Global warming alarmists and their allies in the media were ringing the alarm bells last summer after a study in the journal Nature claimed the global phytoplankton population had declined by 40% since 1950. The alarmists and their media allies aggressively focused attention on the study and made the additional assertion that global warming and carbon dioxide emissions must be to blame.
A just-released follow-up study in Nature, however, shows flaws in the original study and documents that the global phytoplankton population has risen, rather than fallen, over the past several decades.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
daveburton on Gallup Poll Shows That Very Fe… daveburton on Will Yale Censor My Comme… daveburton on Gallup Poll Shows That Very Fe… John on The Price Of Telling The Truth… Don Gaddes on Seven Year Drought Killed 40%… Bill Sokeland on NSIDC : Arctic Was Ice Free In… Notes To Ponder on 45 Years Since Paul Ehrlich Wa… gator69 on A Proof That Greenhouse Gas Dr… gator69 on Toto Has Moved! Menicholas on Toto Has Moved!
Lies on top of lies!
Yeh…… well anyone believing we could get accuracy of that sort by using secchi disks were either delusional, moronic or disingenuous.
CO2 would be fertilizer, carbon can be limiting in the open ocean….
You would see an increase in phyto, just like the follow-up. Until something else becomes limiting. Usually that’s phosphorus, and that’s followed by iron………
It’s fun to re-read the original reports now. Here’s Richard Black telling us how it was going to be even worse than we thought.
It rather shows just how meaningless “peer review” science can be.
If you have 4-5 reviewers that agree with you, You’re good to go…..
The whole process is really very easy as long a you stick to consensus science or stick to something they can spin off for their own funding.
While taking a slow ride home today, I contemplated just that thought about the “value” of peer-review.
From time to time I reflect on things. Lately, I’ve been looking at some old posts at ClimateAudit. I can reaffirm that many of the studies our policy makers have based their decisions on studies 1) won’t release the underlying data, 2) won’t release the methodologies and 3) the findings are not reproducible. All of them being peer-reviewed, such as the referenced secchi disk study. Peer-review is often nothing more than like-minded ideologues agreeing with each other. Especially in climatology.
I believe a new standard should, at a bare minimum, be able to meet the criteria listed above. The underlying data must be released (it shouldn’t have to be asked for.) The methodology should be shown and explained in detail (and arguments for the validity of the methodology provided and agreed with) and the results must be able to be reproduced, else, it should be disregarded. In addition, the reviewers should be made public for no other reason than to hold them to scorn and ridicule for allowing nonsense to be passed off as science.