backtop

Print 67 comment(s) - last by phxfreddy.. on Jul 19 at 3:44 PM

A 2005 prediction of solar activity. The sunspot number should now stand close to 100, instead it is zero.
"Spin-orbit coupling" to blame; effects could last decades.

A new paper published by the Astronomical Society of Australia is warning of upcoming global cooling due to lessened solar activity.  The study, written by three Australian researchers, has identified what is known as a "spin-orbit coupling" affecting the rotation rate of the sun.  That rotation, in turn, is linked to the intensity of the solar cycle and climate changes here on Earth.

The study's lead author, Ian Wilson, explains further, "[The paper] supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20 - 30 years."   

According to Wilson, the result is a strong, rapid pulse of global cooling, "On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by ~ 1 - 2 C."
 
A 2 C drop would be twice as large as all the warming the earth has experienced since the start of the industrial era, and would be significant enough to impact global agriculture output.

Earlier this year, astronomers from around the world noted solar activity was suspiciously low; some began predicting global cooling at that time.  Since then, activity has remained far below average, with it now being over two months since a single sunspot has appeared on the surface of the sun.

In May, a team of German climatologists published research stating that, due to "natural effects", global warming would halt for up to 15 years.

The new paper appears in the June issue of PASA, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
All Hail The Sun God
By odessit740 on 7/1/2008 11:52:45 AM , Rating: 3
All hail Gore the Sun God,
He's a real smart God,
Blah Blah Blah!

I hate how the ones who suffer because of all this crap are the kids. Brain-washed by politicians left and right.

"We need to protect the nation, at all costs. There are terrorists amongst us!"
"We need to bring our troops home, they have no 'right' to be in Iraq."
"Support our troops."
"Our troops are war criminals."
"We need less reliance on oil."
"We need to drill for more oil."
"I will use public financing."
"I will not use public financing."

Anyone else tired of this crap?




RE: All Hail The Sun God
By mholler on 7/1/2008 12:43:38 PM , Rating: 4
Well, the only point I will address is that reducing reliance on oil and drilling for more oil are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Drilling will increase supply and decrease dependence on foreign oil in the short term, while continuing to develop alternative energy will allow for less reliance on oil in the long term.


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By Ringold on 7/1/2008 5:38:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Drilling will increase supply and decrease dependence on foreign oil in the short term, while continuing to develop alternative energy will allow for less reliance on oil in the long term.


There are at least half a dozen regular posters who for whom that is far too moderate and rational. They'd call that a farce, and that we should be spamming solar and wind anywhere and everywhere. Anything that resembles a feasible, real-world solution goes down in flames. It's depressing.


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By danrien on 7/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: All Hail The Sun God
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2008 7:54:46 AM , Rating: 2
Oh so now its 15-20 years. Funny. The Democrats first said it'd be 5 years. Then it was 10 years. And funny, it was 5-10 years ago when they said that.

So if we'd started drilling off the cost back in 1998 when it was last really brought up, but shot down by Clinton because it'd take 10 years to get going, we'd have that oil now.

I realize this common sense is a little to much for you though.

Liberals can keep spouting that it'll take 10 years all they want. The sooner we get started, the sooner it'll be here.


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2008 7:55:47 AM , Rating: 2
coast*


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By Master Kenobi on 7/2/2008 10:54:21 AM , Rating: 2
They need to get started drilling now. They need to get started building new Nuclear power plants. Geothermal where its feasible. I even support the use of tidal generators which I think are superior in every way to wind based power.


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By masher2 on 7/2/2008 11:29:05 AM , Rating: 3
In certain areas, tidal power indeed has vast potential. Unfortunately, environmentalists protest against it as much as they do any other practical energy source, due to the fact it might affect siltification in the area around the generators.


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2008 12:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing with tidal power is that from what I've read it can pretty much kill off fish and stuff in that area. I don't know all the details though. I'm not against it. But if it does kill off pretty much all marine life in an area, that's a bad thing.


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By Boze on 7/3/2008 4:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't agree more with you on the nuclear energy front, Kenobi. According to DOE reports from a few years back, it would only take 500 or so nuclear power plants to supply 100% of our nation's electrical power. We already have around 100 plants running in the nation, so that's 400 more... in addition, most of the running plants are older and less efficient than the newer model plants that nuclear engineers have designed, so the 500 number could be off.

