AAAS withdraws “impossible” global warming paper

click for the story

Complaints over “impossible conclusions” cited as the reason.

from CTV:

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

About these ads

117 thoughts on “AAAS withdraws “impossible” global warming paper

  1. :-)…….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.

  2. “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.

  3. 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.”

  4. Scientist Scott Mandia forwarded to AFP an email he said he sent to Hisas ahead of publication explaining why her figures did not add up, and noting that it would take “quite a few decades” to reach a warming level of 2.4 degrees Celsius.

    “Even if we assume the higher end of the current warming rate, we should only be 0.2C warmer by 2020 than today,” Mandia wrote.

    “To get to +2.4C the current trend would have to immediately increase almost ten-fold.”

    Mandia described the mishap as an “honest and common mistake,” but said the matter would certainly give fuel to skeptics of humans’ role in climate change.

    “More alarmism,” said Mandia. “Don’t get me wrong. We are headed to 2.4, it is just not going to happen in 2020.”

    From here

  5. 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.

  6. 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?

  7. “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?

  8. “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.”

  9. 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? ;-)

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. They just need to change “global warming” by “global cooling” and the conclusion will be good. Cold, not warmth, kills crops.

  14. 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.

  15. 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…

  16. “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 ?

  17. 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.

  18. “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.

  19. 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.

  20. But Gavin!


    “The scientist I have been working with checked everything and according to him its not wrong.”

    It is, therefore, unequivocal…QED

    Let’s also given them a billion dollars to expand their study! After all…


    “…we cannot afford to wait a century for views on climate change to catch up to climate science…”

  21. Stonyground, yes you are missing something – the 2.4C is relative to the pre-global-warming value, which Gavin sets at 1.0C below now.

  22. Don’t pretty much all climate scientists have a Nobel Prize? I notice they didn’t mention that it’s not in science.

  23. >“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?

    Gavin’s spin setting was left on high by accident. The next sentence was probably along the lines of – ‘….and because of this unprecedented CO2 induced warming, we can anticipate considerably cooler winters, droughts, floods, barbecue or dismal summers, and/or normal weather, for the foreseeable future.’

  24. “The scientist I have been working with checked everything and according to him its not wrong.”

    Which strangely, doesn`t seem as unequivocal as “You’re right,” does it?

    About normal, for post normal science.

  25. A CO2 foundation will not hold.

    These persons of fraud will fail.

    A cracked CO2 foundation also can not be repaired by lie base patched.

    Fools over played a lie base and pure bluff hand of cards.

  26. Interesting. ScottMandia (who I have every regard for and used to post here) is head of the ‘climate rapid response team’ who has The Guardian as one of its ‘clients. No doubt Scott would have put this forward to Gavin once the Guardian had run it past the RRT.

    We sceptics could do with a similar service.

    Tonyb

  27. This embarassment makes Gavin Schmidt look good; he is honest to point out that there is an upper limit to all this alarmism; he does not endorse everything that points to climate doom.
    Which is why I think the whole debarcle could have been organised so that The Guardian and Gavin’s quite measured warming predictions could gain credibilty.
    The KGB would have been proud.

  28. A CO2 foundation is not one on which a house of cards such as Man Made Global Warming shoud be built.

    The ones who have self instructed themselves to belive their own misapplication of some selected known facts are now left alone to share the knowing fear of the truth.

    They over played and attempted to bluff their way out of the information hole they dug for themselves.

    Now fear makes them quite odd and off putting to us all.

  29. Michael (January 19, 2011 at 11:17am)

    You’ve already shown us this and you still can’t spell principle. Sharpen up.

  30. http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/the-uses-and-abuses-of-a-nobel-prize/

    Has explored and found Canziani to have been part of the team with Gore, awarded the Peace prize for ‘raising awareness’. He was co-chair of the Working Group 2 for IPCC’s 2007 report which was responsible saying the Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035.

