Give Credit When Due, Obama Was Right
by Big Dog on Feb 21, 2010 at 19:53 Political
During the campaign Barack Obama weighed in on global warming and his divine abilities when he said this:
I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people… I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal… This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation… [emphasis mine] National Review
It would seem that Obama was right about the level of the ocean’s rise beginning to slow. According to the Guardian UK, climate scientists have withdrawn the study that shows ocean levels rising as a result of global warming due to faulty information.
The scientists do not know if the oceans will rise or fall. They also can’t say how much, in the event there is a rise or fall.
So chalk one up for Obama, he was right about the oceans rise slowing.
Chalk one up for global warming, the warmists had to recant more data. With all these mistakes, how do they have anything left to work with?
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: global warming, Obama, ocean rise, promises
The peer review process finds more mistakes to correct in their scientific work and this is somehow still evidence to you of some flaw in the scientific process behind climate change research? Figures.
Luckily science isn’t as you imagine it is. There’s more than one study out there on this subject. There’s more than one set of data dealing with climate change. There’s more than one organization doing research.
Even combining all the mistakes and corrections and retractions from the last few years you still do not arrive at any significant flaw that undermines the consensus on global warming. Yet, you sure like to lie and say it does, right?
Bigd: “According to the Guardian UK, climate scientists have withdrawn the study…>>
DAR
Correction, “a study.”
Bigd: “…that shows ocean levels rising as a result of global warming due to faulty information.”>>
DAR
As a commenter at the Guardian link given above noted:
1) Scientists found the error
2) They aren’t sure if the paper over estimated or under estimated the possible rise.
3) Other studies exist (as cited by the IPCC report).
But it gets better:
“The retracted paper had suggested very conservative sea level rises, contrary to what most others were suggesting. So if anything, it reinforces the argument that IPCC sea level rise projections are low, and the “consensus” is stronger than it was before.”
As realclimate noted in August:
“Ups and downs of sea level projections
The scientific sea level discussion has moved a long way since the last IPCC report was published in 2007 (see our post back then). The Copenhagen Synthesis Report recently concluded that “The updated estimates of the future global mean sea level rise are about double the IPCC projections from 2007″. New Scientist last month ran a nice article on the state of the science, very much in the same vein. But now Mark Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark have countered this trend in an article in Nature Geoscience, projecting a global rise of only 7 to 82 cm from 2000 to the end of this century.”
So to unpack: A scientific study that countered the much higher trend, and argued that sea level rise would be LOWER than these other studies, has been retracted.
So we see this is just more upside down, mind numbingly stupid material hacked together and spun by know nothing journalists apparently incapable of even doing the most rudimentary background investigation of their claims. They just spin and spin and Bigdog repeats it because it conveniently fits with what he wants to believe.
But believing things does not make them so. And basing beliefs upon inaccurate junk like this UK Guardian article does not make a good basis for believing something.
D.
—————
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
[Philip K.]
The scientist said in the piece that they did not know if the numbers would go up or down.
Seems like an awful lot of mistakes to base so much money on.
“The scientist said in the piece that they did not know if the numbers would go up or down.”
You’ll have to show us the quote on that one.
Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper’s estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.
Though now that I read that again he might just mean that it would not rise as much.
Which, of course, would substantiate the main point of the post, Obama was right about the ocean rise slowing if he was elected.
I see it now. I thought you were saying the scientist said that about the research in general related to ocean levels. Siddall was talking about the specific paper so when I first read it I couldn’t really find a quote that matched your suggestion.