the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Regular Science

Posted by Jeff Id on February 21, 2010

Certainly the link below is not the most honest title I’ve ever read but we’re supposedly the denialists right?

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels

I’m not sure what happened with this paper.  If someone has a copy please send it to my email on the left. Either way one comment in the article caught my attention.

h/t Jon Rappoport and hjbange.

“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.”

Ah, I didn’t realize this was a ‘regular’ part of the process.  So the steps in real science are now:

1- conclude result

2- collect data

3- remove denialist data

4- publish proof of conclusion.

5- celebrate.

6- press conference,

7- new funding

8- retract

It’s to bad that Mann08 got stuck at  step 6.

19 Responses to “Regular Science”

  1. Gary said

    Jeff,

    I think you missed the first step: advocate a position and predict disaster.

    Seriously, it looks like the authors are at least honest enough to admit mistakes (a calculation error) and the effect of new information (which appears to expand the confidence intervals to the point where their conclusions are unsupportable. “Regular” is a bad word choice; they should have said “accepted” or “appropriate.”

  2. Jeff Id said

    You’re right, they did the right thing in this case, but one of the most voodoo oriented fields is the prediction of sea level. These guys have no more idea what will happen to sea level than when the next sunspot will occur.

  3. HotRod said

    They thanked Rahmstorf et al for drawing the mistake to their attention. R et al produced a later paper projecting double the rise?

    No indication from the article whether the mistakes produced a higher or lower range?

  4. Jimchip said

    I was attracted to the title of your post: Regular Science, what a concept! (climbing out of a CRUTeam cesspool…)

    Nature has the abstract for what I think is the withdrawn article.
    Letter
    Nature Geoscience 2, 571 – 575 (2009)
    Published online: 26 July 2009 | doi:10.1038/ngeo587
    Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change

    Not on Siddell’s website, not on Stocker’s…Bingo, it’s on Peter Clark’s. Let me know if ya can’t download, I have a copy.

  5. John M said

    I think Mann08 got him to step 7, and it’s called Stimulus Money.

  6. Jeff Id said

    #5 ouch.

  7. Tim said

    I think everyone is missing the point.
    This paper was retracted because it was a ‘denialist’ paper that suggested that the sea rise was too low.

    Look at who cost the credit for finding the error:
    “Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for “bringing these issues to our attention””.

    This paper would have never been retracted no matter how egregious the errors if it supported the alarmist cause.

  8. Joel said

    I am afraid Tim hit the nail on the head.

  9. Paul said

    from -http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/21/2009-paper-confirming-ipcc-sea-level-conclusions-withdrawn-mistakes-cited/

    Corey (19:57:24) :

    Here’s the paper, for anyone interested:

    Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change

    Mark Siddall1*, Thomas F. Stocker2 and Peter U. Clark3
    -http://geo.oregonstate.edu/files/geo/Siddall-2009-NatureGeo.pdf

  10. JLKrueger said

    Tim said
    February 21, 2010 at 11:32 pm
    I think everyone is missing the point.
    This paper was retracted because it was a ‘denialist’ paper that suggested that the sea rise was too low.

    Yes, but…

    When it was released, it was hailed by the AGW camp as supporting the IPCC estimates which, in fact, are lower than Rahmstorf’s estimates.

    Withdrawing a paper that is wrong, regardless of which argument it supports, is the correct thing to do. Both sides of the “settled science debate that isn’t happening” can spin it any way they want, but withdrawing something that is not correct is the right thing to do.

  11. Jimmy Haigh said

    I’m looking forward to more withdrawn papers. All of Mann’s for a kick off.

  12. Jimchip said

    #11 Jimmy,

    I think Nature should voluntarily buy big rubber stamps saying RETRACTED and give them to all the librarians. The ones I know still miss rubber stamps but have adapted to barcode readers. Then, every time one of the bogus papers gets nixed, the librarians go into the stacks and open the journal and stamp (Bang!) RETRACTED.

    1. If it’s done right they will have stamped a lot of papers and be tic’d off at having to have done it.

    2. Don’t Mess With Librarians! (no joke). They don’t like people fouling up their literature.

  13. Jeff Id said

    #7, 8,

    The values the paper gave are not what irk me, it’s the fact that they predict it at all. Someone kindly sent me the paper by email, the range they give for sea level rise is 7 to 82 cm. Most of the papers have huge ranges like this and even considering that these are on the lower end of papers, they really, really don’t know. Geological changes to the ocean floor can probably cause changes this big. With today’s science the prediction of ocean levels a hundred years from now is like chicken bone voodoo witchcraft.

  14. dfbaskwill said

    Shouldn’t 3(a) be “adjust” the data?

  15. Ruhroh said

    While it is understandable that they would shorten their moniker to
    “climatologist’ ;

    it understates the deep level of scientific endeavor and knowledge to leave out the ‘Scientific’ part of their full moniker;

    “Climascientologist”

    Let’s be careful out there…
    RR

  16. RB said

    It wasn’t until Comment #17 that WUWT readers discovered that this news article didn’t speak for their team.

  17. Jeff Id said

    #16, I’m not convinced that the article was a skeptic piece at all. It shows a predicted sea level rise from very questionable data. I’ve never read a sea level prediction paper which was convincing.

  18. RB said

    #17, besides the issue of whether or not the sea level is predictable, the article actually talks about a correction made by someone who thinks that sea level rise by IPCC is underestimated. It wasn’t a skeptic piece, but skeptics have interpreted it in that manner – I’ve already received emails from skeptics highlighting the “we retract our predictions of sea level rise.”

  19. RB said

    “but skeptics have interpreted ”
    ok, “some skeptics have interpreted”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 148 other followers

%d bloggers like this: