 14 microns.
The mirror argument is completely bogus. All of the reflection occurs at a 2D surface. CO2 absorption occurs within a 3D volume (see previous argument).