On top of all this, we have a long-term storage solution for the nuclear waste in development right now, in a region of the United States that sees almost no rainfall with practically zero issues of groundwater contamination (Yucca Mountain), and in terms of transporting the waste, the shipping casks for spent fuel rods are damn near indestructible. Nuclear energy may finally start to see its place in the forefront of American energy policy.


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By redsquid5 on 7/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: All Hail The Sun God
By Grast on 7/2/2008 3:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
Red,

We are not screwing our kids. The success of our economy requires a cheap economical source of energy. As soon realize that nuclear is the ONLY economical and realistic source for cheap electricity. The sooner we will be able to migrate away from fossil fuels.

If we had a viable cheap source of electricity, a number of technologies are economically viable to replace oil.

1. Hydrogen Generation
2. Electric vehicles with a range greater than 60 miles.

Let’s look at this dream world. If electrical power was a .2 cents a kilowatt hour and generate enough power for these needs, we could eliminate oil.

1. Electrolysis of Water for Hydrogen economy - This allows the use of fuel cells to supplement battery power. Hey now we do not need the internal combustion engine for virtually all forms of transportation. Cars, Heavy Movers, Trains They all could be used as currently designed with fuel cells.

2. Desantilization Plants - Source of clean water for power and further industrial use. This could actually provide cheap drinking water and irrigation water for the use. No more debate on dams and man made lakes.

3. The elimination of gas, wood, and fuel oil for the heating of our houses. Combine this with modern insulation; we have comfortable houses in the winter and summer.

The only thing that a cheap and abundant form of electricity can not provide is a replacement for air travel. I just have not heard of replacement for jet fuel.

In end, my humble opinion is that if you want to really provide a better environment and economy for your children. Demand the building of more nuclear power plants. Demand the immediate drilling of more resource at home. Those resources will keep our economy going and allow the 10 years need to build the infrastructure needed for power independence


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By bjacobson on 7/2/2008 4:52:52 PM , Rating: 2
I do believe ethanol can replace oil for jet engines, it would just take some work. It's definitely doable though.

http://www.google.com/search?q=ethanol+in+jet+engi...


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By TSS on 7/3/2008 1:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
yknow i wonder how much oil is actually used by vehicles/transportation/creating energy, and how much is used up by creating materials like plastics. there's more stuff to do with oil then just burn it yknow. dependancy on oil might not go away that easely.


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By excelsium on 7/3/2008 2:55:28 PM , Rating: 2
Plastic and plastic substitutes can be made with corn oil and other things.. so really It's transportation that is the big concern.


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By Grast on 7/2/2008 2:54:33 PM , Rating: 2
Danien,

Based on that logic.

What go to College this morning? I am not getting my degree, NOW!
Why go to work? My paycheck is not being delivered today?

In fact, why do anything! I should stay in bed and just die since anything I do will take time to mature and provide a measurable response.

I was about to say IF, but when we start drilling for oil again domestically, It should have several factors you have missed.

1. Discover unknown quantities of oil.
2. Employee a large number of American oil workers.
3. Assist in the speculation market by showing a growning future supply rather than a decreasing supply.
4. Reduce future price increases and allow more time for vialble and economical alternatives...... NUCLEAR.
5. Novel concept, the exportation of a valuable resource which brings money into the country.

I see no downsides for drilling and finding new sources of oil. I refuse to allow your fear mongering effect my life style and culture.


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By Keeir on 7/2/2008 3:13:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was about to say IF, but when we start drilling for oil again domestically, It should have several factors you have missed.


Its already happening. In california, a state with significant enviromental restriction, new well applications are running up 10-20% and permints to rework old wells are up significnat as well.


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By maven81 on 7/2/2008 6:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I see no downsides for drilling and finding new sources of oil.


You mean like the obvious, purely delaying the inevitable, and spending resources on something that can not be sustained?
Sure, I see that plenty of you think that it's possible to drill for oil and develop new sources of energy at the same time, but I don't think that's how the world works... Where is the incentive for anyone to invest in nuclear then? If you reduce the price of oil, how can you hope to limit consumption?
It took 4 dollar a gallon gas to get people to seriously think about conservation. If you drop it back to 3 dollars I guarantee you that everyone will just go back to living like there's no tomorrow, and those nuclear plants we all want will never get built.
Now if gas prices get to 10 dollars we just might get people to beg for nuclear, tidal and whatever else.
If you truly believe in market forces, I can't see how you can support this. It's absolutely no better economically then the braindead "gas tax holiday".