    I can’t see why Gavin is objecting, these kind of levels of catastrophic increases in warming have been the driving force to frighten people into complying and he uses the higher figure from the 2007 report in his thinking. So not the 6 or 7 times greater than estimate.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperature increased 0.74+/- … during the 20th century. Most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century has been caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, which result from human activity such as the burning of fossil fuel and deforestation. ………. Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature is like to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 degrees C during the 21st century.

    Looks a bit like the 6.4 has just been doubled or something? As for Gavin saying it wasn’t based in fact, none of the projections are, they’re all bases on gigo models.

  31. “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.

    Let me see:

    2020 – 2011 = 10

    Yep, them NASA scientists sure are smart.

  32. … NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt …

    Shouldn’t he more accurately be cited as:

    prolific realclimate.org blogger and part-time NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt ” ?

    .

  33. Michael January 19, 2011 at 11:17 am says:

    It explains the Precautionary Principal [sic] …

    Publik elamentari skool grad?

    [Reply: Gubmint scool☺]

  34. Even Nobel Laureates can be wrong! And it was the Nobel PEACE Prize, for promoting global warming, and not for veracity of his science! He got it as part of the IPCC which got the prize for the best propaganda production!

  35. “The study was picked up by a number of international news …”

    s/b rewritten:

    The study was lapped up eagerly up by a number of international news …”

    .

  36. “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.

    No flies on our Gav, eh!

    With his new found mathematical skills, perhaps Gav could shed some light on the old climate conundrum: Why is it hotter in the summer than it is in the country?

  37. In a strictly technical sense I am a Nobel Prize winner in the same category as Mr. Canziani. Years ago I was an active member of an organization to which the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded, to the group as a whole. If you have the lingering feeling that your works or comments are somehow lacking in gravitas, maybe we can work something out. For, let’s say, a couple of six packs of Guinness I’d be willing to add the endorsement of a Nobel Prize winner to your efforts. Of course, if it really stinks, we may have to go for a case.

  38. simon abingdon says: Wrote
    January 19, 2011 at 11:45 am
    Michael (January 19, 2011 at 11:17am)

    “You’ve already shown us this and you still can’t spell principle. Sharpen up.”

    Thanks. Fixed. What would I do without my proof readers.

  39. _Jim says:
    January 19, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    ” … NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt …

    Shouldn’t he more accurately be cited as:

    “prolific realclimate.org blogger and part-time NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt ?””

    Well, Gavin’s education is entirely in math if I recall correctly. As with Connelly, people keep on calling these 3-card monte mathematicians “climatologists.”

    This is of course necessary for the media since it stating their true education would make it clear that global warming is a calculated disaster.

  40. Dave Wendt says:
    January 19, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    For, let’s say, a couple of six packs of Guinness I’d be willing to add the endorsement of a Nobel Prize winner to your efforts. Of course, if it really stinks, we may have to go for a case.

    Hell, that’s less than the BBB charges and the endorsement will likely carry more weight… [ba dum dum crash!]

    Mark

  41. “2.4 C by 2020 … has no basis in fact,” NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt

    How can any form of crystal ball gazing have a “basis in fact” ?

  42. That is faster warming than during the period when glacials end. That is truly an amazingly bogus result. Of course, any warming that exceeds the rate in the transition from glacial to interglacial is inherently BS.

    John Kehr

  43. Doesn’t this make a great opening scene for a Holywood blockbuster? A maverick scientist – genius in his field – makes a doomsday prediction. Mainstream scientists shout ‘impossible.’ But the audience instinctively knows that somehow events will conspire to prove the maverick genius right, and the mainstream wrong. What crucial piece of evidence have they missed? Who will the President listen to? The scene shifts to a monitoring station in Antarctica. The team are relaxed, non chalant. Too relaxed. With trembling hands you reach for the popcorn, just as. . .

  44. richard verney said: “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.”

    Old Intelligence saying: Those who know don’t tell. Those who tell don’t know.

