« | »

G Warming Study Has No Basis In Fact

From the UK’s Guardian:

Online news service promotes false climate change study

EurekAlert! carried a study with unfounded global warming claims that the planet would warm by 2.4C by 2020

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
Wednesday 19 January 2011

An online news service sponsored by the world’s premier scientific association unwittingly promoted a study making the false claim that catastrophic global warming would occur within nine years, the Guardian has learned.

The study, by an NGO based in Argentina, claimed the planet would warm by 2.4C by 2020 and projected dire consequences for global food supply. A press release for the Food Gap study was carried by EurekAlert!, the news service operated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) , and the story was picked up by a number of international news organisations on Tuesday.

We have to admit that we tend to be skeptical about any organization that says it is for the "advancement" of anything.

"This is happening much faster than we expected," Liliana Hisas, executive director of the Universal Ecological Fund (UEF) and author of the study, said of her findings.

By "this," Ms. Hisas means ‘global warming.’ Not that their lies would be caught so soon.

But, in an episode recalling criticism of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), when the UN climate science body wrongly claimed the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035, the UEF claims about rising temperatures over the next decade were unfounded.

Climate change is happening much faster than previously thought. But warming at such a rapid rate over the next decade is impossible, climate scientists said.

In an email, Gavin Schmidt, a Nasa climatologist 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."

Why start demanding that climate change claims have a "basis in fact" now? Besides, doesn’t this NASA scientist know which side of the bread his butter is on?

The AAAS [sic], which runs the EurekAlert! News service, removed reference to the study from its website on Tuesday afternoon.

"We primarily rely on the submitting organisation to ensure the veracity of the scientific content of the news release," Ginger Pinholster [sic], director of the office of public programmes for AAAS said.

Which helps to explain the steady stream of nonsense we have gotten on the subject of ‘global warming’ for the last thirty years. By the way, how are we supposed to pronounce AAAS?

"In this case, we immediately contacted a climate-change expert after receiving your query. That expert has confirmed for us that the information indeed raises many questions in his mind, and therefore we have removed the news release from EurekAlert!"

But by then the study had been picked up by a number of international news organisations including the French news agency AFP, Spain’s EFE news agency, the Canadian CTV television network and the Vancouver Sun, and the Press Trust of India

The AFP has also reported on this retraction. We aren’t so sure about the other outlets. In any case, these ‘global warming’ lies get halfway around the world before the truth even gets a chance to take off its pants.

In this instance, climate scientists said it appeared Hisas had overlooked the influence exerted by the oceans, which absorb heat, thus delaying the effects of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere.

Ray Weymann, a founder of a volunteer rapid-response force aimed at countering misconceptions about climate science, said: "The author has a fundamental misunderstanding."

So things have gotten so out of hand in the ‘global warming’ world that they need volunteers to fact check the ‘scientists’?

Hisas, for her part, said her findings had been endorsed by an Argentine scientist, Osvaldo Canziani, who had worked on the IPCC’s fourth assessment report on the state of climate science, and was credited as an adviser to the UEF.

Such sterling credentials. Lest we forget, the IPPC’s fourth assessment was the one with the Himalayan glacier predictions. (As will be noted later.)

Hisas’s main finding, that climate change would disrupt the supply of basic staples such as wheat and rice, was largely in line with other recent reports.

Well, okay then. As long as she got the scaremonger stuff in, the details really don’t matter.

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 said. "The scientist I have been working with checked everything and according to him it’s not wrong."

This is hilarious. Unless seeing false information being promulgated by ‘scientists’ troubles you.

Marshall Hoffman, owner of the PR agency which placed the notice on the AAAS website, argued the [sic] a number of recent studies had all shown warming at a much faster rate than predicted by the IPCC in its most recent report. "The thing is, we have already put it on the internet and we had already got a lot of calls on it," he said. "This study is going to be bantered around for months. It doesn’t make any difference whether it is released now, or we try to pull it back."

And it doesn’t really matter whether the study is true or not. The important thing is to advance the ‘global warming’ agenda, come hell or high water — so to speak.

Canziani did not immediately respond to email. Hisas and sources in Buenos Aires said he was ill.

Canziani was co-chair of the IPCC’s working group 2, which looked at the effects of climate change. The erroneous claim on Himalayan glaciers in the 2007 report was in the section overseen by working group 2.

So Mr. Canziani has quite a track record.

Still, notice how this Guardian article makes it sound like the IPCC’s report on the Himalayan glaciers has been their only mistake. Whereas all of their reports, as well as the entire ‘global warming’ movement, are founded on similarly dubious ‘facts.’

The preposterous Himalayan glaciers projections were just the tip of the iceberg — so to speak.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, January 20th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

4 Responses to “G Warming Study Has No Basis In Fact”

  1. Astravogel says:

    Oceans? OCEANS? My God, who knew???

  2. Liberals Demise says:

    Even the great ‘Muslim’ NASA scientists wouldn’t back such false claims.
    My Allah!!

  3. Right of the People says:

    “EurekAlert! carried a study with unfounded global warming claims that the planet would warm by 2.4C by 2020”
    What is that, like 1 degree Fahrenheit? Crap we could use some warming right about now, I’m freezing my buttocks off.

    As I posted in the previous article, “global-warming” is about as factual as a peaceful Muslim who is still breathing.

  4. Gladius et Scutum says:

    ” Ray Weymann, a founder of a volunteer rapid-response force aimed at countering misconceptions about climate change said…”.

    Well, the group is Climate Science Rapid Response Matchmakers (CSRRT) http://www.climaterapidresponse.org/ and it was founded by:
    1. Ray Weymann, a retired astronomer
    2. John Abraham, a professor of mechanical engineering at St. Thomas University, and
    3. Scott Mandia, a professor of physical sciences at Suffolk Community College.

    The group was founded after Global Warming Alarmists became truly alarmed that they were failing to alarm much of the general public, and (many will recall) the despicable publication by the American Psychological Association http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.aspx of a paper which suggested that media ought not even acknowledge any doubts or even doubters of anthropogenic global warming.

    The stated goal of the group http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2010/11/john-abraham-ray-weymann-and-scott.html is to “provide access to ‘repected, peer-reviwed published, experts’ for media and policy makers and solid information on climate science”. Actually, what they meant to say, is “to ensure that media and policy makers are not ever exposed to any alternate view”. Said Weymann:”Instead of having reporters go looking for lunch, we give it to them for free”.

    In fact, they have been sucessful enough that I see some articles citing Weymann as a ‘climate scientist’, and even the above article quotes him and fails to point out his credentials. I’ve seen this type of thing before, and it’s deliberate.

    I did find that Weymann has co-authored a paper on “Strong Gravitational Lensing”. So I guess you could say he’s an expert in distortion.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »