In a NASA "what-if" animation, light-blue areas in southern Florida and Louisiana indicate regions that may be underwater should sea levels rise by 9 meters (roughly 27 feet) -- which may not be as likely as scientists once thought. The study paper concluded that sea levels would rise by as much as 2.7 feet by the end of the twenty-first century. Image Credit: NASAFraudulent 'Nature Geoscience' study paper on Sea Levels is pulled
On what the authors cite as having a lack of confidence in the data they used to reach the conclusion that sea levels would rise by as much as 2.7 feet by the end of the twenty-first century, authors Mark Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark pull a study paper published in the journal, Nature Geoscience.
All of this effort to correct the factual record is additional evidence that the Scientific Method was never a consideration as it relates to the agenda that changes in the Earth's climate are directly related to human activity as opposed to sun spots and other natural forces that effect the Earth's atmosphere.
The media loves to attribute all of this recent activity to correct the record on recently discovered "ERRORS" and "SLOPPY MISTAKES" associated with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The truth of the matter is that the retraction of articles and study papers are two different activities designed to communicate for different purposes. Articles are ... well, stories whereas study papers are used as evidence of discovery and require a greater level of scrutiny before they are ever published.
This excerpted and edited from FOXNews -
Scientists Retract Paper on Rising Sea Levels Due to Errors
FOXNews.com - Updated February 22, 2010
Scientists have been forced to retract a paper that claimed sea level were rising thanks to the effects of global warming, after mistakes were discovered that undermined the results.
The paper also highlighted that it reinforced the conclusions of the U.N.'s controversial Fourth Assessment report, which warned of the dangerous of man-made climate change.
However, mistakes in time intervals and inaccurately applied statistics have forced the authors to retract their paper -- the first official retraction ever for the three-year-old journal, notes the Guardian. In an officially published retraction of their paper, the authors acknowledged these mistakes as factors that compromised the results.
"We no longer have confidence in our projections for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors retract the results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900," wrote authors Mark Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark.
Since the leak of e-mails from the U.K.'s top global warming scientists in early December, many other errors and sloppy mistakes have been uncovered in leading report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Flaws in weather stations have led some to question claims of rising temperatures, sloppy math led to holes in postulates that the Himalayas were rapidly melting and fears of a man-made food shortage in Africa seem unsubstantiated as well.
Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall told the Guardian,, "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.
"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."
Reference Here>>
If retractions of study papers were "a regular part of the publication process" as Mark Siddall, one of the authors of the study paper insists, then why is this the first official retraction ever for the three-year-old journal, Nature Geoscience.
Did Nature Geoscience ask about the validity of the conclusions of this study paper given the fact that weekend before last, Professor Phil Jones, former director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which was where the information the UN based its activity on AGW, in an interview with the BBC conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon?
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming?
A key figure of the Climategate scandal, Professor Jones further admitted in the BBC interview that there is no evidence the Earth has warmed recently ... and new research suggests existing records aren’t sufficient support for global warming claims. Just a couple of days later, the top U.N. climate change official Yvo de Boer told The Associated Press Thursday, February 18, 2010, that he was resigning after nearly four years.
One wonders what came first in this chicken and egg situation ... did the authors of the study paper that held the conclusion that sea levels would rise by as much as 2.7 feet by the end of the twenty-first century see their "ERROR" first ... or did the journal, Nature Geoscience?
A lie is a lie - no matter how long it takes to be discovered - AGW is a lie!