    IanM

  45. “So, the peer review process failed.”
    No, it didn’t fail. This was not a published paper. A “little-known organisation based in Argentina” produced a crackpot report. Wow! And Eurekalert was briefly fooled, but caught it before publication time. So?

    Eurekalert did not “withdraw the paper”; they weren’t publishing it. They withdrew a news report about the study.

    REPLY: take it up with CTV, it’s their headline. Whether its canceled, killed quashed, yanked, pulled, or withdrawn, the bottom line is that it’s still alarmist hype that should never have been there at all. IPCC got in deep doo-doo with NGO’s like WWF, and here we are are again. At least this time they listened to people who were skeptical up front.

    I see this as a win for everyone. – Anthony

  46. Dear Moderators,
    Duplicate paragraph in posting:
    “EurekAlert! deeply regrets the accidental posting…”

  47. “Hisas said she stands by her report’s findings, which have been endorsed by Nobel Prize-winning Argentine climate scientist, Osvaldo Canziani.”

    That is: Nobel Peace Prize. Winners for 2007 Al Gore + IPCC.
    For pictures, see:

    http://www.scottlondon.com/photo/oslo2007/01.html

    There is a single picture of Dr Osvaldo Canziani at 7 of 25.
    He was Co-Chair of Working Group II “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” … in the preparation of both the Third and the Fourth Assessment Reports. So, co-chair of Working Group II for 2 reports (the second in the Nobel Prize year) allows you to claim to be a Nobel Prize winning climate scientist.

    Step forward Steve M, Canadian Nobel Peace Prize Winner, who probably did more review work than the large majority of contributors!

  48. So, the conclusion is that only peer-reviewed studies can be trusted. Says a lot as well on the kind of BS that can be expected to be found on blogs!

  49. Eduardo Ferreyra says:
    January 19, 2011 at 12:38 pm
    “We know in Argentina that Osvaldo Canziani is a meteorologist gone bureaucrat that cannot predict tomorrow’s weather. He knows less about climate than Al Gore!”

    Not possible.

    I think the real problem with this ‘study’ is that the doom is prediced to a near future. Can’t have that.

  50. Dave says:
    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?

    Seems like it’s not just you thinking that. I thought that too – but it’s been shown that a vast consensus of my acquaintances consider me a cynic.

    Tannim111 says:
    The Nobel Prize? Don’t they give those out in Crackerjack boxes these days?</I.

    That's my problem – I don't eat Crackerjack!

  51. The other big error in the paper was making predictions for just nine years in the future. Most of the warmists know by now how badly this can come back to bite them. They much prefer predictions 50 to 100 years out, which are effectively unfalsifiable.

  52. @Vince Causey says:
    January 19, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    If it’s anything like ‘The Thing’, it’d be great.

    Could there be a slight change in wind direction and not every single paper with ‘cliamte change’ in it now be allowed through? intresting now if they’d just go back and check the other papers (and data) we’d be getting somewhere

  53. “We believe in the need for a more equitable society …”
    Doesn’t the mission statement of that organization say enough?
    Climate change is just a smoke screen. Reports can’t get stupid enough anymore.
    But as IPCC director Edenhofer said: “It’s not about climate and environment for long anymore. We are distributing the world’s wealth. Cancun is the biggest economic conference since WW2″. Yeah, well.
    Red-green daydreaming and pathologic self-esteem. Stop’em now.

  54. Jack Linard said in part on January 19, 2011 at 12:30 pm
    …..

    “With his new found mathematical skills, perhaps Gav could shed some light on the old climate conundrum: Why is it hotter in the summer than it is in the country?”

    ____________________________________________________________

    Simple all of the snow and ice went on holiday in the country … ;-) .

  55. “Hisas said she stands by her report’s findings, which have been endorsed by Nobel
    Prize-winning Argentine climate scientist, Osvaldo Canziani.”

    So – since we are informed that AGW causes cold, snowy winters – does this then mean that the entire northern hemisphere will be buried in 100ft or so of snow in a not too distant future winter?

