Climate change Culture Global Warming Intelligent Design science education

Nature has retracted a major oceans warming paper, after ten months of mass freakouts

Spread the love

Here’s the notice re “Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition,” which appeared at last October and quickly attracted attention for flawed analysis.

Retraction Watch asks:

Now, nearly more than 10 months later, Nature is pulling the plug on the article. As the retraction notice states, the journal came to feel that the uncertainties in the analysis were too significant to let the paper stand: …

What about the 10-month lag? Lisa Boucher, the press manager for Nature Research, told us: “In general, when concerns are raised about papers we have published, whether by the original authors or by other researchers and readers, we look into them carefully, following an established process, consulting the authors and, where appropriate, seeking advice from peer reviewers and other external experts. These issues are often complex and as a result, it can take time for editors and authors to fully unravel them.”

Nature paper on ocean warming retracted” at RetractionWatch

Well, how about this: After the public has endured months of screaming, crying teenage truants demanding panicked assent to questionable policies, we can now clean the place up and get back to science?

Do you think that is not a fair assessment? Well, one thing for sure is true. The more sobbing, screaming teens are paraded in front of the public, the more reasonable climate skepticism begins to sound.

A question: If climate issues are so serious, why is Greta Thunberg the spokesperson? Whatever the reality, that whole circus revolving around an unhappy teen seems tailor-made for fashionable freakouts—with no serious commitments beyond bringing one’s own plastic bags to the grocery store and denouncing whoever thou thinkest to be less environmentally friendly than thou art… And starting a witch hunt against such persons, of course. That’s the real fun.

If responsible people truly believed that climate change is both drastic and preventable, the Children’s Crusade would get sent back to school in favor of real leadership. And when they get there, let’s hope they learn real science instead of the currently fashionable war on science. Maybe that last one is too much to ask though.

Here’s a list of fifty years of failed environment doom predictions.

Keep up to date with Retraction Watch. You learn a lot there that you wouldn’t learn from failing local media.

15 Replies to “Nature has retracted a major oceans warming paper, after ten months of mass freakouts

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related note, here is an excellent lecture on the fraudulent data behind the Global warming hoax

    Prof. Tim Ball provides a comprehensive overview of the eugenic origins of CO2 alarmism

  2. 2
    asauber says:

    Greta is the perfect spokesperson… she’s a warped, manipulated child. The climate change movement is made up of warped, manipulated children, whose adult childhood is perpetually being stolen by the boogeyman. The science is irrelevant. Just beat the drums louder, and don’t ever stop.


  3. 3
    AaronS1978 says:

    Greta is also an actress

    When I first saw her concerned for the world we are all gonna die speak, I notice it just seemed so scripted and she did seem to be showing any of the tell tale sign of someone emotionally up set.

    Well here might be why, so this was very likely staged, to try to punch you in the feels for the greater good, maybe.

    I’m 100% for being good Stewart’s of the planet, but this is bull.

  4. 4
    asauber says:


    The clip I saw was of her constantly looking down at a piece of paper for cues and/or lines for her rant.


  5. 5
    AaronS1978 says:

    Yep it’s why I felt suspicious of it right from the get go

    But questing it makes me a science denier I think climate change is fake Irrational uneducated bully

  6. 6
    john_a_designer says:

    Climate change is settled science! Well, at least it’s settled as much a science can be settled. Climate has always been changing. It’s either been getting warmer or cooler throughout geological time. I BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE!!! However, that doesn’t mean humans have had or will have any measurable effect on the climate.

  7. 7
    News says:

    I approach this as a grandmother. I don’t like it when teens are co-opted into craziness like that. It’s not good for them. They should be encouraged to study ecology in their biology classes and work on remediation projects in the community. There they learn what can be done, what can’t, and why. Carrying on in front of world leaders is a delusion by comparison, in terms of their future life.

  8. 8
    ET says:

    If what GHG’s do is make the overnight lows a little warmer, I don’t see how that is a bad thing, especially for plants, including crops. And yes that is more than enough to skew the average daily temperatures upward. Still it’s really water vapor that does the most. Cloud cover keeps the warmth from leaving, not CO2. Humid air heats up and cools down more slowly than dry air- see deserts vs Florida.

    Greta should have been complaining about the trash in the oceans that comes from the rivers in Asia and Africa (95%). She didn’t mention the dirty glaciers that melt even in freezing temperatures if the Sun’s rays can get to them. There is real pollution that we should be concerned with. She didn’t mention any of it.

    And, in the end, she gave her speech to the most visible yet useless organization on the planet. Maybe they will vote on a non-binding resolution- or vote to work on a non-binding resolution.

  9. 9
    ET says:

    On another note- Back in 2002-04 there was a young Canadian girl that came up with the idea to mix recycled plastic pellets in with (stone mastic) asphalt to make roads more durable. (I heard about it while I was working @ OPG and staying in Pickering.) She was younger than Greta. We need more idea people and fewer complainers.

    I don’t care that Greta is young, just say something people can act on. Tell the UN to commission the massive fishing factories to net and collect the Pacific island of floating trash and process it. It may lead to a real solution if that isn’t possible.

    Anyone can complain. People tend to forget about you as soon as you leave the room, though. But give those same people some task that is achievable and will have an impact, and they will talk about it long after you have gone. And then you can get a focused movement that may have a chance of succeeding.