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By masher2 on 7/2/2008 7:12:33 PM , Rating: 5
> "You mean like the obvious, purely delaying the inevitable"

When a doctor saves a life, he's doing nothing but delaying that patient's inevitable death. Is that a bad thing?

> "If you truly believe in market forces, I can't see how you can support this"

Here's the part you're missing. Market forces find the optimal solution. When we step in and artificlally distort the market, that doesn't happen.

The best solution here is obviously a mix of different energy sources. Artificially restricting the price of oil means we wind up with a nonoptimal mix. Yes, it means more alternative sources are used. But the downside is energy costs are much higher than they need to be, which results in serious hardship. You can beg for $10/gallon gas if you want, but do you think the middle class in India or China can afford that?

The problem is even deeper than that. The wealth we squander by forcing energy costs up is wealth we could have used to research improvements in alternatives. Do you see Zimbabwe or Mali funding much research into fusion technology? No? Why not? It takes a rich nation to do that...and as long as we're pumping trillions of dollars of cash overseas, we're going to have a hard time funding projects like that.


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By excelsium on 7/3/2008 5:48:32 AM , Rating: 2
Market forces? There will be a desperate rush for action when oil reserves run low along with a huge price tag and all the other negative things- If money is not spent on those alternative projects earlier.


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By dever on 7/7/2008 1:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Market forces? There will be a desperate rush for action when oil reserves run low along with a huge price tag and all the other negative things- If money is not spent on those alternative projects earlier.

Your scenarios have no relevance to free market economies. "desperate rushes" occur when forces external to the market act on products and industries.

When consumers are allowed to freely buy what they feel is in their best interest, the price structure will have the optimal reflection of these scarce resources and will change slowly over the course of decades and centuries. It's only when external forces interfere (typically government policies, taxes and restrictions) that the fluctuations become unpredictable and unmanageable.

The current price fluctuations we see have almost no relation to the world's natural oil reserves. These fluctuations have everything to do with external forces... mostly the middle East ologopoly that is left unchallanged due to restrictive government policies in much of the rest of the world.


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By Jim28 on 7/2/2008 11:17:31 PM , Rating: 2
Cry me a river.

Just think of this. By limiting energy consumption,
you have limited an idvidual's ability to transport themselves around the town,country, planet. You have limited that person's freedom to go anywhere they please, when they please. (In my not so humble opinion, that is a basic freedom, one in which the economy is based on.) You don't like the freedoms that we have and the economy results from it? Go somewhere and live off the land (Like Chad, or the solomons) Go live in that hellhole for awhile. In two weeks you will be back and you will shut up.


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By Grast on 7/3/2008 1:28:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure, I see that plenty of you think that it's possible to drill for oil and develop new sources of energy at the same time, but I don't think that's how the world works... Where is the incentive for anyone to invest in nuclear then? If you reduce the price of oil, how can you hope to limit consumption?


Firstly, the reliance on oil has nothing to do with the provitablility of nuclear power. Nuclear power has been stalled in this country for two reasons. Government execessive regulation for permitting new plants and/or operating and excessive judicial challanges to proposed new plants. The goverment portion could be solved by one good president. The department of energy is run and directly by a presidential appointment. If regulations were brought into line to allow safe but quick permitting of new plants (1-3 years rather than 5-8 years), that would be one less reason for power companies to not decide against a nuclear project.

The second issue is of judicial predijuce which can only be solved by education. We need an organization which has the same will as many eco-group and the money to back up their policies. A 457 group during the presidential race sounds about right. We should be seeing commercials and news reports right now of how nuclear could save every American tons of money and stimulate our economy. A reliable and cheap power grid would allow electric cars to become a true replacement for the internal combustion engine. This would put nuclear power on the forefront on American thoughts and hopefully reduce the ability of eco-nuts from challaging every decision about the nuclear plants in the courts.

If the building of nuclear plans was made a FEDERAL mandate. The judical process could be stream lined by removing state judical review from the picture. Congress and the Senate could pass new legistation for the creation of a special judical panel specific for nuclear review. The president would then appoint judges willing to assist the endevour and limit the ability of special interest groups from blocking the construction of nuclear plants.

In the end, your argument that cheap oil is the reason nuclear power is not developed is short sighted. Nuclear plants have not been built in this country because it is not provitable to wade through the goverment red tape and relentless court challenges by special interest groups. Investors are not willing to spend 100s of millions of dollars jumping through the hoops in order to construct the plant and not realise their investment for 10's of years after the completion of the project.

We need the goverment and the judicial portions of our society to get out of the way.

Energy independance is the only way our children are going to continue to live the same quality of life as we do.

Later....


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By phxfreddy on 7/19/2008 3:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
With the dollar in slow motion collapse you and liberals like you will sooner or later with 100% probability be begging for coastal / ANWR drilling.

Simply put Alternative energy sources are still called alternative and by definition NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME.

When you no longer call this crap alternative then come back and give it another try at selling the idea.


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By Brian H on 7/18/2008 7:02:47 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, not so. There's lots of supply now; pricing is being set by dealers convinced they won't have supply later, and are refusing to sell now at less that what they expect to get then. If you change the "later" expectation, you affect current spot prices.

BTW, as of this writing, consumption has dropped significantly in the US, and oil prices have taken a 10% hit.


RE: All Hail The Sun God
By phxfreddy on 7/19/2008 3:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
Huh ? You gotta be on one side YES or NO of the question ....do you still beat your wife ? LOL !


Huh
By jbartabas on 7/1/2008 11:49:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Title: Australian Astronomical Society Warns of Global Cooling


Where is the statement from the "Astronomical Society of Australia"? All I see is one paper published in PASA.




RE: Huh
By ttowntom on 7/1/2008 12:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
Way to ignore the message.


RE: Huh
By jbartabas on 7/1/2008 12:55:29 PM , Rating: 3
No. It's a way to hold M. Asher to the same standards as he holds other people.

Suggesting that the "model" presented in this paper and its "predictions" are in any way endorsed by the scientific community at large (well, actually supposedly by the Astronomical Society of Australia) looks like misrepresentation to me. However, I may have missed the statement by this scientific society, and that's why I am asking for a link to it.

As for ignoring the message ... well I haven't really seen one, just a compilation of various reason why we might see a) a global cooling or b) a halt in the warming ... for a) 30 years or b) 15 years (which is erroneous, but whatever) ... because of a) a decrease in solar activity or b) natural climate variation which not related at all to solar activity. When there will be a coherent message, maybe I'll try to address it ...


RE: Huh
By just4U on 7/1/2008 1:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
All he's doing is showing that there is other research out there that indicates the opposite. Does it mean we should all get into a panic and implement policies to stop global cooling? No.

Fact is we need more data before we can all jump off the deep end and say this or that is effecting global temperatures.


RE: Huh
By jbartabas on 7/1/2008 1:36:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
All he's doing is showing that there is other research out there that indicates the opposite. Does it mean we should all get into a panic and implement policies to stop global cooling? No.


Again, I have no problem with reporting on this research. That's not the point at all.

As for this research indicating the "opposite" (I am assuming of the IPCC projections), it depends what you think the IPCC projections are. Nobody in the IPCC or in the climate community has ever stated that a change in solar activity was impossible and/or would have no consequences on the projected climate change.

The IPCC climate models addressed the following question: in the current state of the climate system (or probable projected state), what would happen if one would change GHG concentration. It's a sensitivity study to our present and projected input to the system, that's it. If the Sun were to change its input to the system in a way we have not predicted until now (as the current study suggests), it is clear that the projections would be invalidated. What the IPCC addressed is what we have a control on (GHG emissions), and to a certain extent what can be projected. On a same note, the impact of volcanic eruptions on the long term projections are treated statistically. If these events were to occur radically more often / less often, the climate change projections could be significantly altered.


RE: Huh
By masher2 on 7/1/2008 1:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
The research appears in an official publication of the Australian Astronomical Society and passed their peer review process. That's a bit much to put in a headline, though, which is by neccesity terse. If there was any confusion, the first line of the article makes the situation abundantly clear, however.


RE: Huh
By rtrski on 7/1/2008 2:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
So "peer review" implies a formal announcement from and endorsement as fact by the reviewing organization? Not just that the presented paper was sufficiently well supported, internally structured, and externally consistent with the current body of knowledge to be worth publishing as a hypothesis?

