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
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…”
I think it’s pretty remarkable that they got caught out by The Grauniad of all places.
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.
The Nobel Prize? Don’t they give those out in Crackerjack boxes these days?
Don’t pretty much all climate scientists have a Nobel Prize? I notice they didn’t mention that it’s not in science.
>“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.’
“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.
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.
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
I think Canziani was on the Nobel Peace Prize Party Advisory Council.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/the-uses-and-abuses-of-a-nobel-prize/
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.
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.
Michael (January 19, 2011 at 11:17am)
You’ve already shown us this and you still can’t spell principle. Sharpen up.
Wow!
So, the peer review process failed. Who would have thought that.
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.
“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.
Shouldn’t he more accurately be cited as:
“prolific realclimate.org blogger and part-time NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt ” ?
.
Publik elamentari skool grad?
[Reply: Gubmint scool☺]
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!
“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 …”
.
“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?
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.
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.
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!