The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > MSM scaremonger tactics used on GW but calculations were wrong.

MSM scaremonger tactics used on GW but calculations were wrong.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Some months ago the MSM was scaremongering about the buildup of heat in the oceans, suggesting a faster rate of global warming.

The MSM got there info from a report on 31-10-2018
link to report

http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8

Some example of the MSM scaremonger headlines.
http://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/a-major-problem-with-the-resplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/#_edn1

Some have updated the articles to acknowledge the errors.

** That is useless because who goes back months after the story to see if it is still true, no headline retraction, no wonder so many are sucked in by the GW scam. **

The MSM got there story from here

http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8

NO MSM outlet or even the peer reviewers checked the figures they just blatantly published there scaremonger articles.

** Where was the mistake you would not believe this it was on page one, on the very first page nice big mathematical error. **

The error was picked up by Nick Lewis on the 6th-November-2018 but not changed till 19-November-2018 all the data was therefore wrong.

Link to error.
http://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/a-major-problem-with-the-resplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/#_ednref1

** No wonder the Global Warming scammers get away with it.
** NO ONE CHECKED THE FIGURE PEER REVIEWERS or MSM - PAGE ONE ERROR **

Origin for this article corbetreport.com

Video http://www.bitchute.com/video/PXLe87joQgE/
start 13 minutes 45 seconds
Posted by Philip S, Sunday, 27 January 2019 7:07:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All GW scaremongering is wrong. But, where there's money to be had from taxpayers and consumers, there will always be lies. If the grants and subsidies were removed, we wouldn't be hearing the lies we hear now about a climate that has been changing since the year dot.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 28 January 2019 12:45:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
gw is a religion of virtue signalling usually by people who lack any decency.
Posted by runner, Monday, 28 January 2019 12:49:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am now waiting for Foxy & Belly and a few others to now admit there might be a small chance they are being conned.

But I suspect they will still be 100% it is true even though it has again been proven they were wrong and NO ONE who supposedly peer reviewed it or published it found a mistake on page one.
Posted by Philip S, Monday, 28 January 2019 12:53:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Incidentally, over the past decade, we have spent $70 billion on wind and solar. That $70 billion is enough for 12 new coal generators that would give us electricity with a wholesale cost of one third that of the current level. Instead we have been closing down the more economical coal fired power stations because renewables, two thirds of the costs of which are covered by subsidies, are making them uneconomical.

Subsidies for unreliables is running at $5 billion a year.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 28 January 2019 12:54:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
$70 Billion would have been more than enough to buy back the electricity grid from private crooks, put it back in public hands.
Posted by Philip S, Monday, 28 January 2019 1:06:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's a list of some of the dud scaremongering of leading climate scaremongering, Tim Flannery:

There is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis (2004).

Even the rain that falls isn't going to fill our dams and our river systems (2007).

Brisbane and Adelaide could run out of water by year's end (2007).

The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009 (2008).

We are likely to see more cyclones in future (2015). The next year NOT A SINGLE CYCLONE WAS RECORDED, continuing the DOWNTURN of such events.

Proclaimed the future of energy was geothermal “hot rocks”. A business he was heavily involved in. $90 million of taxpayer dollars were blown on that failed experiment (2007).

This dud will be giving climate advice to the independent Olympic skier challenging Tony Abbott in Warringah at the next election. She is soooooo concerned about climate change, and says she is soooooo thankful to have Flannery to advise her.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 28 January 2019 1:53:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
unfortunately ttbn the hatred by the regressives for Tony Abbott is so great that many are happy to be dumbed down to swallow the gw rubbish. Similar thing with Trump. When Obama and Clinton spoke of building a wall or cracking down on illegal immigration their was not a whimper. Now the pussy hats go ballistic. Their hatred blinds them to any reason.
Posted by runner, Monday, 28 January 2019 3:05:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn The predictions of Tim Flannery should not be used to show GW is wrong.
He has no credentials in the climate field, if he is giving these predictions on advise from a climate related scientist name them if not using him is like using Belly and "it is going to be hot today no science needed GW is true", .

The one I have just put up positively shows Climate scientists got it wrong it also implicates the peer reviewers who signed of on the report as being 100% correct also the MSM who came out with the scaremonger headlines without checking the calculations
Posted by Philip S, Monday, 28 January 2019 5:46:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The total failed prophecies of Tim Flannery shows that regressives have absolutely no shame. The egg on his face must stink to high heavens by now. Instead his allies at the abc and other degenerates continue to give their failed high priest air time. The education system continues to make aussie dumb and dumber.
Posted by runner, Monday, 28 January 2019 6:12:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Believing carbon dioxide is the planet’s climate control knob is pretty close to believing in magic.”

