Complaints over “impossible conclusions” cited as the reason.
EurekAlert withdraws climate change paper
A study warning that the planet would warm by 2.4C by 2020, creating deadly consequences for the global food supply, is being debunked as false and impossible.
The study came from a little-known, non-profit group based in Argentina, called the Universal Ecological Fund. An embargoed copy of the study appeared on Eurekalert!, a news service operated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that’s followed by many journalists.
The study was picked up by a number of international news organizations Tuesday. But it appears the study’s claims were erroneous.
The AAAS says that after receiving complaints that the study’s conclusions were impossible, it has removed all references to the study from its website.
“EurekAlert! deeply regrets the accidental posting of an erroneous news release on 18 January 2011,” the news service wrote in a notice to journalists who subscribe to the service.
“EurekAlert! deeply regrets the accidental posting of an erroneous news release on 18 January 2011,” the news service wrote in a notice to journalists who subscribe to the service.
…
“But we rely mostly on the submitting organization to ensure the veracity of the scientific content of the news release; we try to exclude unreliable information providers on the front-end of our screening process,” the notice says.
“…We deeply regret that the system failed yesterday, and we appreciate the help we received from reporters who are now setting the record straight.”
The correction came after The Guardian newspaper in the U.K. published a reaction piece to the study. The paper said it had interviewed climate scientists who told them that rapid global warming at the rates projected by the study was impossible.
“2.4 C by 2020 (which is 1.4C in the next 10 years – something like six to seven times the projected rate of warming) has no basis in fact,” NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt told the newspaper in an email.
According to The Guardian, the study’s lead author Liliana Hisas, who is the UEF’s executive director, erred by overlooking how the oceans, which absorb heat, will compensate for global warming by delaying the effects of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere.
Hisas said she stands by her report’s findings, which have been endorsed by Nobel Prize-winning Argentine climate scientist, Osvaldo Canziani.
She said the UEF did not intend to withdraw the report.
“We are just going to go ahead with it. I don’t have a choice now,” she told The Guardian.
“The scientist I have been working with checked everything and according to him it’s not wrong.”
===================================================
full story here
UPDATE: Canziani, an IPCC Nobel prize winner oversaw the paper, see:
The Uses and Abuses of a Nobel Prize
:-)…….its time to pop the popcorn!!! This should be an interesting go around. Gavin is claiming something is too alarmist??? You know, this has should be fun.
“Hisas said she stands by her report’s findings, which have been endorsed by Nobel Prize-winning Argentine climate scientist, Osvaldo Canziani.”
That’s pretty much all that needs to be said right? Climate scientists, even those w/ Nobel prizes, endorse “impossible” science all the time.
Surely James Hansen would approve of the study.
My take on this story is here:
The Uses and Abuses of a Nobel Prize
Tee hee.
Would this report have been withdrawn pre-Climategate? It’s not so long ago that warmists could print pretty much whatever they liked. Now, even Gavin Schmidt gets coy – and comes out with stuff like “2.4C by 2020 […] has no basis in fact.”
From here
I must be missing something, when has something like “false and impossible” been sufficent to retract a story about global war..climate cha…disr….er…Challenge (whatever). Usually the more dramatic and apocoliptic, the better.
Is it overly cynical to think that this was done on purpose (or at least exploited), so that the cliscis can point to it as an example of how they don’t agree with overhyped claims?
AAAS has pulled the paper from their site but not before stories like these got circulated:
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Food+prices+soar+world+gets+warmer/4130180/story.html
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110118/climate-change-crop-shortages-110118/20110119?hub=BritishColumbiaHome
“2.4C by 2020 (which is 1.4C in ten years…”
I seem to be missing something. 2.4C by 2020 is 2.4C in nine years isn’t it?
“She said the UEF did not intend to withdraw the report. “We are just going to go ahead with it. I don’t have a choice now,” she told The Guardian.”
Reminds me of an XO that I had once who told his wardroom, “The only thing worse than making a bad decision is changing it.”
I’m surprised she didn’t say, “Nobel prize winner Al Gore endorsed this paper”
How is this study more or less impossible than the other modeling studies. Is there a climate science law that forbids tuning up the warming fudge factor beyond 2.3 or something? 😉
I am concerned about the excuse given as to why the paper’s conclusion was wrong, namely:” According to The Guardian, the study’s lead author Liliana Hisas, who is the UEF’s executive director, erred by overlooking how the oceans, which absorb heat, will compensate for global warming by delaying the effects of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere.”
This is the sort of crass error made with respect to the Himalyan glaciers. The oceans are not a small matter, covering more than 70% of the surface of the earth. and (ignoring the core) contain probably in the region of 99% of the heat content of the earth. Do these scientist know nothing about the basic geology and make up of the planet? How could any scientist make such an error. It speaks volumes as to their competency.
An article about the study before it was retreated:
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110118/climate-change-crop-shortages-110118/20110119?hub=BritishColumbiaHome
James Sexton is quite right. For years, the most ridiculous alarmism has been published unchecked.
If the proponents of CAGW had themselves policed the outlandish claims which have been made, the question might have remained one of science, not politics or religion. But never a word was spoke, even against the Goracle.
Now the cleansing has, I hope, begun then popcorn is the appropriate snack.
This fits in well with my theory that the anti carbon movement is about to violently fracture. The failures of Nopenhagen and Candoom have started a struggle for purity within the ranks by those who feel they aren’t “winning” because they aren’t extreme enough. It has been the extreme extremists that have pushed things for some time, but the “moderate” faction is gaining. This will be unacceptable to the hardcore. The implosion should be most entertaining.
They just need to change “global warming” by “global cooling” and the conclusion will be good. Cold, not warmth, kills crops.
WTF says:
January 19, 2011 at 10:21 am
“Wow when Gavin Schmidt calls BS…………………………………”
When Gavin S#h*it calls BS, it’s probably true.
Is this some kind of ploy to look reasonable by refuting outlandish claims ?
endorsed by Nobel Prize-winning Argentine climate scientist, Osvaldo Canziani.
That’s some mighty fine hair-splitting. Hint: if you go to the Wikipedia article “list of Nobel laureates”, you won’t find his name anywhere…
“2.4 C by 2020 (which is 1.4C in the next 10 years – something like six to seven times the projected rate of warming) has no basis in fact,” NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt told the newspaper in an email.
———————————————
It is a bit sad, that the Guardian asked climate activist scientist Schmidt and not a real scientist.
A real scientist would propably have said, that models could easily be too high by a factor of 6 to 7, so why can’t they be too low by the same factor ?
I agree with Dave’s comment.
This looks like a ploy to make alarmists appear reasonable people by publicly rejecting extremely outrageous and unfounded climate forecasts, but that means they can – and still intend to – go ahead with making outrageous and unfounded forecasts.
“To get to +2.4C the current trend would have to immediately increase almost ten-fold.”
Oh, those pesky decimal points.
Frankly, i`m amazed they ran the story ,the Gruaniad`s dedication to to climate catastrophism is usually as obsessively compulsive as the bbc.
I`m getting my binoculars out,there must be bacon on the wing out there somewhere.
Seems AAAS has a history of this. In my 10/4/10 American Thinker article, The Curious History of ‘Global Climate Disruption’ http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/the_curious_history_of_global.html, I point out how they (under then-president Jane Lubchenco, now head of NOAA) linked to another enviro-advocacy site in 1997. This is the same enviro-advocacy group that has every appearance of being the epicenter of the ’96-to-present smear of skeptic scientists, as I described later in my article.