  56. Tannim111 says:
    January 19, 2011 at 11:22 am

    The Nobel Prize? Don’t they give those out in Crackerjack boxes these days?

    Nope, I got mine in a Christmas Cracker last year, didn’t you?

  57. How did they get from 2.4 C by 2020 to 1.4 C in the next 10 years? It looks like a claim of 2.4 C in the next 9 years to me. If they are referring to gain over 1880, it still would be a gain of 1.7 C in 9 years.

  58. Nick Stokes,

    Eurekalert was briefly fooled? But this is a website of the AAAS so how could it be briefly fooled and not realise before several media outlets had picked up the story?

    Does Eurekalert not practice any QC over the items it publishes?

  59. Climate rule 101: Don’t make predictions that can be verified within a timeframe that includes the extent of your career (or preferably lifetime).

  60. Actually I’m quite concerned about Gavin speaking out against an extremely alarmist prediction.

    Just imagine the treatment he’s going to get from Joe Romm for doing that!

    Poor Gavin…

    Regards,

    Marcus

  61. Maybe the withdrawal of the paper as alarmist was a response of the suicide of a couple in Argentina, and the survival of their baby after three days of being shot in the chest. A tragedy, which from what a read in the headlines was caused by the parents depression over global warming. Sad a tragedy like this had to happen for ‘scientists’ to tone down alarmist rethoric

  62. The point is as well surely that they did not look at the result and say -’Huh? Lets check this.’
    The ‘checking’ was done by people who wanted the result to be true, not people who were going to be both objective and knowledgeable. It seemed a pretty basic mistake to make as well.

  63. Rob Vermeulen says:

    “So, the conclusion is that only peer-reviewed studies can be trusted. Says a lot as well on the kind of BS that can be expected to be found on blogs!”

    True. It was recently reported that the IPCC used voluminous non-peer reviewed information provided by the WWF. About 40% of their reference material came from the WWF, IIRC.

  64. “Hisas said she stands by her report’s findings, which have been endorsed by Nobel Prize-winning Argentine climate scientist, Osvaldo Canziani.”

    Didn’t Gore and the IPCC also win a Nobel Peace Prize? I suppose we can conclude from this that that a NP prize is certainly not an endorsement of credibility!

  65. Peter Miller says: January 19, 2011 at 11:02 am

    …This looks like a ploy to make alarmists appear reasonable people

    Alas, I think that most “alarmists” honestly believe that they are reasonable people – and one reason for the unreasonable edge is that they cannot believe skeptics can be reasonable people too. Look, for instance, at the Precautionary Principle, how people don’t realize they are misusing it when the stakes are high, when checking the science for correctness is more important than hedging bets. Mainstreamers claim they do pay attention to UHI whereas we know, if we look at rural-only trends compared with official overall trends, or twinned urban trends, that UHI is not being dealt with properly – so the official trend has the double effect of looking alarming and knocking out the Sun’s correlation “so it’s got to be us”. And so on.

  66. When fatman schmidt disagrees with a true believer, it’s like Jim Jones telling someone to go easy on the kool aid… That was mean, but how much doom preaching is onesupposed to take?

  67. Leaving aside the minor typo, Michael (11.17am) does have a very valid point.

    Once the Precautionary Principle has been invoked, then all normal checks and balances are summarily flushed down the toilet. The scientific method becomes redundant; it is legitimate for data to be homogenised, pasteurised (or ‘cleaned’ as UK modellers describe it), macerated and re-formed into whatever shape it needs to be; peer review ceases to be a rigorous QC process, to be replaced by rubber-stamping by a coterie of chums; model output becomes reality; and, best of all, models now produce ‘data’ which replaces observation.

    It’s all completely logical, isn’t it?

  68. The Jury will disregard the statement, that the accused probably killed the allegedly deceased, over a pot of luke warm coffee; as heresay; which is inadmissible !

    Yeah right; I didn’t hear a bloody word of that testimony !

  69. *****
    “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.
    *****

    Said thru gritted teeth, and then was spotted running to the restroom shortly afterward, covering his mouth. Confession to Cardinal James Hansen later that nite….

  70. Tonyb, A sceptic (I would say skeptic) rapid response team is an oxymoron. Besides the newspapers are trained to ignore us, so we have our little blogs instead.

  71. The money quote from these jerks…

    “The thing is, we have already put it on the internet and we had already got a lot of calls on it,” he said. “This study is going to be bantered around for months. It doesn’t make any difference whether it is released now, or we try to pull it back.”

  72. It’s most unfortunate that while Schmidt and Mandias were in “correcting the record” mode, neither of them saw fit to correct the record on:

    “The evidence that man-made greenhouse gases would cause the temperature of the planet to rise has been available for almost two decades. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Fourth Assessment Report (2007) has concluded that, unequivocally, the Earth’s warming is anthropogenic (man-made),” said FEU scientific adviser Dr Osvaldo Canziani, the former Co-Chair of Working Group II of the IPCC. [emphasis added -hro]

    Which is what the Times of India appears to have taken from the press release.

    As a former Co-Chair of the IPCC’s WG II, one would have thought that Canziani would have been aware that even the IPCC made no such direct claim. Although it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that those who crafted the original IPCC claim were hoping that it would be read exactly as Canziani appears to have taken it.

    Clearly Canziani was not watching the primary pea under the IPCC’s thimble [see Willis Eschenbach's recent open letter to Kevin Trenberth]. Perhaps the IPCC should be renamed as the Intergovernmental Panel of Confusion and Conflation.

    OTOH … speaking of Trenberth, Schmidt and Mandias … perhaps Schmidt and Mandias are only interested in correcting that which is, well, convenient (or inconvenient, as the case may be). Last time I checked RC, neither of them had bothered to correct a piece they had co-authored with Tobis – in which they had clearly unquestioningly accepted Trenberth’s false memory syndrome afflicted recollections.

  73. Hey, forget about China. The future is obviously Canada. According to the studies, AGW will be good for Canada.

    http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Food+prices+soar+world+gets+warmer/4130180/story.html

    The study, released by the U.S.-based Universal Ecological Fund, predicts that if nothing is done to arrest or adapt to climate change, global shifts in agriculture and demand will result in an increase of up to 10 per cent in Canadian production of wheat, corn and soybean.

    In an interview, Hisas said the Canadian agricultural industry could benefit from milder temperatures with increased production, but that the average Canadian would have to get used to some changes at the grocery store since other countries — particularly in warmer climates — would suffer from a reduction in production.

  74. Anthony comments: “REPLY: take it up with CTV, it’s their headline.”

    Sorry, Anthony, but I don’t think you get off that easily. The original headline didn’t say “impossible”, so this is YOUR headline. You edited it. You posted it.

    Anthony comments: “it’s still alarmist hype that should never have been there at all.”

    Again, I respectfully disagree. The website states:
    “EurekAlert! provides a central place through which universities, medical centers, journals, government agencies, corporations and other organizations engaged in research can bring their news to the media. ”
    and
    “Disclaimer to Users: AAAS disclaims responsibility for the accuracy of material posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions and for the use of any information obtained through the system.”

    They clearly state they are doing this as a service and do not vet all the materials for accuracy. To make AAAS responsible “alarmist hype” posted by others would be like making WUWT responsible for the most absurd of the “denialist hype” posted on this site. (And before people respond — there is plenty of legitimate skepticism expressed here — I am only referring to some of the extreme ideas that have occasionally been espoused, like “CO2 doesn’t absorb IR”).

  75. When you run AAAS in David Horrowitz’s “Discover the Networks”, you get immediate references to John Holdren.

    “In 2006 he was named President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science”

    This isn’t a science organization.

