Major climate scientific paper is withdrawn

climate report.png

CM is shocked! Really? 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paper, which claimed to have found rapid warming in the oceans as a result of manmade global warming, has been withdrawn after an amateur climate scientist found major errors in its statistical methodology. Who’d a thunk?

The authors sheepishly said,

Shortly after publication, arising from comments from Nicholas Lewis, we 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. Because of these weaker implications, the Nature editors asked for a Retraction, which we accept.”

Clearly, some 4-folds are smaller than others.

Nicholas Lewis said after the retraction that,

“This is just the latest example of climate scientists letting themselves down by using incorrect statistics. The climate field needs to get professional statisticians involved up front if it is going to avoid this kind of embarrassment in future”.

Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, said

Climatology is littered with examples of bad statistics, going back to the infamous Hockey Stick graph and beyond. Peer review is failing and it is falling to amateurs to find the errors. Scientists in the field should be embarrassed”.

The larger question from CM is, aren’t the data supposed to be the foundation against which billions of taxpayer dollars are being allocated to save the planet?

CM holds that the scientific community should be held to the same standards as bankers. When bankers commit fraud, individuals face millions and financial institutions billions in fines and jail terms. If scientists have absolutely no repercussions for making dud predictions based on manipulated or homogenised figures, is it any wonder the outcomes tend to be overwhelmingly overstate warming?

If climate scientists were offered an amnesty period of 6 months to come forward and retract bogus claims or face proper sanctions if caught for fiddling the numbers, imagine how much of the published works would be aggressively ratcheted down. Whistleblower laws in the US now incentivise the whistleblower in the millions. Surely there are many scientists in the climate change community who fear speaking out. For the scientists who claim their work is peer-reviewed and flawless, they have absolutely nothing to fear by such legal frameworks. Yet watch them howl at the moon at the mere entertainment of the prospect. That will tell us all we need to know.

Maybe a scientific/educational Royal Commission makes a lot of sense too. The horror stories would undoubtedly dwarf the banks given such loose governance.