Between 30 metres and 90 metres below the surface of the Caribbean Sea, an ancient sponge species that grows a hard skeleton has been quietly recording changes in the ocean temperature for hundreds of years.

Now those sponges are at the centre of a bold and controversial claim made in a leading scientific journal that, since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the planet may have already warmed by 1.7C – half a degree more than estimates used by the United Nation’s climate panel.

Several leading scientists urged caution, saying the research had “over-reached” and questioned whether such a bold claim could be made based on one sponge species from a single location.

But Prof Malcolm McCulloch of the University of Western Australia, who led the research published in the journal Nature Climate Change, said the results were robust.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 48 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That is absolutely antithetical to the scientific process. Nothing is considered 'fact' until rigorously proven. This is interesting evidence that absolutely warrants criticism.

[–] RedAggroBest 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yea, why is it "one scientist said so despite their claim disputing the current standard! Fact now". This paper needs independent verification and follow up studies to confirm they didn't just massively fuck up their numbers or something else

[+] [email protected] -18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

you've obviously never read a scientific paper.. if you understood anything about science, you would see that this method of determining sea temperature changes produces a dataset that is much more reliable than the data we have been referring to..

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

One published paper is never sufficient to claim anything as fact. To suggest otherwise is purely ignorance.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

He’s clearly trolling and arguing in bad faith.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

That's good it means this experiment should be easy to reproduce.

[+] [email protected] -13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

the scientific process is demonstrated in their paper.. if you can find fault in their methods, then there is controversy, otherwise their findings are fact.. "criticism" in science is done with research, not comments on the internet or to news outlets..

[–] [email protected] 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The scientific process requires repetition, ie "rigorous proving". One paper =\= "fact", even if no obvious fault can be found in the surface. And to be clear, the lack of repetition doesn't mean they're wrong, just that there's more to be done.