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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This just might be the time for Scientic America to fire their content staff and what’s left of their subscibers (we all know who they must be) and jump to the factual science side.
Toss the “could be’s”, “might be’s”, “think’s”, “possibly’s”, “feeling’s”, tag your own on and the computer generated trash science and come clean.
But I have a feeling it’s but a day dream.
In a comment following his last scientifically illiterate rant, a WUWT moderator challenged Peter Gleick to write an article for WUWT. It was predicted that Gleick lacked the “stones” to write an article.
As predicted, Gleick put his tail between his legs and skedaddled. So I would like to personally issue the same challenge: write an article for WUWT. I predict you don’t have the balls, Mr Gleick.☺
You’ve been slapped across the face with a glove. In public. The gauntlet is down.
What a *RAG*!!!
a dood says:
January 19, 2011 at 7:33 pm
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
Heres how the media works:
Journalists have to produce “x” stores a day and are under imense time pressure to do this – they no longer have the time to even make a two minute phone call to check facts, theres no way they can do any real journalism or even follow up hot stories from the public – the only way they can meet the daily quota is to become a “copy and paste” robot that blindly copies stories from AP etc…
The stories on AP are often inserted by PR companies and AP themselves do limited fact checking. So if a crap story gets inserted into AP, its immediatly picked up and copy pasted all over the world.
The uptake of online news is also a key driver behind this, its all about whos first and time is everything, no longer do we have time to wait until the morning news – everything must be instant and the downside is immediate meets unchecked.
Quality has been replaced with quantity whilst the overall cost of running a media outlets has been slashed. Nearly all the great investigative journalist are dead – but there is a plus side….
Now there is a number of blogs such as this one that take the time to fact check and ask questions – and via the internet this data can quickly be shared around the world. The smarter journalist have started or will come to realise that they can use these blogs as a source of copy and past material which has actually checked the facts or called BS on a story – and this is how I can see the media working in the near future, at least until the blogs become like media outlets themselves, simply copying and pasting to save time and meet demand.
Heres hoping that WUWT will remain a source of good quality stories, despite what must be a massive drain on Anthony’s time, and at times probably his mental well being!
Smokey says:
You’ve been slapped across the face with a glove. In public. The gauntlet is down.
============================
In addition to Gleick, Smokey, the gauntlet is thrown down for every coward and troll on this site!
Trolls and cowards….you know who you are.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
People the AGW community are behaving more erratically as the organizing principle in their lives crumbles into dust. Think how these people must feel. Their entire self esteem and reason for existence is tied to their “heroic” efforts to “save the world” from Global Warming. They face a future where they are seen as clowns rather than courageous and brilliant heroes. Many of them have wasted their lives on this nonsense. I almost feel sorry for them.
@John M says:
January 19, 2011 at 6:54 pm
One year does make a trend. The trend in sea levels is up. Up is not the same as down. See “1984” for details.
Dave D. says on January 19, 2011 at 6:54 pm
IMO, Shermer is no skeptic. He is just an establishment shill and a wanker.
Thanks Smokey. That first comment WAS well worth reading.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=casualties-of-climate-change ”
Simple study on S.A.
Check out the 1905 “On the Wright Aeroplane and Its Fabled Performance”.
Then check out the 1908 article after the public display (simultaneous, advertised, witnessed by over 1000 people) of the “Fabled Aeroplane”. (I.e., after it became so obvious that you’d be a LAUGHING STOCK for denying it!)
No apology. No retraction, nada.
One of the benefits of having a “looney/left/hoity toit scientist” existence is NEVER HAVING TO SAY YOU ARE SORRY! Just re-write history or say, “We knew that, of course we knew that…what do you think we are, stupid?” (Nervous laugh, worn down cigarette in hand, H.T. to SNL.)
Chris Riley says:
January 19, 2011 at 8:05 pm
People the AGW community are behaving more erratically as the organizing principle in their lives crumbles into dust. Think how these people must feel. Their entire self esteem and reason for existence is tied to their “heroic” efforts to “save the world” from Global Warming. They face a future where they are seen as clowns rather than courageous and brilliant heroes. Many of them have wasted their lives on this nonsense. I almost feel sorry for them.
============================
I would almost feel sorry for them too, if they would just “man up” (or “woman up” as the case may be) and admit they were wrong.
But it looks like these are people in high places who are pathologically incapable of admitting such.
And that is a pity.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Looks like an excellent story for the New Scientist, I wonder if they have the will power to resist using it.
We are more in danger of food shortage from federal laws and regulations than from hot weather.
I saw Korean women standing in water in their bare feet planting rice in a snow storm, so rice can be planted in cold weather but does not rice grow well in warm climates. Yes. And so does corn and wheat.
Perhaps Scientific American should have talked to farmers and especially old farmers. Then they might avoid the embarrassment of having their articles pulled.
That is the way I see it, un scientifically that is. Since the article was not available I am shooting in the dark.
I wonder if Scientific American can use the story of Korean women planting rice in winter.
Mike says:
“One year does make a trend. The trend in sea levels is up. Up is not the same as down. See ‘1984’ for details.”
Yes, and see 1984 for “doublethink.” It’s Orwell’s term for cognitive dissonance.
The sea level trend has been up since the last Ice Age.
But the trend is decelerating…
Another AGW scare falsified.
Chris Riley says:
January 19, 2011 at 8:05 pm
People the AGW community are behaving more erratically as the organizing principle in their lives crumbles into dust. Think how these people must feel. Their entire self esteem and reason for existence is tied to their “heroic” efforts to “save the world” from Global Warming. They face a future where they are seen as clowns rather than courageous and brilliant heroes. Many of them have wasted their lives on this nonsense. I almost feel sorry for them.
____________________________________________
Not much to worry about, Chris. Save your tears.
There are those young proselytes with their natural, albeit naive liberal proclivities who’ve accepted the pretzel logic of the high priests of doom, but as they develop their own capacities for critical analysis, they will learn their lesson and just move on. Life’s nothing but new lessons for them, anyway.
Most older zealots will never give up their beliefs and see the light of truth, since it’s out- shined by their own brilliance.
Don’t forget the “peak oil” bullshit, Smokey; http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
Little Petey Gleick needed someone to care about his story…. so he came over here to the big dog traffic, threw around some insults and the link to his puff piece.
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.
Funny, Gleick seems to think that he has scored some kind of point for the good guys, the “real climate scientists”. The “real climate scientists” could not afford remain silent and let such an egregiously flawed report stand even though the message aligned with their cause. So am happy that the “real climate scientists” are on the ball because science has suffered enough damage to its reputation already. Conclusion? The rapid response by the “real climate scientists” is more like damage control. Not something to brag or crow about. But one can’t expect much cerebration from someone who uses the pejorative “denier”.
Also read in SciAm the statement: “Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group”. New to me but that explains it all.
another one…
SciAm: »Can ecological models explain global financial markets–and make them more stable?
OMG! Aim these eco computer models now on the global markets to attempt to “correct them”? God have mercy on us all. I wouldn’t trust the models I’ve seen lately to fix my car’s engine let alone fly the world’s markets. The answer: no.
This might work better; http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
I wonder if there’s a connection here to something else which does put our food production at risk, a sort of distraction for the real reason we may have these crop problems in 10 years. Covered on Sky’s preview of next day papers, Bayer’s pesticide to blame for the wide spread deaths of honey bees. Sorry, can’t recall the paper it was in, but found this:
http://www.globalanimal.org/2010/12/20/wikileaks-says-epa-is-a-buzz-kill-for-bee-colonies/26984/
EPA was well-aware that the pesticide Clothianidin posed some serious risks to honey bees. There have been concerns about this chemical from as far back as 2003, and it’s already been banned in Germany, France, Italy and Slovenia because of its toxicity. But the EPA chose to sweep all that undert the rug to keep the pesticide on the market.
Found it, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/exclusive-bees-facing-a-poisoned-spring-2189267.html
This is nutty. “Earth may be 2.4 degrees Celsius warmer by 2020, potentially triggering global scrambles for food supplies, according to a new analysis”.
Equally true:
“Earth may have 10000000000 more seagulls by 2020, potentially triggering global scrambles for food supplies, according to a new analysis”.
“Earth may be invaded by aliens by 2020, potentially triggering global scrambles for food supplies, according to a new analysis”.
“Earth may experience unprecedented volcanic activity by 2020, potentially triggering global scrambles for food supplies, according to a new analysis”.
“Earth may endure a nuclear conflict by 2020, potentially triggering global scrambles for food supplies, according to a new analysis”.
“Earth may have a global crop failure by 2020, potentially triggering global scrambles for food supplies, according to a new analysis”.
The list goes on and on.
Scientific American has become nothing more than noise. For more than 20 years they have — in search of a larger reader base, and hence advertisers — published something more properly called “populist science”…which is to say not science at all.
It is instead a pure form of political … science.
Good business strategy…lousy credibility plan.
Hope that works out for you, SA. (wink / nodd)
Read all about Climate Change in “The Economist”
Get the “whole picture”… yeah right… check out this ad…
http://ds.serving-sys.com/BurstingRes///Site-24281/Type-2/ec8265ab-b68f-4687-8245-bdc711cd7841.swf
This AGW bias has become ubiquitous. So now EVERY disaster, (even financial it seems), is caused by that damned man-made excess of CO2 molecules.
The guy standing in the flood waters wants your money…. just say no way !
This organization would rather die than abandon it’s political philosophy of left-wing, frankly disturbingly nonsensical, beliefs that the world is Warming exponentially and the only thing that we can do is destroy America and capitalism.