SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Sully- who wrote (77806)2/22/2010 11:12:25 AM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Read Replies (3) of 90947
 
Another day, another global warming fallacy exposed

Don Surber

Ho hum.

From the Guardian in England: “Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.”

The newspaper cited the Nature Geoscience publication, which published a retraction on its prediction that the seas would rise a whopping 89 centimeters (a little over 2 inches) by 2100.

The publication tested a model used in the Nobel-inning report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The IPCC’s science failed the test.

Nature Geoscience said in its retraction:

<<< “First, we tested the sensitivity of our results to the length of the time step used in the integration of the model for the period of deglaciation, which we found to be robust. However, we overlooked that the simulations of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are sensitive to this time step, which led to an overestimation of the sea-level response to warming in the simulations for these centuries.

“Second, we did not include the effect of the uncertainty in the temperature reconstructions since the Medieval Climate Anomaly in our uncertainty estimates for the twenty-first-century projections. This led to an inconsistency between the twentieth-century simulation used to test the predictive capability of the model and the twenty-first-century simulation, owing to a provisional allowance for warming since the Little Ice Age in the twentieth-century simulations.” >>>

So science does not know. It is still unsettled.

Once again, forecasts of the ill-effects of global warming prove to be inaccurate and poor science.

So far, scientists seem disinterested in the benefits of global warming. perhaps because government grants are for finding dangers to global warming, which make it easier to sell cap-and-trade taxes to an unaware public.

blogs.dailymail.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News