Is this where they had parts of the Great Lakes 500 degrees Celsius
“Useful Idiot” Scientists.
They are deliberate frauds and have done this more than enough times not to deserve the benefit of the doubt. Bring on the prosecutors.
“Fake but accurate”
The issues “do not invalidate the study’s methodology or the new insights into ocean biogeochemistry on which it is based,” said co-author Ralph Keeling. But they do mean the scientists must redo their calculations.
YES IT DOES... BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
For anyone interested in the technical criticisms by Nic Lewis which revealed the flaws in this “pro-consensus” paper, this article and its predecessor are key:
What they just said was that the ‘margin for error was greater’. Since science is based upon statistical analysis, giving a P value, or probability, that is 95% certain the findings were by not by chance. What they are really saying is that the previous conclusions will have to be withdrawn because they will fall within the chances of statistical error.
The evidence doesn’t support their conclusion with scientific certainty. The double speak is because they aren’t able to support their ‘belief’ with the numbers. Their ‘beliefs’ are their business, but it’s not science.
In my mind, it means that the science and the investigators are both compromised. The science by missed data and bad statistics, and the investigators by ‘beliefs’ and not hypothesis ‘that weren’t supported by the data’.
Just as Dem-controll recounts always find more votes for Dems, I predict their *new* calculations will show the oceans are warming even faster than their *old, wrong* calculations.
Uh...that's sort of important. A prediction of a 5-degree shift in temperature with a 1-degree margin of error is one thing, a 5-degree prediction with a 10-degree margin of error is quite another.