– Dr. Richard Lindzen

Runner,

The hatred for Tony Abbott is as irrational and manic as that for Donald Trump. People are unhinged
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 28 January 2019 6:21:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn Slight suggestion.

When you put something like above go that little bit more quick google etc =

Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry.

He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983 until his retirement in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
He was a lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change.
He has criticized the scientific consensus about climate change and what he has called "climate alarmism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

It give more credibility to the person.
Posted by Philip S, Monday, 28 January 2019 6:51:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Philip S,
Your worry too much.
In the future you wont have to worry about anything.
Even your meals will be decided for you;
- All in the name of TOTAL SPECTRAL DOMINANCE BY OUR GLOBAL OVERLORDS
Sorry I meant:
- UN Global and Intergovernmental agendas
Umm sorry, I meant
- In the name of better eating habits;
... and Climate Change, of course.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/the-three-biggest-threats-to-humanity-revealed-in-lancet-report-20190128-p50u1x.html
Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 28 January 2019 10:18:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Armchair Critic - Notice not one of the GW advocates have said one word here.
Posted by Philip S, Monday, 28 January 2019 10:37:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Armchair Critic - Notice not one of the GW advocates have said one word here.

Quite happy to sit back and watch you deniers circle jerk.
Nothing to be gained from trying to communicate with morons who refuse to open their eyes or take their fingers out of their ears.
Posted by mikk, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 4:32:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Nothing to be gained from trying to communicate with morons who refuse to open their eyes or take their fingers out of their ears".

So what are you doing here? Just venting your spleen. You have never made a useful contribution to any discussion; you are just a ranter with a chip on your shoulder.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 8:02:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yet another survey a couple of days ago revealed that most people don't give a stuff about global warming, climate change, or whatever name they up dream next. Everytime another coming 'disaster' is mentioned, most people yawn. The liars and conmen have been crying 'wolf' for too long for them to be taken seriously.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 8:07:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mikk,

Good point - and now proven.
Posted by rache, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 9:20:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Philip S,

At it again I see.

Firstly mate the MSM were not scaremongering at all. None of the headlines you have linked to comes within a bull's roar of earning that label. All they did was to report on what presented itself as a fairly major study and shift in our understanding of global warming. In other words they did their job.

Further expecting them to peer review an article published in a reputable journal is just inane.

So let's flesh out your time line.

The paper was indeed published in Nature on the 31st October 2018. The newspaper reports came out a day later on the 1st November 2018.

Nic Lewis raised concerns about the calculations used 5 days later on the 6th as per your link calling the mistake “inadvertent”.

Within a week on Friday the 19th the team member responsible for those calculations acknowledged the issue and thanked Mr Lewis for alerting them.

“I, with the other co-authors of Resplandy et al (2018), want to address two problems that came to our attention since publication of our paper in Nature last week. These problems do not invalidate the methodology or the new insights into ocean biogeochemistry on which it is based, but they do influence the mean rate of warming we infer, and more importantly, the uncertainties of that calculation.

Cont..
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 10:47:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont..
We would like to thank Nicholas Lewis for first bringing an apparent anomaly in the trend calculation to our attention. We quickly realized that our calculations incorrectly treated systematic errors in the O2 measurements as if they were random errors in the error propagation. This led to under-reporting of the overall uncertainty and also caused the ocean heat uptake to be shifted high through the application of a weighted least squares fit. In addition, we realized that the uncertainties in the assumption of a constant land O2:C exchange ratio of 1.1 in the calculation of the “atmospheric potential oxygen” (APO) trend had not been propagated through to the final trend.
As the researcher in charge of the O2 measurements, I accept responsibility for these oversights, because it was my role to ensure that details of the measurements were correctly understood and taken up by coauthors.
We have now reworked our calculations and have submitted a correction to the journal.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/11/resplandy-et-al-correction-and-response/

On the Monday of the next week the Nature journal posted this;
“19 November 2018
Editor’s Note: We would like to alert readers that the authors have informed us of errors in the paper. An implication of the errors is that the uncertainties in ocean heat content are substantially underestimated. We are working with the authors to establish the quantitative impact of the errors on the published results, at which point in time we will provide a further update.”
http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8
That my friend is how science works. There is no great conspiracy rather a speedy correction of an inadvertent mistake.

You wrote; “No wonder the Global Warming scammers get away with it.”

What a load of bollocks. It isn't a scam and global warming papers are among the most scrutinised of all. Errors that might not have been picked up in other areas of research are revealed precisely because there are so many Nic's out there pouring over the data.

