Scientific American still running false warming story

gavin at realclimate is currently saying that the report has errors.
Meantime Scientific American have republished the report.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/getting-things-right/
gavin @ur momisugly 20 January 2011
Last Monday, I was asked by a journalist whether a claim in a new report from a small NGO made any sense. The report was mostly focused on the impacts of climate change on food production – clearly an important topic, and one where public awareness of the scale of the risk is low. However, the study was based on a mistaken estimate of how large global warming would be in 2020. I replied to the journalist (and indirectly to the NGO itself, as did other scientists) that no, this did not make any sense, and that they should fix the errors before the report went public on Thursday. For various reasons, the NGO made no changes to their report. The press response to their study has therefore been almost totally dominated by the error at the beginning of the report, rather than the substance of their work on the impacts. This public relations debacle has lessons for NGOs, the press, and the public.
The erroneous claim in the study was that the temperature anomaly in 2020 would be 2.4ºC above pre-industrial. This is obviously very different from the IPCC projections:

“”””” Gavin Schmidt, for example, a NASA climatologist, quickly wrote: “2.4C 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.” “””””
The above was found under Peter Gleick’s name over on some web site he linked to; well it had a ghastly green background to the web page; almost made me sea sick.
So I presume (lacking any explanation) that Gavin Schmitt actually said :- “2.4C by 2020 has no basis in fact.” and that also presumably Peter Gleick; also lacking further explanation said :- “Gavin Schmidt, for example, a NASA climatologist, quickly wrote: “…” (which is 1.4C in the next 10 years – something like six to seven times the projected rate of warming) ”
Now my Gregorian adjusted Calendar says that this is the year 2011, so that means in 9 years it will be 2020, so the Temperature will go up 2.4 deg C in nine years, and then drop a whole degree in the next year to get down to only 1.4 deg C rise in ten years.
Yes that sound pretty reasonable to me Peter. Now how did you do that analysis ?

Lindzen made basically the same mistake as the Argentinian NGO did. He said:
(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/ )
“the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man.”
He makes the same two errors as the NGO – neglecting the negative aerosol forcings and the ‘warming in the pipeline’ in this calculation (except using a different time window: 2010 vs 2020).
My commentary is here:
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/food-gap-ngo-2-4-degrees-2020-no-way/

Bart Verheggen says:
January 21, 2011 at 12:29 am
Lindzen made basically the same mistake as the Argentinian NGO did.

Which just goes to show that even the most prominent climate scientists don’t have a good handle on what really goes on with climate.

“This just goes to illustrate how one unchecked story, gets into the top science news publications, with apparently nobody questioning the claims. ”
What it goes to show is that everyone is human and that it was climate scientists themselves that corrected the mistake, and quickly. In fact it was noticed before publication but it still got out. Climate Science integrity is intact and shows that it will correct and learn from its mistakes.
In stark contrast, has their been a correction and apology from Richard Lindzen and everybody who ran his story? Hypocritical much? He has made the same exact error, and even though it has been pointed out in the past has made the same claims for 3 years. But the skeptic religion never question what their evangelists say so he can continue doing it, no such integrity on that side.

One possible reason for some of the amateurish garbage printed in the likes of SA (e.g. – they are not alone), is that the latter can no longer find scientists to become journalists. It is far easier today to recruit young people who have attained high class degrees in “journalism” whilst at university (college); not so 20 years ago.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/25/case-study-climate-science-integrity
A quote from the above link:
” Ironically, Watts’ blog also ran a story which was highly critical of Scientific American for initially publishing an article containing the FEU errors. However, just a few hours later, Scientific American ran a new story correcting the FEU errors. One wonders when Watts will correct his own blog’s propagation of Lindzen’s errors. ”
Has there been a retraction here at WUWT? I looked, but maybe I am missing it. If somebody finds it, give me the link.
[Reply: To get current, read the article comments. This has already been discussed. ~dbs, mod.]