I was discussing (via email) this story, Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels with a liberal acquaintance of mine. In fact, he’s more than just a liberal, he’s Communist. With federal pension no less. Anyway, I pointed out this passage from the article,

“In a statement the authors of the paper said: “Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

“One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes.”

His reply to me consisted mostly of other quotes from the same article, this one in particular,

[Author] Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper’s estimate** of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate…

Which started me to thinking and I came to this realization, which I wrote in my reply.

The point is that the science is not settled in any sense of the word. Also, notice that every error over estimates, not under estimates, the effects of global warming. If it were just sloppy work, you’d expect a random distribution of error. Which in fact would be an argument that it’s just errors, not a concerted effort to “hide the decline” in temperature rise or mask the real data.

Temperature stations that were excluded because they didn’t support the underlying theory. Temperature stations that were NOT excluded because the areas where they were installed 30 years ago have now been built up and artificially raise temperatures. Tree ring data excluded because it shows no unusual warming, one specific tree used as AN ENTIRE DATA SET because it does.

Every revelation undermines the theory of global warming. Even what you quote throws the question back into the “we don’t know” category. Which means that as of now there is not one bit of evidence to support any change in environmental laws.

Until these so called scientists come back with balanced studies and open their data and methodology to full review by their peers no one should believe them when they say they are scientists. They are priests of a pseudo religion, expecting us to change the economic foundation of the western world on faith in their tea leaf reading.

Maybe you’re willing to do that, but most rational people want more than that, they want science.

Which I think sums up the problem with saying that despite all of the data that is now discredited (to say the least) that Global Warming Climate Change is still “settled science”.