People aren’t stupid. We know when we’re being had, and we appreciate and respect intellectual honesty. We know it when we see it. Ultimately their unscientific dishonesty and Alinskyite tactics will have cost the global warmists YEARS of valuable time. Now they’ll have to make up for all that lost time by doing the science right.
SCIENTIST: WE MUST CHECK 150 YEARS OF CLIMATE DATE
More than 150 years of global temperature records are to be re-examined by scientists in an attempt to regain public trust in climate science after revelations about errors and suppression of data. The Met Office has submitted proposals for the reassessment by an independent panel in a tacit admission that its previous reports have been marred by their reliance on analysis by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
The new analysis would test the conclusion reached by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal”. The World Meteorological Organisation said the Met Office proposal had been approved in principle this week by delegates at a meeting in Antalya, Turkey.
The IPCC has come under attack in recent weeks after it emerged that its latest report contained a number of errors, all of which overstated the severity of the threat posed by climate change. The most glaring error was a claim that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Most glaciologists believe it would take another 300 years for the glaciers to melt at the present rate.
The Met Office said that the reassessment would take up to three years. It hopes the findings will be ready for the IPCC’s next report, due to be published in 2013 and 2014. The Met Office intends to hold a meeting at which “key players” from climate science and weather centres around the world would decide how to conduct the reassessment.
It adds: “Recognising that no single institution can undertake such a fundamental data collection, reanalysis and verification process single-handedly, we would envisage this as a broad community effort — a ‘grand challenge’ so to speak — involving UK and international partners.” The document also suggests that “multiple independent groups” could consider the same raw data.
It adds that scientists participating in the process will be encouraged to be open about the uncertainties in their conclusions. “Participants will be required to create a full audit trail and publish their methodology in the peer-reviewed literature. Strong preference will be given to systems … that reflect the uncertainties in the observations and methods.”
Read the rest, here.
CLIMATE SCIENTISTS WITHDRAW JOURNAL CLAIMS OF RISING SEA LEVELS
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.
At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study “strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results“. The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.
In a statement the authors of the paper said: “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.” In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for “bringing these issues to our attention”.
Read the rest, here.