�Alarming� Study Claiming Global Warming Heating Up Oceans Based on Math Error

[Cow Poke]

... I was commenting on your obvious attempt to excuse the journal and claim this was a normal process to just publish papers without a proper review and let the audience check it. That was a laughable excuse.

Quite similar to Tassman's "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" nonsense.

[Tassman]

exactly, Which was the point I was making to Tassman when he asked WHY did CP post this thread in the first place. It is precisely because they allowed this paper to be published, and obviously did NOT do a proper peer-review,

Certainly, it happens occasionally and is rectified when it occurs, as happened here. My objection to the OP was the implication that it happens a lot in science, with the corollary that scientific research cannot be trusted. In this instance global warming is an established fact, it is beyond doubt. This is acknowledged by the vast majority of scientists and professionals in the field...including those within Trump's own administration. Only those with an agenda...either religion-based or with commercial interests such as in the coal industry...refuse to acknowledge the facts to the detriment of all.

[Starlight]

It is precisely because they allowed this paper to be published, and obviously did NOT do a proper peer-review, and neither did most of the readers until one climate denier bothered to actually check the math on the first page. Why? Because nobody else had a reason to suspect there was a problem because the paper confirmed their beliefs on the topic. Pure confirmation bias at work.

Your telepathic reading of their motivations would be more plausible if what you said was actually true. The paper did not confirm existing beliefs: It argued the rate of ocean temperature change was significantly different to the current consensus view on the subject. That would be an important finding, if correct. But anyone motivated by a desire to have their existing beliefs confirmed would not be motivated to publish a study overturning a consensus view without careful checking.

Which is WHY I started the thread, because this is an EXCELLENT example of peer-review failure

Sure. There are plenty of other examples to be found of papers that slip through the pre-publication checks and subsequently need to be corrected/withdrawn. But this is one such example, yes.

and it appears they have allowed this confirmation bias to corrupt their review process.

Except, there's literally zero reason to believe this example relates to that in any way. If that's the point you're trying to prove, this example is not relevant.

1. The paper challenged, rather than confirmed, the status quo. So that makes nonsense of the assumption that it slipped through due to endorsing the status quo.
2. Beyond that, there's not a shred of evidence whatsoever that there was any confirmation bias in the review process.

If all you've got is "I tOtaLLy KnoW iT wAs CoNfIrmAtiOn BiaS!!!"... well, okay.

[Starlight]

In this instance global warming is an established fact, it is beyond doubt. This is acknowledged by the vast majority of scientists and professionals in the field...

I was pleased to see this week that a major news outlet in my country that has a history of being a bit of a hotbed for some less-than-rational views, announced it was not going to host any more climate-denial content (including articles, opinion pieces, and in user comments) and instead was going to focus discussion on what was to be done politically and socially.

After the free-for-all discussion our society has been having on the topic for decades, it's been becoming clear both that there is a strong consensus about the threat of climate change and also that climate-denialism is being increasingly used to distract from the real discussion that needs to be had of what to do to address that threat. So I was pleased to see them take that step so that we can have that discussion as a society without having to get distracted by having the same pointless debate for the zillionth time about whether climate change is actually happening.

[Sparko]

Certainly, it happens occasionally and is rectified when it occurs, as happened here. My objection to the OP was the implication that it happens a lot in science, with the corollary that scientific research cannot be trusted. In this instance global warming is an established fact, it is beyond doubt. This is acknowledged by the vast majority of scientists and professionals in the field...including those within Trump's own administration. Only those with an agenda...either religion-based or with commercial interests such as in the coal industry...refuse to acknowledge the facts to the detriment of all.

Where did OP say it happens a lot or that scientific research cannot be trusted?

And you declaring something as an established fact is part of the problem. In Science nothing is an established fact. Something can always come along and derail the previously thought of 'established fact' - which happened with plate tectonics, germ theory, etc. - When you declare something as established fact, then you stop even bothering to check the science and automatically reject anything that goes against your mindset. Which is what happened in this instance. Everyone just accepted the paper and it's conclusion because it fit with what they already believed so no need to check it! Confirmation bias. And you are also doing science by consensus. You would make a terrible scientist Tassman.

