And the domino newscloning effect continues…
UPDATE: At 5:30PM PST, it appears SciAm finally realized they’d been had and pulled it.
Of course earlier today, the Guardian and other publications saw the problem and pulled this story:
AAAS withdraws “impossible” global warming paper
Hours later here’s the story still running on SciAm:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-crop-shortfall
h/t to WUWT reader “interglacial”.
This just goes to illustrate how one unchecked story, gets into the top science news publications, with apparently nobody questioning the claims.
ShrNfr National Geographic has been a rag for quite some time, but I keep getting it, because in 1965 or so my grandmother gave me a lifetime subscription , I figure I might as well bleed them dry. (if you can say bleed or blood anymore in this new age of civility).
What “rising temperatures”?
The Hadcrut3 data for December is now out. You can check the numbers here where it shows 2010 was tied for third spot:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
Or you can check the graph here where it is in second place:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
So 1998 is still the mark to beat according to Hadcut3.
You have to go back to the 1940s to find a time according to the Hadcrut3 data where the previous high mark was not beaten in ten years or less.
This could turn out well: it’s much better for warmists to make short-term predictions (e.g. 2020 instead of 2100) and wild predictions. This way their clearly ridiculous claims are exposed more quickly (cf. ‘mild’ winter in Britain, worsening drought in Australia). Of course I hope that the warming scam is over by 2020, but this will be a funny one to look back on!
SA has found a “memory hole” for this article as of 1730 PST
They yanked it. Page not found. No explanation, no nothing. Just evaporated due to the heat apparently.
As of 5:32 pm, the page on “Scientific” “American” is down. Some of the comments were risible.
The link to SA doesn’t work now. I guess they finally came to grips with reality.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-crop-shortfall
Change the name to Unscientific American and you’ll never have to apologize or retract anything ever again.
Looks like they wised up. The link is dead now and a search of the site shows nary a trace, except a scattering of defunct links.
I doubt there are any “scientific” people associated with Scientific American. Just more of the same radical journalism graduates. I had to quit reading it quite some time ago.
This is off topic, but carbon trading has been suspended on the EU market.
http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2011/01/cap-and-trade-fail-european-union.html
I did however enjoy the web poll they conducted of their readers!
Not many votes there for man made global warming.
Of course they claimed that WATTS UP rigged the poll.
Is WATTS UP Really that powerful?
Jin Petrie
They’ve pulled the page.
Funny. It is actually the climate science community that pointed out the errors, not the [snip] community, which never admits their errors. It is real climate scientists that alerted the report’s authors to their errors (they went ahead and published anyway, to the detriment of their reputation). It is real climate scientists that alerted AAAS new feed and Scientific American of the error. It is real climate scientists that pointed out to the public the mistake. Not you [snip]
[Reply: Strike one… strike two… ~dbs, mod.]
They may run crap like this for the same reason MSNBC does: Nobody is watching/reading it any way. So, what difference does it make what they run?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/a-brief-lesson-in-the-int_b_811295.html
Reply: That would be strike three, banned ~ ctm
Article has now been removed but it still ‘shows’ a link on the latest headlines section of the Climate section of SciAm but that link also does not work.
I think we have to face facts – the establishment is not going to let go of AGW and the potential windfall of carbon trading until hell literally freezes over. They will continue to lie and push the propaganda. Our only recourse is to engage individuals, reason with them one on one , tell them of the law of unintended consequences and that the road to hell is paved with the best intentions.
I still think they’re going to round us all up for re-education through labour at the big gulags they seem to be building all over the place.
And what is the Deal with Denver Airport underground?
Can anyone point me towards a Science Journal which is as good as Scientific American used to be?
I too used to almost worship Scientific American. First thing I’d read when I got in to the University Library.
Not any more, sadly
Jim Petrie
Well I have the Jan 2011 issue of SciAm on my desk, which proudly proclaims it is my Last issue in two inch high block letters on a red background. That’s a promise I intend to hold them to; although they are already offering me gingerbread cookies and candies, to get me to put my head in the oven to see if the cakes are done.
It’s too bad, because they do carry lots of articles quite out of my field; which I will keep up on by other means now.
Has anybody done a back of the envelope calculation based on the total thermal mass of the climatic environment of the earth; to figure out just how much continuous “forcing” it takes to heat the whole darn thing by 2.4 deg C in 10 years; well nine years now. And don’t forget that simply astronomical heat sink known as the latent heat of melting ice, that has to be supplied to melt the right amount of ice.
Say doesn’t the story say that albedo loss feedback is the big cause to be for this unprecedented sudden flash warming.
So they can’t say they don’t need to melt any ice; that is what is going to make this thing happen.
Good luck on that. Well Willis or Ferdinand should be able to come up with the required continuous global forcing from here on out, to meet the new deadline.
Peter Gleick says:
January 19, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Funny. It is actually the climate science community that pointed out the errors, not the climate denier community, which never admits their errors. It is real climate scientists that alerted the report’s authors to their errors (they went ahead and published anyway, to the detriment of their reputation). It is real climate scientists that alerted AAAS new feed and Scientific American of the error. It is real climate scientists that pointed out to the public the mistake. Not you deniers.
There’s a 1st time for everything.
das75428 says:
January 19, 2011 at 4:48 pm
“The comments at SA are really funny; the acolytes haven’t yet heard that even St. Gavin said “Oh Please” on this one.”
I disappoint. – gavin.
Would someone explain to me how warming would not extend the growing season? And why it would not make vast areas of land more suitable to agriculture? And if warming is indeed CO2-induced, hey free plant food!
Possibly this is a deliberate effort by extremely sophisticated skeptics to publish absurd claims, in order to win private bets within their small, deluded cabal. I believe that one of the most accomplished participants in such taxpayer funded high jinks is named Michael E. Mann. He has collected a small fortune from impressed colleagues as a result of his extreme claims.
Take heart, all you catastrophe whipstocking jockeys- SA pulled that one particularly bogus story and gave you this:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=casualties-of-climate-change