Oops! Nature magazine yanks global-warming study for 'systematic errors'(DOH!)

wnd.com ^ | 9/29/2019 | staff

[rktman]

"We realized that our reported uncertainties were underestimated owing to our treatment of certain systematic errors as random errors," the magazine said of the Princeton-authored piece.

Scientist Nic Lewis, who pointed out the errors shortly after the study was published, said it was "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," he said.

[rktman]

WND link so beware. Have had a couple of reports of RED SCREEN warnings lately. Anyway, the info doesn't really apologize and say they're wrong, just the method and info they used was "incorrect". We're still on track to go away in 11.xx years apparently.

[Quality_Not_Quantity]

WND used to be a good site to visit - now, it’s just like any other - way too much sensationalism, too many ‘one weird trick’ links, etc. I virtually never go there anymore - but did so just now to confirm my bias.

[RatRipper]

I only believe statistics that I doctored myself. - Winston Churchill

[rktman]

LOL! Hey, at least you provided feedback. Hopefully you didn’t get the RED PAGE freeze up. Yeah, it used to be dependable but these days it seems the bottom line is proving to be problematic at a lot of sites.

[Rebelbase]

Here’s a clean link to the story on outline.com.

https://outline.com/JZXrJU

[cgbg]

A lying “climate scientist” is _never_ embarrassed.

They have a planet to save!

(and maybe some white people to kill.....)

[rktman]

Thanks.

[GOPJ]

Catching the little creeps on method is good. Alarmists have been getting away with everything for a long time... nice first step.

[Billthedrill]

Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.

Inadvertent my aching nates. The difference is that amateurs now have computing power in their laptops sufficient to crunch enough data to blow through the misrepresentation that should never have seen print in the first place. I had a professor (long dead these many years, alas) tell me one time that statistics was the most important class I would take as an undergraduate, and he wasn't a statistician. What he was, was right.

[PeterPrinciple]

statistics was the most important class I would take as an undergraduate, and he wasn’t a statistician. What he was, was right.

---

My old school statistics prof said the following: “Statistics NEVER gives you an answer, at best, it might give you another question.”

[Republican Wildcat]

"We realized that our reported uncertainties were underestimated owing to our treatment of certain systematic errors as random errors,"

Good grief - what a quote.

[rktman]

Prattle? 😵

[The Great RJ]

Gee isn’t the science of global warming settled and a consensus of a handful of scientists agree so why bother with any research? Besides the authors are deniers and are being paid by big oil. We have the dogma of St Algore and that is the last word on all things relating to climate

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks rktman.

• Greta Thunberg's speech to UN strangely resembles a 1992 speech by 12-year-old Severn Cullis-Suzuki

[SunkenCiv]

‘We Really Muffed The Error Margins’: Global Warming Report Rendered Worthless After Scientists...
Townhall | Nov 14, 2018 3:05 PM | Matt Vespa
Posted on 11/14/2018 2:52:14 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3705862/posts