Got to admit, you do appear to be doing exactly what you accuse others of, when it comes to a somewhat sensationalized headline. Argument from authority, hmmm? Surely an equally short, succinct title needn't imply the AAS is doing the warning. "Astronomical Journal Article Warns of Solar-cycle Induced Cooling"..."Proposed Solar Mechanism for Global Cooling Described"... whatever. I'm not buying that someone as exacting of language as you isn't aware of what your title implies.

Sounds like a neat paper though. Cool idea...amazing to think of the solar system as a complete interactive *system* to the point where outer planet mass and orbits influence solar activity significantly (well, significantly to our petty POV at least, although at the astronomic scale these little bitty temperature fluctuations are barely above the noise floor).


RE: Huh
By danrien on 7/1/2008 10:06:47 PM , Rating: 2
Or... "3 Australian Scientists Warn of Global Cooling". Hm.


RE: Huh
By Jim28 on 7/2/2008 11:06:48 PM , Rating: 2
How many would you expect to finish a research paper, 12?
Does the number discount the research?
Or are you just being haughty? (Bingo)


RE: Huh
By jbartabas on 7/3/2008 11:30:47 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
How many would you expect to finish a research paper, 12? Does the number discount the research?


That's not the point being discussed here.

The point is : 1 paper by 3 researcher has nothing to do with the "Australian Astronomical Society warn[ing] of Global Cooling", period.

Nobody argued that their research should be discarded because there were only 3 researchers: Please try to follow and quit sleeping at the back of the class room, thanks.


RE: Huh
By masher2 on 7/3/2008 12:42:34 PM , Rating: 2
No, you're absolutely correct, and you've convinced me. The headline has been updated to better reflect the story itself.


RE: Huh
By Jim28 on 7/7/2008 4:42:08 PM , Rating: 2
I wish you would learn how to tell who I was replying to.

You know those funny little lines that show who is replying to whom!


RE: Huh
By rtrski on 7/3/2008 11:17:58 AM , Rating: 4
Cracks me up. I don't even disagree with the slant that the subject paper further discredits AGW (and even GW as a long-term trend, period), and think the idea implicit in the paper is pretty cool. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the sun's behavior is even strongly related to its passage thru the galactic mag field and dust clouds, not just orbital interactions with the planetary bodies.

But point out - not even as the first to do so - that the glorious Masher used any of the same sensationalistic tactics he derides others for, and you're rated down by the flock of followers. Ah well. ;)


Quick, everyone buy a Hummer
By mattclary on 7/1/2008 12:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
It's our only hope! ;)




RE: Quick, everyone buy a Hummer
By odessit740 on 7/1/2008 12:10:56 PM , Rating: 3
Nah, we need to stop eating beef and let the cows multiply.

Cows > Hummers


RE: Quick, everyone buy a Hummer
By therealnickdanger on 7/1/2008 12:25:50 PM , Rating: 5
How about I buy a Hummer, BUT only leave it running to keep the A/C on whilst a team of yoked cows pull it around to various drive-thrus? Sounds like the best possible solution... I mean, if it actually affected the global climate one iota.


RE: Quick, everyone buy a Hummer
By just4U on 7/1/2008 12:51:46 PM , Rating: 3
Setting aside the jokes, I wish our politicians would read some of these reports. If nothing else, it illustrates alot more research needs to be done as there is to much conflicting data out there. Warming/Cooling, who the hell knows.

Maybe they have tho and that's why were hearing the words "Climate Change" now instead of Global Warming. The more I read about all this stuff the more frustrated I become.

Here in Canada there is talk that for the next election the liberal leader will "champion" the whole global climate agenda. Considering, that he was our Environment Minister during the signing of Kyoto and didn't do a damn thing about it all thru the next 7 years in office, He needs to STFU. His current idea is Canada should be leading the world on Climate Change Policies. While this would gain accolades with activists world wide... I am hoping it's a hard sell in our next election.


By FITCamaro on 7/1/2008 1:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO!!!

Thanks for the good laugh.


RE: Quick, everyone buy a Hummer
By mattclary on 7/1/2008 3:26:55 PM , Rating: 2
But we have to save the cows, so you can only get a veggie burger in the drive through. Or maybe Chicken McNuggets.


By PitViper007 on 7/1/2008 3:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno. Have you driven by a chicken house lately? Man what a stench. It's gotta be worth something on the GW front.... /sarcasm


By nvalhalla on 7/2/2008 12:13:16 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rate you up if you weren't already a 5. That was hilarious!


but, but, but
By acejj26 on 7/1/2008 11:40:55 AM , Rating: 3
...but the sun doesn't have any effect on our global temperatures on earth. Only our greenhouse gases do.




RE: but, but, but
By kattanna on 7/1/2008 3:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
i actually came across a group of people once that seriously thought that the sun had ZERO effect on the earth. that falling micro-meteorites where what was responsible for how warm the earth is day to day.

of course when i asked them why then is it warmer when the suns out, they had no answer, but refused to believe the sun had anything to do with it.


RE: but, but, but
By FITCamaro on 7/2/2008 12:49:34 PM , Rating: 3
The world is also flat and held up by a giant turtle.


RE: but, but, but
By PitViper007 on 7/1/2008 3:47:25 PM , Rating: 2
So the enviro's would have us believe.


Sunspot correction
By CatfishKhan on 7/1/2008 1:06:08 PM , Rating: 4
There have been sunspots within the last two months.

Click on the sunspot link on this site:
http://solarcycle24.com/

Your statement is correct if you restrict it to just cycle 24 sunspots.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/28/su...




RE: Sunspot correction
By CatfishKhan on 7/1/2008 1:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
search for sunspot 999

As far as I can tell, that is the most recent sunspot, and it was around mid/late June.


Sick of DT Bias
By DKWinsor on 7/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sick of DT Bias
By JasonMick on 7/1/2008 2:17:39 PM , Rating: 3
The key thing to bear in mind is that both my article and Michael's were speculative in nature. This is why they were blogs. If the pole were to melt out, or if there really was to be 1-2 degree cooling, that would be tiered news. The concept is not hard to understand.

If you are so offended by DailyTech's bias, first I question why you are an avid enough reader to comment on articles. Secondly I would point out that your aspersions of DailyTech are very off base. Before I came on at DailyTech, the site virtually exclusively covered anti-AGW coverage, courtesy of Mike.

Now that I'm here, there are two opposing viewpoints. Don't like that? Only like your own view? Tough. If you want you can only read Michael's articles. Nobody is making you read mine.

I don't know what else to tell you. DailyTech is a very fair news site even when compared to large news organizations like CNN.com, ABC, and FoxNEWS. We provide serious opposing viewpoints on controversial topics like GW, piracy, OS debates, etc., something which most networks only make a half-hearted attempt at.

If GW proponents who read my articles were to criticize Mike's right to write his side of things that would be equally disturbing to me.

Michael and I for all our differences, I'm sure can both agree that DailyTech provides a varied perspective, and provides a forum for global warming proponents and skeptics alike. And I'm sure we both agree that DailyTech is constantly striving for the highest standard of journalistic accuracy and integrity, while offering up unique viewpoints and news stories.

You may not like the site, but you are in the minority.


RE: Sick of DT Bias
By porkpie on 7/1/2008 2:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
There is no speculation in this story. What separates a blog from a news story is when the REPORTER speculates himself. If he reports speculation from a scientist or anything else, its straight news.


RE: Sick of DT Bias
By DKWinsor on 7/1/2008 4:59:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The key thing to bear in mind is that both my article and Michael's were speculative in nature
Your article contained author speculation. Masher's is a factual report on someone else's speculation aka model. Peer reviewed and published speculation I might add. I think we can find many instances of "models" aka speculation being used in tiered news, so I don't buy that.

quote:
If the pole were to melt out, or if there really was to be 1-2 degree cooling, that would be tiered news
If your article is speculative and thus a blog then why was linked it on anandtech?

There are many examples of Masher's articles that were classified as blogs that are reports on past events contain no speculation by Masher. Here's just one:
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Repo...
This is a past event. Anything resembling speculation in that article is a fact driven statement: eg "Cold is more damaging than heat", "the warm periods ... were beneficial for civilization"

quote:
if there really was to be 1-2 degree cooling, that would be tiered news

The earth cooled 0.65C up to 0.75C in one year, why was this not tiered news?

quote:
Now that I'm here, there are two opposing viewpoints. Don't like that? Only like your own view? Tough. If you want you can only read Michael's articles. Nobody is making you read mine
I like to read both sides, and everyone should. There are 3 reasons why one should read the opponents side: to pick apart their arguement and to strengthen your own. Of course there's a third reason, because if you don't then otherwise you'll never be swayed to the winning arguement.

quote:
If GW proponents who read my articles were to criticize Mike's right to write his side of things that would be equally disturbing to me
You are implying that I critized your right to write. I did not.

quote:
You may not like the site
I like the site, I know of no other place to get both sides of the story. I wish to see it treat one side of the story fairer than it's getting.


RE: Sick of DT Bias
By jbartabas on 7/1/2008 5:21:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are many examples of Masher's articles that were classified as blogs that are reports on past events contain no speculation by Masher. Here's just one: http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Repo... This is a past event. Anything resembling speculation in that article is a fact driven statement: eg "Cold is more damaging than heat", "the warm periods ... were beneficial for civilization"


Excellent example. There is no speculation ... but you found some yourself anyway.

And yeah, it does more than resembling speculation: It is.


RE: Sick of DT Bias
By DKWinsor on 7/1/2008 5:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
Cold is more damaging than heat: This is a statement of fact, not forward looking speculation.

the warm periods ... were beneficial for civilization: Again this is a statement of backward looking historical fact, it's not forward looking speculation


RE: Sick of DT Bias
By DKWinsor on 7/1/2008 5:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
I see now what you meant by speculation. I see no "news" articles that are associated with models or speculation in science, at least going back 3 months. In this respect my posts were wrong.

But I am still sticking to my main point. One blog was given a link on anandtech, and another was not. Thus anandtech is implicitly endorsing one side. This is called bias.


RE: Sick of DT Bias
By jbartabas on 7/1/2008 5:27:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I am still sticking to my main point. One blog was given a link on anandtech, and another was not. Thus anandtech is implicitly endorsing one side. This is called bias.


Maybe it started as a news and was reclassified later as a blog. That happens sometimes.


RE: Sick of DT Bias
By mihai on 7/1/2008 5:45:33 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with DKWinsor in that Masher's article is a pure report of published information. Thus, i think it can be very well published in the news section, although the title is a bit exagerated (i'm pretty sure AAS has a disclaimer somwhere saying that the papers published in its journals do not reflect its opinion).

Since Mick's latest blogs have been considered for the news section (and later revoked from it), i dont see why this one doesn't belong there. Having read Mick's articles on north pole ice melting and the dangers of nuclear technology, i can say that they both are a lot more biased and subjective than this report.


RE: Sick of DT Bias
By Keeir on 7/1/2008 8:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
If I might point out

It seems more like a process problem then an actual Bias. Usually within a few hours, the process is working correctly and speculative Blog articles are not Tiered as news.

JasonMick and Masher's blogs are not the only ones this has occurred to in my memory.

Overall, a better system where-by a "blog" post is tiered news (and this covered at Anandtech, etc) really should be implemented since the number of flip-flops seems rather high


RE: Sick of DT Bias
By JonnyDough on 7/2/2008 6:40:11 AM , Rating: 2
I reiterated this as others did. I didn't read through all of the posts. My bad.


RE: Sick of DT Bias
By Ringold on 7/1/2008 5:48:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We provide serious opposing viewpoints on controversial topics like GW, piracy, OS debates, etc., something which most networks only make a half-hearted attempt at


Half hearted.. thats a generous comment towards most of the networks.

At least DT is genuine about having both sides represented, or trying. Also, when the NYT makes a false accusation, like that little quickly-forgotten John McCain affair insinuation, can you comment on the NYT article and then get the authors to come in and discuss it themselves? Nope.

There are even a lot of blogs out there where the author seeks comments but never, or rarely, responds himself, so DT stands out a bit in that regard too.


RE: Sick of DT Bias
By just4U on 7/1/2008 8:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah. I always liked that about DT. They are active in the comments sections not just posting blogs and articles. It's one of the reasons I keep checking in.


RE: Sick of DT Bias
By JonnyDough on 7/2/2008 6:38:52 AM , Rating: 2
DT also has the same types of links to news articles. What you need is an OPINIONS column, in big bold letters at the top. That way, there is no confusion and you can't be haggled for your opinions. I think that I, and everyone else here feel as though DT states things as "news" or "fact" when in fact it's speculative and opinionated crap, and not based on anything scientific or peer reviewed.

Just a thought.


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch












botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki