Fake photo to push global warming agenda

The ABC recently reported on a letter signed by 250 scientists published in the journal Science.

The letter is accompanied by a photo of a lone Polar Bear on an iceberg credited to photo site ISTOCKPHOTO.COM. The photo is a fake (4 photos put together) with the following note in the photo caption at Istockphoto: “This image is a photoshop design. Polarbear, ice floe, ocean and sky are real, they were just not together in the way they are now.”

The same background is also available with one emperor penguin here or three emperor penguins here.

What does the use of a faked photo say about the scientific credibility of the journal in question?

Wonder why the ABC didn’t pick this one up, they do have previous experience with Polar Bears.

Update on the photo:

Due to an editorial error, the original image associated with this Letter was not a photograph but a collage. The image was selected by the editors, and it was a mistake to have used it. The publishers.

Update on the above article:

Many signatories of controversial letter on climate science don’t work in climate-related fields.

The mainstream media and these pages on Examiner.com reported the release of a letter from 255 scientists last week that said despite recent scandals in climate science, the science behind the man-made climate change theory remains sound. The embarrassing use of a faked photo in the trade journal that published the letter damaged the credibility and now a look at the resumes of the signatories shows most don’t even work in climate science.

The letter released last week in the journal Science decried what the letter writers called, “the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular.” They further seek to reaffirm the science behind the theory saying that, “nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change.”

However, an investigation into the professional backgrounds of the scientists finds that many do not work in climate science and some work in fields not even remotely related to it. In fact, among the first 20 listed, none work in climate science.

Pediatric surgeons, an expert in the Maya and the Olmec civilizations, a chemist that studies bacteria, a ‘computer pioneer’ with Microsoft, an electrical engineer, the chairman of a biotechnology firm, and even an expert studying corn are but a few of the 255 ‘experts’ that signed the letter.

There are many other questionable signatories on the letter that tries to convey the message that the ‘science is sound.’ This is of course leading one to question why their statements should be leant any great deal of credence, particularly since the credentials of climate change sceptics are similarly questioned.

Meteorologists, arguably the most publically visible face of those in climate science related fields, have proven to be among the most skeptical of scientists. When this point is raised, alarmists oftentimes say that meteorologists only deal with short term trends and as such don’t have the proper expertise. There are however multiple meteorologists among those that signed the letter and the public is supposed to trust them.

Further, thousands of scientists, admittedly some in non-climate fields, have signed a statement saying,

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

Is their opinion worth less than the signatories on the recently released letter?

Many have said that those that push the anthropogenic global warming theory are their own worst enemies. Time and again, their use of hyperbole and scare tactics has backfired on them and the Climategate email scandal and revelations of errors in key policy documents only further hurts their cause.

It would appear this letter continues that trend. While it makes a strong statement, the letter’s use of a faked image and the revelation of the backgrounds of these scientists simply does more damage.

Source