Categories
Bill Whittle Now

Alarming Ocean-Rise Climate Study Debunked in Days, But Nature Retraction Takes Year

Nic Lewis took just days to debunk some of the fundamental assumptions of a landmark study on ocean-rise that created alarming headlines around the world when the journal, Nature, published it in October 2018. It took nearly a year from when Nature learned of the statistical errors, until they formally retracted the Resplandy et al. paper on ocean heat uptake this week. Does the prestigious scientific journal’s peer-review process hold inherent bias?

Nic Lewis took just days to debunk some of the fundamental assumptions of a landmark study on ocean-rise that created alarming headlines around the world when the journal, Nature, published it in October 2018. It took nearly a year from when Nature learned of the statistical errors, until they formally retracted the Resplandy et al. paper on ocean heat uptake this week. Does the prestigious scientific journal’s peer-review process hold inherent bias? Would they be better off letting amateurs critique studies before they officially publish? And what do you tell your child whose teachers may place childlike faith in the scientific community’s preconceived conclusions?

Link to Nic Lewis’ Blog: https://judithcurry.com/author/niclewis/

37 replies on “Alarming Ocean-Rise Climate Study Debunked in Days, But Nature Retraction Takes Year”

I just forwarded to 2 of my scientist friends! Real scientists, one of whom might still be gullible enough to believe the climate hoo haw because he’s not a climate scientist (believe the experts!)

Science is never settled… Yes! And Newtonian theory was NOT econtradicted by the theory of Relativity but still works within it, is one of the truths that needs to be told to many as it is often ‘given as proof’ by the left that there is no one truth, (no universal principles) that all truths are relative. Science will never stop changing as it discovers new facts about the Universe that needs to be included in our always limited knowledge. cheers

“…the law (the bar system) system is internally self-correcting…” Scott, Bill, if this is a problem for the law and lawyers in that it has the echo effect (and more) what does this say for our Educational system?
…and doesn’t that relate to all the ‘educated leftists’ we find ourselves fighting in society?

It turns out the peppered moth story isn’t quite as simple as the basic presentation in textbooks makes it out. Nor is it as simple as the purported debunking makes it out. Findings, from researchers who set out to replicate the initial finding, include:

1) Peppered moths do not rest exclusively on tree trunks, but they do rest there. Of the forty-seven moths one researcher found in the wild, twelve were on trunks and twenty were on trunk/branch joints. (The other fifteen were on branches). The numbers and proportion on trunks near light traps were even higher (Majerus 1998, 123). Wells’s claim that the moths do not naturally land on trunks is simply a falsehood.

2) Branches provide a background similar to trunks. Photos showing moths on trunks were staged but only for purposes of illustration. The photographs depict what is found in the wild, whether trunk or branch. Furthermore, the photos played no part in the scientific research or its conclusions.

Source

A good presentation, Bill Whittle, and a song I sing often.
One quibble: Science DOES get settled, but in a specific way.
Science settles things by falsifying hypotheses. It never gives the answer, but it does tell us that some of the suggested answers are wrong.

Relative to this presentation, the hypothesis that changes in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere can cause significant changes in planetary temperature has been falsified. True science says that it is time to look for another hypothesis to cover the known facts. Politics says to flog that dead horse because THAT particular dead horse would have been their favorite pony.

QED: it is pointless to discuss issues with the true believers in faith. They have nothing to discuss so they make personal attacks based upon their imagination and some very sparse facts. The actual issues and ideas are irrelevant to them. They just believe and that settles it for them.

It is often used in the context of presenting evidence. “Since my client was buying gasoline in Oxnard at 3:45 in the afternoon, it is not possible that he killed the victim in Seattle at 3:50 in the afternoon, Q.E.D.”

It’s Quod Erat Demonstrandum, “thus it has been demonstrated”. I don’t think it’s possible to use it non-pretentiously in ordinary conversation. 🙂 If he’d used it in a reply to one of us it would have made sense but it’s a stretch using it in a standalone comment.

My favorite is illegitimi non carborundam. Tells you how extensive my latin knowledge is since that only sounds latin.

Climate change is real. That is an undisputed fact. But here’s the rub: the climate has always been changing and it always will be. What is not fully understood is the process or the causes. That is the debate at hand. Change is the fundamental nature of this universe. Since our best guess from archaeological evidence is that 5 major extinction events occurred before Man was even here, as well as multiple warming periods and at least 5 major ice ages that could not have been affected in any way by Mankind, it is fairly clear than Man is not the primary cause of the climate changing. Science seems to indicate that solar output, orbital mechanics, axial tilt, tectonic and volcanic activity–and the occasional space body impact–have far more effect on climate than carbon emission. But there is now power or money in that conclusion. So politics skews the science and writes the narrative to say what they want it to say in order to get power and money. No matter what we do, we cannot control the planet or the universe…but politics and bullying can control people, and that’s why politicians steal it. Science works fairly consistently in a 3D universe.

As a side note, I think that we have no true idea of Man’s total or true history. Our written word only goes back 6,000 years. Science says modern humans have been around for about 400,000 years. Today we have solid evidence of civilizations that existed 11,000 years ago, yet we have no record written records of them. And that 11,000 years is the blink of an eye for a planet that is at least 4.5 billion years old. Mankind has amnesia, and it is an arrogant amnesia at best. How many civilizations rose and fell before the Sumerians created the first cuneiform writing 6,000 years ago? We have no idea, because any evidence of them, except perhaps in stone, would have been erased or buried long ago. But the present rise of civilization as we know it has indeed lasted that last 6,000 years that we know about, and we have gone from hunter-gatherers to space travel in that time. Who’s to say that didn’t happen many times in the distant past, and that some recurring global cataclysm destroyed civilization many times and threw us back into the Stone Age? We just don’t know. We can only guess. Science gives us our best way to guess, but it is still only a guess. We are essentially clueless on our very distant past.

That said, science also says there are more than 3 dimensions to reality. Time alone may be the fourth dimension. Mathematically, physicists can calculate at least 11 dimensions that should exist in the same space. We must realize that in that matrix of multiple dimensions, science–as we understand it–may not apply at all. It is only good for the three dimensions (maybe 4) that we live in. Since that is the only dimension we can knowingly reach, it serves very well for this one.

A word about faith. In dimensions that we have no immediate contact with, and in subjects like belief in an afterlife, those are the areas where faith must suffice. For example, you either belief in an afterlife, you don’t or you aren’t sure. These are matters of faith. They are appropriate for those fields because science CANNOT address them. Science requires evidence, physical evidence, and all physical evidence that we know of is from this dimension (the subject of anti-particles put aside here). Since we cannot access other dimensions yet–and an afterlife might well be part of one or more of them–faith is the only tool appropriate for that field (and, since we won’t know for sure until we die–if we’re able to know anything when we do–nothing can be proven). Science cannot address the matters of such faith, just as faith has no bearing on the physical realities of this dimension. Faith without science is blind, but science without faith is soulless. Different tools for different problems. We must pick our poison. Faith in a creator and in an afterlife can never be proven by science, because science cannot access, accept or understand the physics in dimensions it cannot reach. But the two are not inherently mutually exclusive. They’re just different tools for different subjects. If you believe (faith) that Heaven is real, there is not one scientist who can prove you wrong, because no scientist can go there in this life and validate it. Your faith comes back to what you know and feel intuitively is true in your gut. But a scientist can conclusively explain the consistency of gravity on Earth in this reality. Both tools have their place. Faith is appropriate for the afterlife. Science is appropriate for this universe.

That it is not possible prove a Faith thing wrong is exactly my point. THAT alone makes Faith irrelevant to the acquisition of knowledge. It is just belief. Nothing more and nothing less.

Why do I make actual knowledge so important? It is because I have chosen to live. To do that, I must choose to act coherently with reality and produce the values necessary to sustain my life. The consequence of failing to act that way, is suffering and/or death.

It is THIS that is the objective bases for morality. Ancient texts and revelations from a bronze age sky warriors are not relevant when they go outside that objective foundation.

To die, all you have to do is nothing and it will happen. Live or die? Your choice. Choose wisely.

Best thing to do with trolls – if that has been sufficiently demonstrated – is to ignore them, not give them more fuel for their fire…

Climate Change is a function of a planet that is not yet dead

Chemists use equilibrium as a euphemism for death.

