Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study

The “science” is…unsettled.



1 Like

Mistakes happen. It is at least commendable that the scientists involved were gracious (and prompt) in admitting them.

“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there. We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly”

Not all scientists have been so mannerly in responding to criticisms.


Good stewardship of the earth and its resources is still an issue.

1 Like

Who is arguing that we should be bad stewards of the Earth and its resources?


It is plainly evident that the argument is widespread though “poor stewardship” is not argued for per se, rather “the economy” and “jobs” and “the price of energy” are used to limit controls on pollution.


Lesson here is not to report as fact what should be presented as theory, even if you feel you have overwhelming evidence.


it doesn’t change too much if you read the article. The oceans are still warming.

Aren’t things like the economy, jobs, and energy prices valid concerns? Most people have jobs and use energy, maybe you don’t, but that would put you in a pretty small minority.

1 Like

There’s another thread going on evolution right now that I think ties to this. It seems that evolution and global warming are more matters of faith than scientific theory to a lot of people.

1 Like

…only if you ignore all the evidence.

Global Warming: Another Doomsday Climate Model Flunks A Math Test



  • 11/15/2018

Global Warming: Everyone makes mistakes, but some mistakes are bigger than others. That’s the case with a recent study based on a climate model that claimed the oceans had retained 60% more warming than previously thought. It made headlines around the world with its alarming conclusion.

The study itself, by no fewer than ten authors, made sweeping claims. The authors wrote that the study held “implications for policy-relevant measurements of the Earth response to climate change, such as climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases and the thermal component of sea-level rise.”

In other words, this study is a game-changer that policy makers ignored at their own — and our — peril.

He added: “Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean. We really muffed the error margins.”

Spoken like a true scientist. And no, we’re not being snarky. That’s how science gets done. When someone finds error in a study or paper, the authors should double-check their work and correct it. That’s what happened.

But there are two huge problems with this.

One, the media — including the Washington Post and the BBC — that so enthusiastically covered the initial release of the paper will not give the corrections of their mistaken reports nearly as prominent display as the original. So, for many readers, the mistaken impression of a world undergoing dramatic warming will linger.

Math Is Hard

Two, this study isn’t the only one containing a major math error. Indeed, such mistakes it turns out are shockingly common. And in truth, many papers on global warming aren’t “science” at all. They’re little more than fanciful extrapolations from statistical models.

As we’ve seen over the years, few if any of the models hold up when it comes to making climate predictions.


Not everything is evidence.

Sometimes … a lot of times … the alleged evidence is merely fabricated made-up “baloney”.


A highly circulated study claiming oceans are warming at a much higher rate due to global warming contains “key errors,” forcing researchers to issue a correction.

The lead researcher now says its findings are practically meaningless, with a margin of error “too big now to really weigh in” on ocean temperatures.


So says the Washington Free Beacon. There are more authoritative sources that disagree with their editorial.

Yes, the oceans are warming, as they have been since the end of the Little Ice Age. That fact tells us nothing at all. It is the amount of warming that matters, and on that subject the jury is still out.

“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean. We really muffed the error margins.”


OK, identify an authoritative source that disagrees that the study in question didn’t include serious math errors that now render the report virtually meaningless.


Free Beacon:

Actual quote:

The difference between the quotes is as huge as the muffed error bars.

The study does provide a distinct approach to the measurement of temperatures that aligns with the the warming treads found by others. The blogger who identified the math error stipulates to this. The work is not meaningless.

However, the experimental uncertainties were underestimated. “But they were not " ‘too big now to really weigh in’ on ocean temperatures", they simply were “too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean.” This is about precision , the crucial word left out in the Free Beacon quote, not accuracy. Warming is up but within error, it may not be up by such an alarming amount.

1 Like

When I was a kid, a long time ago (although not by climate standards) the issue was global cooling - we were heading for a new ice age. Now, it’s global warming. Maybe the Earth has its own rhythm of warming and cooling? And while I agree that man-made pollution is not good for the environment, I’m not sure if the effect is more than marginal.


Saying that the seas are warming is really meaningless unless one can say how much they are warming and whether the warming is accelerating, something this study can no longer claim to do because of the error. Because the error margins are so large no reasonable conclusion can be drawn from the study.

There are observations and estimations. Whether data points constitute “evidence” depends on how they are interpreted. Comparing past predictions with current facts it would seem that what was deemed “evidence” in the past was little more than wishful thinking. There is actually very little of a factual nature to support the doomsday claims being made.

1 Like
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit