Climate science is difficult. Incredibly difficult. The argument from most rational, level-headed people regarding climate change and humanity’s impact on it is that we do not know the full extent to how we contribute. Like anything else in nature, there is a contribution. How much is the question. We have doubt. We take it slow. Admit it is complicated and need to consider as best as possible. I think this is where the divide comes in with hardcore environmentalists and liberals. They want us to take it as concrete fact. The media then sensationalizes claims and drums up fear and hysteria to make the problem (if it even is a problem) seem far more immediate and catastrophic than it really is. That’s how we get pulled into crap like the Paris Climate Agreement and we’re told we need to spend TRILLIONS of dollars over x amount of years to lower the temperature by a few fractions of 1 degree.
Recently a high profile paper published in Nature on ocean warming was reviewed by someone outside the field and spotted major errors in their calculation. Via sciencemag.org:
Scientists behind a major study on ocean warming this month are acknowledging errors in their calculations and say conclusions are not as certain as first reported.
The research, published in the journal Nature, said oceans are warming much faster than previously estimated and are taking up more energy than projected by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [Climatewire, Nov. 1].
After a blog post flagged some discrepancies in the study, the authors, from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, and Princeton University in New Jersey, said they would submit a correction to the journal.
The overall conclusion that oceans are trapping more and more heat mirrors other studies and is not inaccurate, but the margin of error in the study is larger than originally thought, said Ralph Keeling, a professor of geosciences at Scripps and co-author of the paper.
And further down:
The errors were pointed out by British researcher Nic Lewis on the blog of Judith Curry, a former professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences who has questioned the accuracy of some climate models.
“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,” Lewis wrote.
The study suggested greenhouse gas emissions may need to be cut much faster than anticipated to meet climate targets, because of more aggressive ocean warming calculated in a new model. The team examined changes in atmospheric ocean and carbon dioxide levels to assess how the ocean’s heat content has changed over time.
Keeling said the team incorrectly assessed oxygen measurements. Ocean warming likely is still greater than IPCC estimates, but the range of probability is more in line with previous studies.
“The more important message is that our study lacks the accuracy to narrow the range of previous estimates of ocean uptake,” Keeling said in an email. He thanked Lewis for pointing out the anomaly.
And this really highlights the underlying problem. The left wants us to believe that the Earth as we know it is about to have such drastic changes that all of humanity will die and cities will be underwater tomorrow and that we need to take insanely drastic measures to prevent this from happening. The problem is reality does not play out with what they’re telling us. And with that in mind at what point do we just stop listening? Al Gore promised over a decade ago many of our cities would be underwater by now. We were told the ice caps would be completely gone when in reality they’ve grown. Some know they are wrong and have peddled lies. Notice how they stopped calling it global warming and now call it climate change? As if anyone is debating that the climate is changing. IT IS ALWAYS CHANGING.
The second problem is these people never get called out on their BS when it is shown they were lying or were wrong. This retraction will be seen by a fraction of the people who read the story in the NY Times or Washington Post. Do you think those who accused Kavanaugh of gang rape felt any consequences or were called out on their BS when it was shown several of the accusers were flat out lying? Or when they cry for YEARS about Trump colluding with Russia…do you think any of them feel any sort of regret or remorse for drumming up hysteria and hate when in fact he did absolutely nothing with Russia to win the election? Of course not. We let them off every single time. That is part of the problem.
A separate issue from this is the absolutely staggering amount of issues, problems, oversights, and lack of reproducibility in peer-reviewed scientific papers being released these days. This paper was peer reviewed. Literally someone who writes on a blog was the one who spotted the error. And as the quote above shows apparently it wasn’t even a difficult one to spot. And science should be continually checked, scrutinized, and corrected. The issue is when it is taken as indisputable fact in some realms when in fact it’s anything but. Climate science in particular, arguably one of the most complex systems to model and predict, we’re told to obey the elites on their word that it is an open and shut case. It is not. And on a more sinister note, how many of these papers are purposely deceptive, maybe numbers exaggerated or skewed to make it appear a certain outcome is inevitable to drum up special interest money? Do not assume that scientists, like anyone else, cannot be influenced by powerful and rich groups that have their own agenda to make money off of the results.
Do not be bullied into silencing your opinions on this. That is what they always try to do; shame people into silence rather than put their ideas and theories up for scrutiny and debate.