Faith is wrong even when it is accidentally right. This is exactly because it is NOT a method capable of discovering you are wrong.

Faith produces only Politically Correct results which are no better than blind guesses. Since there are far more ways to be wrong about something, the overwhelming likelihood of a blind guess is that the guess is wrong.

It took mankind several million years of experience, experiment, and trial and error to discover a method to discover error. It’s called Reason of which Science is a subset.

When Reason was finally put to use to solve the problems of human existence, it took only a few hundred years to create our modern technological civilization. Along with the vast amount of NEW wealth it implies.

Sadly, it is Faith and its malevolent bastard child, Political Correctness, that is working to destroy that magnificent achievement.

I object and will continue to object even though every one else on earth disagrees with me.

Impressive, you turn around a critique of a failure of science and make it a critique of faith. But then I expect no less from the last defender of the temple of the goddess Reason, valiantly manning the walls all alone.

Indeed, on a hilltop so we peons could look up and be properly cowed by his glorious magnificence.

Yeah, I usually ignore him but it gets tiresome having the same worn out hobbyhorse dragged into every discussion.

It was not a failure of science. It was failure of the so called climate scientist to perform actual science.

Sorry Lionel, you know nothing of Faith. It’s best you stop talking about it.

There is noting to know. Faith is not about knowing, it is belief and only belief. No evidence, no testing, no questioning, just blind totally gullible belief. It is empty virtue signalling at its worst.

You are correct about Faith being based upon belief; however, you are incorrect that it is blind. You are ignoring the fact that many people require faith that to be able to accept a reality they cannot explain through pure reason. Consider the individual who takes it on faith that gravity will continue to hold him to the surface of the Earth without while he lacks a capacity to understand how or why it works. This simple analogy can be applied to people of all backgrounds and capacities for reason.
It seems to me that you place a significant amount of faith in your ability to reason about all things. That is pure, unadulterated hubris.

Pure Reason cannot explain anything because it is not connected to anything but itself. Reason, on the other hand, has perception, experience, and experiment in the external world to work with. By using reason and logic on such things, you can discover reliable things about the real world.

As for gravity, everyone has a life time experience of things falling toward the earth. It does not take Faith to know that. You may not know the deeper why but you do know it is something that can be relied upon. THIS is the start of using reason and the beginning of the end of using Faith.

Clearly, I am using Faith in its religious sense and not the corrupt common use as confidence based upon experience. Religious Faith does not allow question. Has no possible test to verify errors of belief. It IS nothing but blind, naked, unsupported, and unsupportable belief.

Oh, very good. You’ve abandoned your idea that reason didn’t exist before Galileo, or whoever your preferred prophet is, brought it down from the mountainside to the masses.

Religious Faith does not allow question. Has no possible test to verify errors of belief. It IS nothing but blind, naked, unsupported, and unsupportable belief.

On that you are sorely mistaken. I question my biblically-based faith continuously — millions of others do likewise. Faith can, in fact, be tested with various linguistic techniques like hermeneutics, which is the theory and methodology of interpretation, especially the interpretation of biblical texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical texts. Hermeneutics is more than interpretive principles or methods we resort to when immediate comprehension fails. Rather, hermeneutics is the art of understanding and of making oneself understood.

As an aside, it seems that you are pulling terminology out of thin air (or some dark, stinky place) when you make an arbitrary distinction between “reason” and “pure reason.” That is extrememely disingenuous in any conversation.

Pure reason MEANS only analysis of the contents of one’s mind without connection to reality and without validation in reality. It is most pertinent with respect to any discussion of Religious Faith. See Kant’s discussion of “pure reason”.

Language and story analysis is not a test of Faith’s connection to reality. Reality is not at all considered, only the story. As such, it cannot make ANY valid conclusion about anything but the story itself.

I don’t care how many layers of language, words, and stories are analyzed. It is nothing but prime example of Pure Reason that is connected only to itself. As such, it is a total floating abstraction without even a hint of reality to contaminate it.

I don’t disagree that shunning (or excommunication as I learned it) is often necessary — albeit cold. I was just attempting a rhetorical comment, and I obviously failed.

A BBC science doc went to that largest vacuum chamber in the world and dropped a bowling ball and feather from the top. The results were fascinating. And exactly what science claimed.

Leave a Reply