Given the peer review process should have picked up the error but this example should give people more not less confidence in global warming research
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 10:48:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SteeleRedux
You conveniently missed out saying the authors also said this.

"Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that's going on in the ocean," Ralph Keeling said. "We really muffed the error margins."

Quote "That my friend is how science works. There is no great conspiracy rather a speedy correction of an inadvertent mistake."

ON PAGE ONE, I would say the peer reviewers did nothing or just rubber stamped it.
Which also means anything they have done in the past has to be questioned. **

Quote "at which point in time we will provide a further update.” The data appears not to have been updated yet.
___________________________________________________________

mikk Quote "Quite happy to sit back and watch you deniers circle jerk.
Nothing to be gained from trying to communicate with morons who refuse to open their eyes or take their fingers out of their ears."

No intelligent comment so you use the lowest form of wit, sarcasm, juvenile.

rache Quote "mikk,
Good point - and now proven."

A juvenile in agreement with a juvenile, needs no comment.
Posted by Philip S, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 1:49:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SteeleRedux Quote "Firstly mate the MSM were not scaremongering at all. None of the headlines you have linked to comes within a bull's roar of earning that label." ** In your opinion. **

NYT
Scientists Find a New Way to Take the Oceans’ Temperature Oct. 31, 2018

Wasington post
Startling new research finds large buildup of heat in the oceans, suggesting a faster rate of global warming October 31, 2018
The world’s oceans have been soaking up far more excess heat in recent decades than scientists realized, suggesting that Earth could be set to warm even faster than predicted in the years ahead

scientificamerican.com
The Oceans Are Heating Up Faster Than Expected
The planet may be more sensitive to warming that previously thought, making climate goals more difficult to meet November 1, 2018

CNN
World's oceans have absorbed 60% more heat than previously thought, study finds November 1, 2018

LA Times
Oceans warming faster than anticipated, giving even less time to stave off worst impacts of climate change, study finds Oct 31, 2018

USA Today
Earth's oceans are absorbing more heat than had been thought, study says Nov. 1, 2018

independent.co.uk
Climate change could accelerate faster than predicted, new research into world's oceans warns
Planet much more sensitive to fossil-fuel emissions than past studies have shown, scientists say 1 November 2018

BBC
Climate change: Concerns over report on ocean heating 20 November 2018

Quote "In other words they did their job." Rubbish, then why did they not come out with big headline to say the report was WRONG.

Also some updated the article but did not print retractions.

How many people after reading an article go back weeks later to see if they have updated it?

Quote "Further expecting them to peer review an article published in a reputable journal is just inane."

** In your opinion, I would call it doing there job. **

** At least you tried not like the juveniles. **
Posted by Philip S, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 1:52:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mikk You have just shown yourself to be the most ignorant person posting on any subject relating to Climate Change.

Of all the threads that relate to climate changer over the past year you have only made three comments, NOT one of them had anything useful to add to the discussion.

mikk Quotes

"Quite happy to sit back and watch you deniers circle jerk.
Nothing to be gained from trying to communicate with morons who refuse to open their eyes or take their fingers out of their ears."

"You deniers seem very angry."

"Liars!!" Followed by 2 links

** If that is all you can contribute to a discussion it would appear you are the jerk. **
Posted by Philip S, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 6:00:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Philip S,

You wrote;

“I would say the peer reviewers did nothing or just rubber stamped it. Which also means anything they have done in the past has to be questioned.”

Certainly don't concede your first point however I will agree with the second. They presumably would have been paid to provide the service they did and there is little doubt that the authors of the paper would have been relying on them to pick up things they may have missed.

We are all fallible and the best we can do is acknowledge it and stick to a system which is designed to have appropriately qualified people to check our work. This is what the authors did and having been given the all clear should have has some confidence in the process.

In my opinion the authors acted entirely properly when they were informed of the issue and seemed fully prepared to correct their work.

As I said, this is the scientific method and it deserves our respect.

Just as an aside, and making no judgments, you have used 'there' instead of 'their' at least three times in recent posts. Whenever I have to think about which to use I employ here/there. It helps.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Wednesday, 30 January 2019 9:24:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SteeleRedux Come on page one mistake one could accept a little error in amongst a lot of data but page one.

As for their and there you will find it is wrong on a lot more than 3, sometimes there are reasons.

Their or is it there is a saying "garbage in garbage out" it is used in reference to internet tracking and profiling. Are you aware of it?
Posted by Philip S, Thursday, 31 January 2019 1:26:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy