Climate change study had 'significant error': experts

[CARLHAYDEN]

by Kerry Sheridan Kerry Sheridan – Wed Jan 19, 11:33 am ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – A climate change study that projected a 2.4 degree Celsius increase in temperature and massive worldwide food shortages in the next decade was seriously flawed, scientists said Wednesday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110119/ts_afp/climatewarmingfood_20110119163335

[Ban my account ffs!]

Yeah, I read about this.

Some political eco-group from Argentina put out a report saying we could expect the world to be 2.4˚C by 2020 and that it would result in major famines and crop yield reductions, causing worldwide chaos.

A lot of the media immediately picked up the story, including publications like Scientific American... but then immediately dropped the story when all of the prominent climate scientists went "wait.. wha?!?"

The scientists were quick to point out that there was absolutely no evidence to back up the claim they made.  Still, its wide reception in the media was pretty funny... they'll print anything that predicts imminent doom!

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yeah... a 2.4˚C (or 4.2˚F) increase by 2020 would be insane.

[Torie]

With any luck this global warming hysteria will come to an end in the next five years, as the jaws of economic distress tighten their grip. We just can't afford to indulge it.  It reminds me of the anti nuclear power hysteria, for which we have been, and continue, to pay a big price. And so it goes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The other ill effect will be that climate science and environmentalism in general will be set back decades as the full of effects of the lost credibility become apparant. With flawed study, after flawed study being exposed and the how quick people were to embrace it without the slightest scientific accountability, it should come as no surprise that people will be skeptical of climate studies going forward.

They said we were the ones who were anti-science, whilst they have been raping the subject for decades. Its ironic that they basically approached this from a political perspective instead of a scientific one. The basic theory being to bombard the people with hysterical apocalyptic warnings in the hopes that they would force action on the ideas they advance as solutions, and in so doing they provided the means by which they could in effect be un-done. Self-defeating counterproductivity, such as this, would almost be comedic were it not for the very real damage it can and probably will do.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

One shoddy paper does not disprove climate change.

[Brittain33]

One shoddy paper does not disprove climate change.

[memphis]

One shoddy paper does not disprove climate change.

This. The earth is undeniably getting warmer. Sea levels are rising. Coastal cities have already begun planning for the deluge.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I don't really see the relevance of the story here. A couple of scientists were wrong and were quickly corrected by other scientists. There's not much to go here unless you want to pursue a logical fallacy that because one study on global warming turned out to be wrong all studies on global warming could be wrong. If you go down this path you could declare all science as potentially wrong. And maybe eating five cheeseburgers each day is actually good for your health then.

[Badger]

One shoddy paper does not disprove climate change.

[phk]

With any luck this global warming hysteria will come to an end in the next five years, as the jaws of economic distress tighten their grip. We just can't afford to indulge it.  It reminds me of the anti nuclear power hysteria, for which we have been, and continue, to pay a big price. And so it goes.

^^^

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't really see the relevance of the story here. A couple of scientists were wrong and were quickly corrected by other scientists. There's not much to go here unless you want to pursue a logical fallacy that because one study on global warming turned out to be wrong all studies on global warming could be wrong. If you go down this path you could declare all science as potentially wrong. And maybe eating five cheeseburgers each day is actually good for your health then.

Do you really think it matters if its one or thousands if people begin to think you have been intentionally misleading them, whether or not its false. My first paragraph was objective analysis which I would advise not to be so easily discounted. The second one was my personal opinion.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I don't really see the relevance of the story here. A couple of scientists were wrong and were quickly corrected by other scientists. There's not much to go here unless you want to pursue a logical fallacy that because one study on global warming turned out to be wrong all studies on global warming could be wrong. If you go down this path you could declare all science as potentially wrong. And maybe eating five cheeseburgers each day is actually good for your health then.

Actually.. all science is potentially wrong by its own definition.  Of course, some things are exceedingly likely and unlikely... but the possibility still remains.  

Still, I understand what you meant.  And no, people should not use this as "ammo" against climate change science (though it should be used as ammo against the media who lap this stuff up without sourcing it first).

[Torie]

We should admit that we know less, considerably less, than the typically quoted "expert" sources,  some corrupted by money, claim they know, about the global warming issue. The end. I refuse to support spending trillions on a "problem" that is so poorly defined by anything tangible really. We need to find a way to research this, where the deck is not stacked.

[Redalgo]

We should admit that we know less, considerably less, than the typically quoted "expert" sources,  some corrupted by money, claim they know, about the global warming issue. The end. I refuse to support spending trillions on a "problem" that is so poorly defined by anything tangible really. We need to find a way to research this, where the deck is not stacked.

Of course, isn't part of the problem that many laymen disagree with the findings of experts, are convinced that they know better, and will be inclined to believe that - in some way or another - experts should not be trusted regardless of whether that would actually be the rational thing to do? It is not uncommon especially with discussing a subject with conspiracy theorists for them to brush off challenges to their views and lean on sources even less reliable than the ones they attack for being biased or otherwise flawed. That's not to say experts are always right or people should not ask difficult questions, but all too often folks seem to assume their good 'ole "common sense" and gut checks trump all.

On an issue like climate change I have an extremely difficult time finding objective answers to my questions. A lot of people have strong opinions. Some even have sources to cite. Yet I imagine quite a few make up their minds prior to doing any research at all, and then leap at whatever reinforcing sources they can find. For someone like me with scarcely any education in physical sciences, how am I to make heads or tails of hundreds of pages of findings on the subject? Are people who haven't the time to learn how to properly digest such things doomed to either have faith in researchers whose methods and work ethics are presumed to be good or succumb to cynicism, assuming the researchers are wrong or even lying to us no matter how compelling an argument they might try to make? Is there middle ground?

Perhaps this is drifting off topic somewhat but it does make me curious.