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
Good article Donna. We need more of that, you know, the truth.
_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.
And I might add, the whole truth.
Dave Wendt says:
January 19, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Hell, that’s less than the BBB charges and the endorsement will likely carry more weight… [ba dum dum crash!]
Mark
“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” ?
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
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. . .
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
“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
Dear Moderators,
Duplicate paragraph in posting:
“EurekAlert! deeply regrets the accidental posting…”
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!
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!
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.
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!
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.
It’s all part of a big oil/coal funded sting to discredit AGW………..
Tells yer….
@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
“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.
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 … 😉 .
“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?
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?
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.
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?
Don’t worry, Science or Nature will make it the cover story.
Climate rule 101: Don’t make predictions that can be verified within a timeframe that includes the extent of your career (or preferably lifetime).