[Sparko]

Your telepathic reading of their motivations would be more plausible if what you said was actually true. The paper did not confirm existing beliefs: It argued the rate of ocean temperature change was significantly different to the current consensus view on the subject. That would be an important finding, if correct. But anyone motivated by a desire to have their existing beliefs confirmed would not be motivated to publish a study overturning a consensus view without careful checking.


Sure. There are plenty of other examples to be found of papers that slip through the pre-publication checks and subsequently need to be corrected/withdrawn. But this is one such example, yes.

Except, there's literally zero reason to believe this example relates to that in any way. If that's the point you're trying to prove, this example is not relevant.

1. The paper challenged, rather than confirmed, the status quo. So that makes nonsense of the assumption that it slipped through due to endorsing the status quo.
2. Beyond that, there's not a shred of evidence whatsoever that there was any confirmation bias in the review process.

If all you've got is "I tOtaLLy KnoW iT wAs CoNfIrmAtiOn BiaS!!!"... well, okay.

no. the paper reinforced the idea of how bad global warming is and the fear that we need to do something now, the motivation all such climatologists have. They want evidence that shows how bad things are getting in order to get more funding and to motivate people to do something. So this paper fed right into that and it was accepted as useful. Nobody wanted to rock the boat because it would affect their goals and funding aspirations.

So it was confirmation bias.

[Cow Poke]

Certainly, it happens occasionally and is rectified when it occurs, as happened here. My objection to the OP was the implication that it happens a lot in science, with the corollary that scientific research cannot be trusted...

There was no such implication except in your big empty pointed head.

[Cow Poke]

Where did OP say it happens a lot or that scientific research cannot be trusted?

Tassman's anti-Christian bigotry manufactured that.

[Starlight]

the paper reinforced the idea of how bad global warming is and the fear that we need to do something now, the motivation all such climatologists have.

Eh? Where do you get this crazy from?

They want evidence that shows how bad things are getting in order to get more funding and to motivate people to do something.

So... they are motivated by Big Funding huh? And... they want people to do something about a thing they actually know isn't a problem, because they know they're just making it up to get funding, but at the same time they really really want something done about the thing they are a making up? Do you know how crazy this sounds?

Nobody wanted to rock the boat because it would affect their goals and funding aspirations.

Your telepathy is impressive. As is the sheer level of crazy with regard to your ideas about what tends to be in the heads of scientists.

You're guessing entirely wrong about the kinds of ways that incentives affect the scientific process, and what you're saying is really implausible as a result.

[shunyadragon]

Eh? Where do you get this crazy from?

Moon walking sprinkling stardust . . . sparko, sparko and sparko.

[Sparko]

Moon walking sprinkling stardust . . . sparko, sparko and sparko.

Says the loony who hasn't made a lick of sense in the last year.

[Sparko]

Eh? Where do you get this crazy from?

So... they are motivated by Big Funding huh? And... they want people to do something about a thing they actually know isn't a problem, because they know they're just making it up to get funding, but at the same time they really really want something done about the thing they are a making up? Do you know how crazy this sounds?

Your telepathy is impressive. As is the sheer level of crazy with regard to your ideas about what tends to be in the heads of scientists.

You're guessing entirely wrong about the kinds of ways that incentives affect the scientific process, and what you're saying is really implausible as a result.

Judging by your ad hom and emotionalism, I'd say I hit the nail on the head there.

AGW is more of a cult than a science.

[Tassman]

Judging by your ad hom and emotionalism, I'd say I hit the nail on the head there.

AGW is more of a cult than a science.

If you define "cult" as a relatively small group of people having unsubstantiated beliefs regarded by others as strange or ill-informed, then it is the AGW deniers that are the cult.

[One Bad Pig]

If you define "cult"...

We don't. Next?

[Tassman]

We don't. Next?

It's effectively a suicide cult.