|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 26, 2011 9:50:55 GMT -8
Nature Magazine had a paper last year that was much ballyhooed in the popular press claiming that phytoplankton had decreased 40% world wide and it was the fault of man made global warming. Now with little fan fare Nature published two articles saying basically, "Well, never mind". Original article and links to new findings. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 26, 2011 11:51:32 GMT -8
This from near the bottom of the linked page. . .
Closer scrutiny of BLW’s report fails to support their conclusion of a significant “global phytoplankton decline.â€
Well, well, well.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 26, 2011 13:53:02 GMT -8
This from near the bottom of the linked page. . . Closer scrutiny of BLW’s report fails to support their conclusion of a significant “global phytoplankton decline.â€Well, well, well. AzWm Same old story. Big news of dire findings that when disproved get ignored. But the public goes on thinking there is a big problem in that area. Warmth Coral Reefs Tornadoes Hurricanes Phytoplankton Droughts Sea Ice Ocean Temperature Ozone Layer Ice Age Floods Climate refugees Sea Level Snow less future More extreme weather Amphibian declines |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 27, 2011 16:02:15 GMT -8
This from near the bottom of the linked page. . . Closer scrutiny of BLW’s report fails to support their conclusion of a significant “global phytoplankton decline.â€Well, well, well. AzWm And pray tell who wrote that? Yup, one of those scientists at Scripps, an institution that believes in climate change, which Bill claims is just a fraud to get grant funds. It's called peer review. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 27, 2011 16:28:20 GMT -8
This from near the bottom of the linked page. . . Closer scrutiny of BLW’s report fails to support their conclusion of a significant “global phytoplankton decline.â€Well, well, well. AzWm Same old story. Big news of dire findings that when disproved get ignored. But the public goes on thinking there is a big problem in that area. Who ignored it and who were the people criticizing his research? It's amazing, but not surprising, that you don't seem to understand the concept of peer review. Let's see; we have Steve Short who is the director of a private environmental consultant firm in Australia, Francesc Peters, who teaches at a marine science institute in Barcelona and Mark Ohman, professor of biological oceanography at Scripps along with 3 brief communications written by quite a few people all stating his research is wrong and you think it was swept under the rug. Got news for ya Bill, a large majority of the American public doesn't read a newspaper, let alone Nature. And, BTW, which popular press ballyhooed it? And if they did, they clearly didn't understand it since they state that climate forcing is suggested but the record is insufficient to resolve long-term trends. Do yourself a favor, pick up a copy of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and read it - or re-read it if haven't in a long time. The popular press lives on sensationalism. It's unfortunate that you see all this as some sort of conspiracy. =Bob |
|
