Oops! Journal retracts global warming study laden with 'errors'
Wednesday, October 2, 2019
Michael F. Haverluck (OneNewsNow.com)
One of secular scientists' most prominent repositories of articles and studies touting evolution and climate change has retracted a study it published based on false information used to argue manmade pollution has caused ocean temperatures to rise to alarming levels.
In a carefully worded retraction(below), the scientific journal Nature admitted that inaccurate and inflated figures were given in its published Princeton study – one that alarmed readers that oceans were heating up so quickly and intensely that cataclysmic climate change was impending:
"[W]e realized that our reported uncertainties were underestimated, owing to our treatment of certain systematic errors as random errors. In addition, we became aware of several smaller issues in our analysis of uncertainty. Although correcting these issues did not substantially change the central estimate of ocean warming, it led to a roughly fourfold increase in uncertainties, significantly weakening implications for an upward revision of ocean warming and climate sensitivity."
After a year of touting it as fact
The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) announced the exposed and admitted false global warming study – lashing out at Nature and Princeton for continuing to legitimize climate change science.
"A major scientific paper, which claimed to have found rapid warming in the oceans as a result of manmade global warming, has been withdrawn after an amateur climate scientist found major errors in its statistical methodology," GWPF announced in a public statement. "The paper, from a team led by Laure Resplandy of Princeton University, had received widespread uncritical publicity in the mainstream media when it was published because of its apparently alarming implications for the planet. However, within days of its publication in October 2018, independent scientist Nic Lewis found several serious flaws."
Scientist Nic Lewis lamented that it took Nature almost a year to officially withdraw the paper, which was just pulled last week.
"This is just the latest example of climate scientists letting themselves down by using incorrect statistics," Lewis was quoted in the GWPF notice. "The climate field needs to get professional statisticians involved up front if it is going to avoid this kind of embarrassment in the future."
GWPF director Dr. Benny Peiser also condemned today's leading climate science, which he argued is riddled with fiction instead of scientific facts.
"Climatology is littered with examples of bad statistics, going back to the infamous Hockey Stick graph and beyond," Peiser asserted. "Peer review is failing and it is falling to amateurs to find the errors. Scientists in the field should be embarrassed."
He emphasized how the study's findings not only received extensive coverage by the mainstream media, but noted that they were also peer-reviewed and published in the world's premier scientific journal.
"Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results," Peiser pointed out in a report, according to WND. "Just a few hours of analysis and calculations – based only on published information – was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations."
Peiser went on to stress the degree of inaccuracy in the piece that was touted as fact in Nature over the past year.
"[Even in the instance that the study's findings were accurate], they would not have justified its findings regarding an increase to 2.0° C in the lower bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity range and a 25% reduction in the carbon budget for 2° C global warming," the GWPF director contended.
After the errors were exposed, Peiser stressed that Nature and the scientists involved must give more than mere lip service to make sure the public is fully aware that their alarmist study and warnings are now proven to be false.
"Because of the wide dissemination of the paper's results, it is extremely important that these errors are acknowledged by the authors without delay and then corrected," Peiser continued. "Of course, it is also very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the paper's findings now correct the record, too."
'Reliable' climate change sources questioned
Sweden's climate-change poster girl, Greta Thunberg, has often cited statistics from global warming studies published in scientific journals such as Nature to shame the world for heating the world to cataclysm-inducing levels and destroying her future.
In addition, self-proclaimed socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) warned that the world would end in 12 years if multi-trillion-dollar climate change policies aren't implemented soon. She went as far as to recently make the prediction that Miami, Florida, "will no longer exist in a few years" if her Green New Deal isn't passed to fight the effects of "manmade climate change."
The debunked Princeton study was conducted and authored by a number of acclaimed climatologists from around the world, including: R.F. Keeling, Y. Eddebbar and M.K. Brooks of Scripps Institution of Oceanography; R. Wang of China; L. Bopp of Paris; M.C. Long of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado; J.P. Dunne of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association; and W. Koeve and A. Oschlies of Germany.
We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details