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.
Sci Am is not a credible scientific journal. It touts the tree hugger ideology and has nothing to do with the scientific principle. Good science is conducted when a hypothesis is formulated based on unbiased data, and able to withstand SKEPTICAL review. I guess, as a SKEPTIC, that I am contributing to the advancement of good science. I too subscribed to Sci Am in the past, but will never again.
Funny to see the perpetuation of Gavin’s “2.4C by 2020 (which is 1.4C in the next 10 years” arithmetical nonsense – even in the spin control article.
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/a-brief-lesson-in-the-int_b_811295.html
Do the activists in this field have really no appreciation of arithmetic? Or is it just that PCA typically indicates that 2.4=1.4?
Here is the cached copy of the article:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican.com%2Farticle.cfm%3Fid%3Dclimate-change-crop-shortfall
Look everyone, a sheep!
Peter Gleick says:
January 19, 2011 at 5:42 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/a-brief-lesson-in-the-int_b_811295.html
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… […]”
I don’t think anyone who’s ever visited Anthony’s blog has ever denied climate. You wanna’ rephrase that slur for the folks in Rio Linda? Thanks.
Peter Gleick says:
January 19, 2011 at 5:42 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/a-brief-lesson-in-the-int_b_811295.html
_______________________
Ummmm, Mr Gleick, what exactly was the analysis that was done that demonstrates to you the “integrity” of the climate “scientists”? That they could spot an absurd claim from a mile away and speak up. Wow, YOUR standards are pretty low, eh?
H.R. says:
January 19, 2011 at 6:22 pm
###
Don’t hold your breath. Dr. Gleick is almost as nuts as Hansen.
Peter Glieck-
Sadly, your comments above are not an accurate representation of the facts.
Check the original Guardian article, linked below. It appears that the reporter (Suzanne Goldenberg), contacted AAAS and then AAAS contacted the Gavin, not the other way around. The reporter obviously has access to at least one of the Gavin’s emails, so it could be she contacted him directly also. Your claim that the Gavin “alerted” the AAAS and SCAM is hardly representative of what actually happened. When questioned about it, the Gavin gave his opinion of the article. That is hardly proactive intervention to stop the article.
Do you play this fast and loose with the facts in the articles that publish on that website of yours?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/19/false-climate-change-study
Rich says:
January 19, 2011 at 5:44 pm
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’m not sure whether to be impressed or not. It’s “withdrawn” more than eight hours ago (prior to 10:00 a.m. Anthony’s time) – is still on-line six hours later and then disappears a little less than two hours after being spotlighted here. Just like the abysmal Anderegg et al paper, this piece of work is going to be cited for years. It’s getting harder and harder to ascribe tactics like this to simple incompetence.
“This just goes to illustrate how one unchecked story, gets into the top science news publications, with apparently nobody questioning the claims. ”
The story was pulled. Now we see how mainstream science and science reporting can correct themselves. There are no such checks and balances in the ‘skeptical’ blog sphere. Utter nonsense is spread about routinely. Just the other day a blogger showed a graph of sea level rising and then said it was declining. Hysterical. But folks in the ‘skeptical’ blog-sphere bought it.
I guess the bias at Newsweek and Time had to go somewhere.
Peter Gleick says:
January 19, 2011 at 5:40 pm
“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.”
Oh Peter, first off it was Gavin Schmidt, a plagiarist who pointed it out – and his degree is in mathematics.
Second, this was simply to avoid embarrassment on their part. Just like with wikipedia they scrub their most obvious mistakes and don’t even make retractions because that would show them to be fallible.
Amusingly, I added the IPCC’s projection about the Himalayan glaciers being gone in 2035 to the wikipedia article “2035” but Connolley deleted it since he enjoyed stalking and harassing people of opposing viewpoints. It really is too bad since that, and this prediction, would be good things for people to see in the future.
Try not to be so gullible Peter.
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.
————————
Peter,
Look at how many times your comment is being repeated.
