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
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
False and impossible? My country will warm by 2.4°C by end of February. It is worse than, well, they thought.
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
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.
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.
“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!
Peter Miller says: January 19, 2011 at 11:02 am
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.
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?
Osvaldo Canziani was an editor in the AR4
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR4/website/fi.pdf
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?
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 !
*****
“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….
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.
Scientific American appears to be running this story, or is at least still quoting the ‘2.4C by 2020’ scenario here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-crop-shortfall
Does this mean Gavin Scmitthtt wil be on the Black List????
The money quote from these jerks…
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:
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.
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.
pat says:
Don’t worry, Science or Nature will make it the cover story.
Saw your comment about the same time I saw this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/19/scientific-american-still-running-false-warming-story/
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”).
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.
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.
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.
Apparently we should not trust ‘science’ produced by obscure think tanks. Thank goodness we have the AAAS and NAS.
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.