  76. They really need to get with the program on their cracked-soil drought picture. That’s so 2008.

    We all know that warming causes snow. Warming has always caused snow. Nobody ever thought that warming would cause drought.
    We all know that warming causes drought. Warming has always caused drought. Nobody ever thought that warming would cause snow.
    We all know that warming causes snow. Warming has always caused snow. Nobody ever thought that warming would cause drought.
    We all know that warming causes drought. Warming has always caused drought. Nobody ever thought that warming would cause snow.

  77. 2.4 degrees in 9 years, it could happen. It is not all that alarmist, I will illustrate below.

    Feb. 2011 Al Gore, found dead, in massage parlour, killed by a rabid poodle.
    Remove the Gore effect.
    +0.25c
    May 2011 Dr. T finds the missing heat, found in N Korea. Kim Jong-il was using it to make a killer Fondue.
    +.25c
    Jan 2012 Angry penguins attack resurcers. Feathers and blood increase albedo in Antarctica.
    +0.25c
    Dec 2012 (A, Moore and B, Bulshitz et al) release a paper called ” ASPHALT COOLS THE PLANET/UHI IS A MYTH”
    +0.25C
    Dec 2013 Adjustments are made based on the Moore /Bulshitz paper
    +0.25c
    Jan 2015 After swelling up to the size of Mt. Everest, Joe Romm’s head finally explodes.
    +0.25
    I could go on, but the error bars, just get bigger.

  78. Apparently we should not trust ‘science’ produced by obscure think tanks. Thank goodness we have the AAAS and NAS.

  79. In one sense, it’s a pity this anouncement was censored.
    2020 is not so far away.
    The more these people make themselves look foolish,
    the more that they will be ingored and not reported in the media.
    Then we will have more time to handle serious issues.
    It’s been great fun, but enough is enough.

  80. Michael says:
    January 19, 2011 at 11:17 am
    I made this Youtube video with pieces from part 3 of the BBC documentary, “The Power of Nightmares”. It explains the Precautionary Principal and where it came from, that has caused so much damage to our way of life and the world. This will tell you why the eco-fascists, Neo-Libs, and Neo-Cons use their apocalyptic predictions. . .

    I find it very odd that the BBC would invoke the ‘global warming’ precautionary principle, often used as the excuse for limiting anthropogenic CO2, as the means to discredit the War on Islamic Terror. Not only is the analogy entirely bogus and the claims made in the video clips false (al Qaeda is not imaginary, is seeking WMD, and will pose a dire threat if it gets them), but the BBC by all accounts is a fervent supporter of ‘global warming’ alarmism.

    There’s something quite screwy about that video.

    /Mr Lynn

  81. I’ve always loved Science. (Won’t even go into Biology…where I was introduced to Animal Behavior ‘Behaviorism’…talk about a SHOCK!)

    But, I simply must say that I truly NEVER KNEW that following ‘the behavior of Scientists’ could EVER be this much fun. I’m starting to laugh already…boy, this is fun…(as long as there are TRUE Scientists around to be kinda…’watchmen on the wall’ as it were… if there weren’t….I’d be sobbing.)

    I particularly enjoyed the quote: “The scientist I have been working with checked everything and according to him it’s not wrong.”

    hahahaha……..oooooooohhhhhhhhh that’s a good one!!! hahahaha…pass the popcorn, puhleasse! gotta keep upright on this lil’ chair…….hahaha… I’m gonna love to read what ‘Les’ says about THIS one….hahaha….it’ll be priceless….oooohhhh….

  82. Peter Gleick (above) claims to be a sceptic and calls ‘us’ all ‘deniers’.

    His article at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/a-brief-lesson-in-the-int_b_811295.html says

    “Gavin Schmidt, for example, a NASA climatologist, quickly wrote: “2.4C 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.’ ”

    I recall Gavin had no problem with the claim that all the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Why this sudden change of attitude? Was he perhaps living in denial for years?

