Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Climate scientists admit error over rising sea level data 
Author Message
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... cc-apology

Quote:
Climate experts have been forced to admit another embarrassing error in their most recent report on the threat of climate change.

In a background note – released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) last night – the UN group said its 2007 report wrongly stated that 55% of the Netherlands lies below sea level. In fact, only 26% of the country does. The figure used by the IPCC included all areas in the country that are prone to flooding, including land along rivers above sea level. This accounts for 29% of the Dutch countryside.

"The sea-level statistic was used for background information only, and the updated information remains consistent with the overall conclusions," the IPCC note states. Nevertheless, the admission is likely to intensify claims by sceptics that the IPCC work is riddled with sloppiness.


Mistakes happen of course, but what they're suggesting really should be checked before being published :oops:

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:46 pm
Profile
Legend
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am
Posts: 29240
Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
Reply with quote
Yes sloppiness is their biggest enemy at the moment. Too many are rushing out publications without checking for the glory if they are right.

_________________
Do concentrate, 007...

"You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds."

https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTk

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21


Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:09 pm
Profile
Spends far too much time on here

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:44 pm
Posts: 4860
Reply with quote
swimming to the shops as we speak …

_________________
Hope this helps . . . Steve ...

Nothing known travels faster than light, except bad news ...
HP Pavilion 24" AiO. Ryzen7u. 32GB/1TB M2. Windows 11 Home ...


Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:30 pm
Profile
Has a life

Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:41 pm
Posts: 54
Reply with quote
pcernie wrote:
Mistakes happen of course, but what they're suggesting really should be checked before being published


It doesn't help that when an issue is flagged to the IPCC it is ignored usually on the basis that it has (alledgedly) been peer reviewed.

An example here.

While the IPCC started as a scientific body it's output is now mostly political designed to promote the case for AGW rather than the facts.


Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:46 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm
Posts: 12251
Reply with quote
A lot of chinks showing up in this whole “iron clad” climate change argument. I wonder what else has been bodged.

If we are to trust the scientists in their assessment, then their work has to be accurate, repeatable, accountable and open to scrutiny. Clearly it isn’t.

_________________
All the best,
Paul
brataccas wrote:
your posts are just combo chains of funny win

I’m on Twitter, tweeting away... My Photos Random Avatar Explanation


Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:27 pm
Profile
Occasionally has a life
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:53 pm
Posts: 447
Location: Manchester
Reply with quote
paulzolo wrote:
A lot of chinks showing up in this whole “iron clad” climate change argument. I wonder what else has been bodged.

If we are to trust the scientists in their assessment, then their work has to be accurate, repeatable, accountable and open to scrutiny. Clearly it isn’t.

Well I have a feeling scientific institutes are rapidly delting incriminating emails and related info.
paulzolo wrote:
A lot of chinks showing up in this whole “iron clad” climate change argument. I wonder what else has been bodged.

If we are to trust the scientists in their assessment, then their work has to be accurate, repeatable, accountable and open to scrutiny. Clearly it isn’t.

Well I have a feeling scientific institutes are rapidly delting incriminating emails and related info.

Theres good reason why this theory persists and its not outspoken conspiracy but each scientists personal conspiracy like institutionalised sexism, racism, religeon or belief of any kind.
Reasons for avid climate change belief off the top of my head:
1: feel good theory (everyone gets to save the world YAY [LIFTED]!)
2: band wagon
3: fear of losing your job
4: media
5: fear of losing credibility
6: cognitive disonence
7: institutionalisation by several means
8: them and us (Skeptics and alarmists)
It's not just active it's passive manipulation such as refusing funding to skeptical reseach without thought.
Look at how the Gov't is brainwashing young people in schools to believe it. This issue now turns up in geography, politics, biology and economics. Suddenly instead of multiculturalism in politics it is environment in the third unit as a topic. In geography every neo hippy teacher loves this theory. Economics often replaces what are relative questions concerning current and past economic issues with at least one question on each paper That is intrinsically biased as it assumes AGW theory as true.

This AGW theory will flake and disintergrate like the carcass of an animal it truly is.


Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:16 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 6 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.