Global warming alarmists were dealt another blow this weekend by the most recent in a series of “admissions” that scientific data regarding the “man-made” phenomena may have been inaccurate or at least poorly calculated. You’ll be happy to know that there are no email controversies or general lack of fundamental office skills to blame for this one either. The scientists behind the aspect of global climate change theory that predicted a catastrophic rise in seal levels by 2100 are now “admitting” that their findings may have been somewhat inaccurate due to “one miscalculation” and a failure to “allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years.”
In a state of obvious shame, the scientists have retracted the paper that revealed the pending environmental disaster and will “invest in the further work needed to correct the mistakes.”
Via Althouse
Via the GuardianUK
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.
Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.
Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper’s estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.
Do we really have to guess on this one? I mean come on… If it were an underestimate, don’t you think we’d be readying aircraft carriers and relief personnel for the coming flood? Check these scientists bank accounts, did they run off to buy a boat?
In all seriousness, I don’t know if I am more alarmed / troubled that so many have been cramming this nonsense down our throats for years or that they’re only admitting that they “may have been wrong” now that they’ve been exposed for the shady little scientists they really were in the first place? I mean would we have know about any of these “miscalculations” if ClimateGate hadn’t been revealed? Would these scientists have really staked their reputations and credibility on owning up to these errors if they didn’t fear being exposed on the back-end as frauds when none of this comes to fruition? I think not. Thank God for the shortcomings of email.
The Gateway Pundit had this to offer. A nice little reminder that our brilliant Chief Climatologist may need to run the numbers through that overused brain of his. “The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising….” I love it…
Yes but still no explaination from the left about the warm middle ages when Vikings roamed the Arctic, famed and faised sheep in Iceland and circumnavigated the north. Still no explaination on how the Saharah and many other deserts were actually almost non existant during the 5,000 year wet period shortly after the end of the last ice age when mean average temperatures were a good two-4 degrees WARMER than even now? That period lasting from about 8,000 to 3,000 BC was far warmer than now and much more temperate and wet. Somehow Mother Earth survived in spite of it’s temperature. We are not stupid and we know that CO2 is regulated by marine and surface plant-life. CO2 GW and AGW are a hoax…an enormous hoax perpetrated by the Marxist left. I and other scientists know this for certain. Is there global warming, perhaps. Are humans the principal cause of it? Very unlikely, an impact maybe but negligible (less than 5% impact if any) at best.