    “Unfortunately, I’m sure we’ll see some media stories simply parroting the report’s conclusions, without bothering to check with climate scientists.”

    Peter, why would anyone check anything with ‘climate scientists’ given their wholly unsavoury reputation for clubby exaggeration? It makes no sense. Ask for a second opinion from a geologist or a physicist capable of understanding the claims in context, not someone with the feed bag strapped around their head.

    The article was written and ran because the alarmist community is filled with opportunists with partial knowledge of complex matters and confidence that no fallout will accrue for publishing blatantly, unscientific nonsense.

    How’s that historical CO2/warming rate correlation working out for you?

    “All scientists are, by definition, skeptics. Hence the motto of the Royal Society of London, one of the world’s oldest scientific academies (founded in 1660), Nullius in verba: ‘Take nobody’s word.’ ”

    I will start by not taking yours.

  83. Michael A. Lewis, Ph.D. says:
    January 19, 2011 at 8:47 pm
    “Since when does science need a Public Relations firm?”

    Ever since the scientists became corrupted by politics and the huge sums of public money they receive off the backs of the taxpayers.

    Fortunately, with the new Congress, climate science in particular may finally be in for some long overdue downsizing…

  84. ‘EurekAlert’?

    Hmmm… In Scotland ‘You reek Alert’ means ‘You smell Warning’.

    C’est approprier?

  85. I’m still waiting for a convincing demonstration that the ocean bulk does in fact absorb heat (from increased Downward Longwave Radiation) from more GHGs after accounting fully for the thermal effects of increased evaporation caused by the very same GHGs.

    Some warming of the ocean skin does seem to occur but the evidence is lacking as to whether the subskin warms cools or stays the same as a result.

    Since evaporation and radiation both combine to cause the subskin to be cooler than the ocean bulk below then one would have thought that an increase in either would intensify the cooling of the subskin rather than warm it.

    However on balance I think that the extra DLR just results in a zero effect on the ‘normal’ upward energy flow because all the DLR would be used up in enhancing the rate of evaporation and accounting for the energy deficit caused by that enhancement of evaporation by virtue of the enthalpy of vapourisation (vapourisation has a net cooling effect).

    I haven’t yet seen any evidence that a DLR warmed ocean skin does actually slow down the rate of energy flow from the subskin below it.

    It is often said that because the temperature gradient (from subskin to skin) changes then the rate of upward energy flow must slow down but that would not be the case if the enhanced rate of evaporation speeds up the rate of flow again to negate the expected slowdown from a decreased gradient.

    I think this is a critical issue for the entire AGW construct because if the extra DLR from more GHGs cannot add to ocean heat content then only the effects on the air need be considered and that would be insignificant in the face of oceanic control of surface air temperatures.

  86. Jeff Wood says:
    January 19, 2011 at 10:45 am

    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.

    The is an excellent example of what the sceptics have been doing. Debunking! Crazy claims are made in silly studies which are then published in newspapers and taken by many as valid. Just see numberwatch to realise how many have slipped through.

  87. I’ve read these comments and stopped laughing.

    Facts are that those who consider themselves to be ‘our handlers’ have begun to fall into a pit of their own making. We are ‘front row center’ at the opera where many have ‘ooohh’d and ahhh’d’ in tacit agreement and now…now, we know ‘the planet’ has been – had.

    The point that many (myself included) should’ve understood was that ‘our handlers’ (both on the elite Left and the elite Right) are sad guys and gals of little depth. I now ask you to imagine ‘the horror’ of being born ‘them’. Never to have had the love of a parent. Hustled off to boarding schools for others to tend to them… I can’t believe it.
    I am actually developing empathy for these bankrupt souls who imagine themselves ‘our handlers’.

    They are not going to ‘harm’ anyone in this ‘global community’ of their making… Why?
    They have ‘fear’ at the core of their beings. Soros, Clintons, Freud (Bernay’s uncle, for goodness sakes) Sanger…even each bozo at the U.N… and their ‘hits’ just akeep on comin’… Megalomaniacs. All of them. And, why? Why?

    Because they want to eventually find a ‘sense of self’. Validity of Self. because guys like Prince Charles or even…Blair ~ never have the moments of trial and joy and heartache that all of us have weathered through.

    They were ‘groomed’. They were never ‘allowed’ to fail or to ‘reach for the stars’. They didn’t have to scratch out a living…and eventually, all that comes with it – Character of Self.

    THAT’S why ‘they’ need to think of us as ‘serfs’ ~ THAT is why ‘they’ enjoy imagining us as an aimless herd to be prodded… ‘They’ have been told that ‘they’ are ‘in control’ – therefore they must rule at any cost. For without ‘their herds’ – they have nothing. It’s pathetic.

    And, this really DOES tie into this article Guys. I swear it does. It’s ‘why’ ‘they’ chose something so, so so…. grandiose as imagining that we’d ‘fall for’ Climate Change.

    They’ve been playing a boring game of Monopoly combined with Risk and out of their total ignorance ~ they thought we’d fall for it. Wowie Zowie. Do any of you guys like Chess? I never was very good at it. Wanna know why? (yeah yeah Les, I can hear you already…. ‘Miss Scarlett…’ well, jus’ don’t read this, okay?! (warm smiles) But, I was never good at Chess ’cause my heart wouldn’t let me. I always placed my personality ‘into’ and imagined myself – the Queen (the only truly feminine piece on the board, so – it was not ‘ego’ that did that) and I’d go ‘off’ onto the board to DEFEND AND PROTECT the rooks, the pawns, et al. I sucked at Chess. The Queen always protected though… She always gave selflessly. That’s why Chess – sucks. It’s Character, my Scientific friends. Character ~ or, rather, sadly – the lack of it – that has turned this little globe on it’s ear. And, games such as Monopoly, Risk, & Yes, Chess ~ all ‘teach’ us that the ‘herd is expendable’…when that’s the farthest thing from the Truth there is.

    Now, individuals of character are standing and joining with each other – as we all realize that our respective ‘handlers/’leaders’ are in sore need ‘intensive therapy’ and real debate will surface and men and women of integrity may again enjoy (some maybe for the first time…I’m thinkin’ China) the freedom which character alone, only – brings.

    We’re gonna win this. Reason SHALL prevail…and Les needs to build that home of his. We’re all gonna be part of the GREATEST Generation this World has ever hosted. I can feel it. I truly can…and now I just ride horses for fun…no more board games for me, not ever.

    C.L. Thorpe

  88. As I pronounced at the dinner table only last night, to nods of approval, since when is a story: ‘No measurable changes to climate in the next 100 years’ going to sell any newspapers..?

  89. When you promote a climate of hysteria, do not be surprised when hysterical people turn up on your doorstep. The AGW group is just reaping what they are sowing.

  90. Adrian Wingfield says:
    January 19, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    Leaving aside the minor typo, Michael (11.17am) does have a very valid point.
    ———————————
    I agree. There are many parallels between the war on terror and the pushing of AGW, the use of the precautionary principle in government policy formulation being a major one. The Power of Nightmares is an excellent documentary, I thank Micheal for reminding me of it and I’m watching it again now.

  91. It is worth looking at some other aspects of this “report”, alongside the extremist warming claim. These are not so out of line with the consensus.
    1. The seeking the authourity of an expert, instead of making proper validation of the numbers.
    2. Ignoring Adaptation and increasing crop yields when claiming this extreme warming will lead to global hunger.
    3. Ignoring the burden of government. Food prices have risen already because of growing fuel – in the name of combatting climate change. Stopping the subsidies and regulations will release a huge amount land for food.
    4. Extreme position also requires extreme climate disruption. The report is at the extreme end for the droughts and floods caused by climate change.

    I go into more detail at

    http://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/extremist-global-warming-paper-taken-down/

Comments are closed.