Rightly so! This is very good news to us ‘deniers’, since it suggests that the Real Climate Science Community(PBUT) is aware that an increase of a degree and a half in the thirty-year average global temperature is unlikely to occur in the next nine years.
Personally, I’m taken aback by this as I rather thought that the global average temperature at 1.5 m from the rocky, grassy or watery surface could be just about anything you wanted it to be.
Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic Magazine, does a “skeptics” column in each issue of S.A. He admitted to being persuaded about the validity of AGW after seeing Gore’s movie. For a skeptic of his caliber that was a real come-down. Skeptic Magazine does some very credible stuff. I guess that was the price Shermer had to pay to become a regular in S.A.
Mike says:
January 19, 2011 at 6:36 pm
If you mean this
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/sea-level-may-drop-in-2010/
I guess you missed that he was referring to in 2010. You know, it’s in the title.
Hysterical indeed.
Peter Gleick says:
January 19, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Hang on, what’s that. It’s not a chip on your shoulder at all is it?
Oh … yep, that’ll be it!
“He was a man with a chip on his shoulder. Everyone seemed in a conspiracy to slight or injure him.”
Somerset Maugham
The faithful will lap it up. Retraction bottom right hand corner of page 23.
Mission accomplished. 🙁
DaveE.
Terror stories in Scientific America… sad, sad day. 🙁
But I agree with hotrod, they lost it right at two decades ago.
Along with many other WUWT regulars I’ve stopped reading SA. It was an excellent general science magazine in the 1960’s and 1970’s and my favorite sections were the Amateur Scientist and Mathematical Games. If I want to read SA, I can pull out one of my 1970’s issues and enjoy it again. October 1970 introduced the Life game in Mathematical Games and resulted in my spending vast amounts of computer time looking how various initial configurations of cells developed.
What mystifies me is that how is a 2 degree C increase in mean temperature of the world a bad thing? Right now the Kamloops outside temperature is -5 C and not much is happening in my garden. This area is semi-desert but has been getting unusual amounts of rain recently; not what was predicted by the climate alarmists.
It seems very simple; the earth warms and rate of evaporation from the oceans increases. That water has to come out of the atmosphere eventually and it will come out as rain. Thus, an increase in mean temperature should increase rainfall: where that rain may fall requires detailed measurements, but I think that it is reasonable to assume that a 2 C degree mean temperature increase will result in an increase in the earths average rainfall (a statistic almost as useless as the earth’s average temperature).
Also, increased atmospheric CO2 levels will boost crop yields and there was no mention of CO2 fertilization of plants in the paper. What amazes me is that people will uncritically accept scientifically implausible doomsday climate predictions whereas only a bit of analysis is required to consign the study in question to the dustbin. Either it reflects a dramatic decrease in the population’s level of scientific knowledge or people are too lazy to critically read alarmist papers.
Dropped my SA subscription ten years ago. The rag had become little more than a crackpot group, citing ridiculous social experiments proving their preconceived notions, and, of course AGW galore.
Just their editorials were enough to cause nausea in anyone with an smidgeon of critical faculties.
It’s basically a “Political Science” publication nowadays, although from time to time some real science creeps in, usually in the Astrophysics area, which is one of the few areas of science that has managed to remain unpoliticized. So I’ll read it in the doctor’s waiting room, but they will not get my money.
Peter Gleick says:
January 19, 2011 at 5:40 pm
I guess every once in awhile, an arsonist stumbles across somebody else’s fire.
Luther Wu says:
“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 ”
Thanks, Luther. The first comment following that SciAm article is well worth reading.
I was a member of AAAS for 25± years, but pulled my subscription in 2008. I stopped reading S.A. 10 years ago because of its supermarket sensationalism.
Yup, looks like they pulled it.
But I noticed this interesting science article on their site…
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=how-many-massacres-will-it-take-for-2011-01-12
The same thing happened to National Geographic.