    The trash problem, land and sea, would have been a much better issue to focus on. It is something that people can see, smell and deal with every day. That is something I would worry about if I was a teenager. It just keeps accumulating. Clearly we could prevent most of it just by limiting packaging. And limit bottled water to those places that don’t have access to clean water.

    Hey, will the UN let me speak? 😀

  10. 10
    john_a_designer says:

    The following is a graph which is the result of study carried out by a team of Australian researchers.


    So boys and girls, what do we see when we look at this graph? When were the sea levels rising the fastest? Long ago just after the end of the last ice age or more recently after mankind began polluting the environment with ugly, sooty smelly carbon– C-O-2! (The teacher, unfortunately, doesn’t tell her students the truth that CO2 is a tasteless, colorless and odorless naturally occurring gas but to be loyal her cause “to save the planet” she has to lie.)

    The point is that if you honestly and objectively look at the graph sea live rise, since the beginning of the industrial revolution just a few hundred years ago, you can see it has been anything but catastrophic. Indeed, it has risen because the level has been rising for the last 20,000 years. The ice age was not caused by mankind. Its ending was not caused by mankind. Those are the FACTS, and you don’t need a PhD. to understand the facts.

  11. 11
    john_a_designer says:

    The following is a long list of doomsday climate change predictions beginning in the 1960’s:

    How many have come true? Look and decide for yourself.

    Is there a cautionary tale here?

  12. 12
    BobRyan says:

    The ones claiming those opposed to them are science deniers are the biggest deniers themselves. They don’t do any real research and their claims cannot hold up to real scrutiny. The earth has been warming since 1860, but they want to claim it to be 1880. The last thing they was is for people to realize 1860 was the end of the little ice age and a warming trend must follow for an ice age to end. You didn’t have a major population boom and there was almost no industrialization anywhere in the world. If man impacts the weather, then why did the little ice age come to an end and why did it begin in the first place? Climate has always been changing and it always will. If they were actually being serious about pollution being an issue, then they would be asking a lot of questions of the Asian countries, particularly China. China is the biggest producer of pollution in the world.

  13. 13
    john_a_designer says:

    Dr. Patrick Moore was a founding member and activist with Greenpeace. He served as president of Greenpeace, Canada, during the late 1970’s. He left Greenpeace in 1986 he says because it abandoned science and its original humanitarian mission.

    His scientific research has led him to a rather unique and politically incorrect view about CO2.

    All life is carbon based and the primary source of this carbon is the CO2 in the
    global atmosphere.

    • As recently as 18,000 years ago, at the height of the most recent major glaciation,
    CO2 dipped to its lowest level in recorded history at 180 ppm, low enough to stunt
    plant growth. This is only 30 ppm above a level that would result in the death of
    plants due to CO2 starvation.

    • It is calculated that if the decline in CO2 levels were to continue at the same rate
    as it has over the past 140 million years, life on Earth would begin to die as soon
    as two million years from now and would slowly perish almost entirely as carbon
    continued to be lost to the deep ocean sediments.

    • The combustion of fossil fuels for energy to power human civilization has
    reversed the downward trend in CO2 and promises to bring it back to levels that
    are likely to foster a considerable increase in the growth rate and biomass of
    plants, including food crops and trees.

    • Human emissions of CO2 have restored a balance to the global carbon cycle,
    thereby ensuring the long-term continuation of life on Earth.

    • This extremely positive aspect of human CO2 emissions must be weighed against
    the unproven hypothesis that human CO2 emissions will cause a catastrophic
    warming of the climate in coming years.

    In other words, the primary argument used by the climate change dooms dayer’s is unscientific and deeply flawed.

    The following interview with Moore is also well worth watching.

  14. 14
  15. 15
    john_a_designer says:

    This so-called debate over the climate really comes down to hard data vs. theoretical projections of future climatic trends based on base on faulty (garbage-in/ garbage-out) computer models. Here’s a graph that plots “real time” satellite and weather balloon data of actual global temperatures vs. the 102 U.N.’s IPCC CMIP-5 computer projections.

    Notice that the average of all the computer models show run away global warming while the real data does not.

    Has there been some warming? Yes. We’re still coming out of the last ice age. BTW that’s also why sea levels have continued to rise. However, if you look objectively at sea levels for the last 10,000 years it has slowed down dramatically. That means it’s not rising as dramatically as the “climatistas” want you to believe. Is the real data the basis for draconian changes in environmental policy and law? Hardly. And…

    Here’s a key question: Are the rising levels of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere really bad? The following article argues NO.

    In 2016 a paper was published by 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries that analysed satellite data and concluded that there had been a roughly 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years. The study attributed 70% of this increase to the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The lead author on the study, Zaichun Zhu of Beijing University, says this is equivalent to adding a new continent of green vegetation twice the size of the mainland United States…

    There should have been no surprise about this news. Thousands of experiments have been conducted over many years in which levels of CO2 had been increased over crops or wild ecosystems and boosted their growth. The owners of commercial greenhouses usually pump CO2 into the air to speed up the growth of plants. CO2 is plant food…

    Yet this never gets mentioned. In their desperation to keep the fearmongering on track the activists who make a living off the climate change scare do their best to ignore this inconvenient truth…

    (Emphasis added.)

    It never gets mentioned because the true motivation behind man-caused-climate-change narrative is political not scientific.

    PS It should be obvious to anyone who has studied the science that CO2 is not only natural but necessary for the existence of life on earth.

Leave a Reply