backtop


Print 64 comment(s) - last by MCKENZIE1130.. on Nov 29 at 8:10 PM


Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas) authorized the report attacking climate change research that was recently found to have been plagiarized.  (Source: Alex Brandon/AP)

Edward Wegman's report attacking the "hockey-stick" model has been shown by several sources to consist substantially of plagiarized passages.  (Source: George Mason University)

Ironically the man whose research the report attacked, Penn State University Professor Michael Mann, was recently implicated in academic misconduct himself. He was shown in leaked emails from the CRU, appearing to suggest subverting the peer review process to push his global warming viewpoint.  (Source: Penn State University)
The climate change debate these days is looking less like intellectual debate and more like dirty politics

These days the climate change debate seems to have devolved into a scene from the movie Dumb and Dumber.  Everyone seeming has an agenda and an axe to grind.  Unfortunately many involved in the debate on both sides seem to see little need to conduct themselves with integrity, commonly resorting to hyperbole and fakery.

The latest controversy is that a leading report touted by climate change skeptics has been found to be partially plagiarized.  Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas), a leading climate change skeptic in Congress, had requested the report in 2006 to counter assertions that man was causing climate change.  Rep. Barton contracted George Mason University statistician Edward Wegman to produce a report looking at the research for flaws.

The result was a report that attacked leading Paleoclimatologist Michael Mann's so-called "hockey-stick graph" that showed temperatures over the last thousand years.  The "hockey-stick" model was used in the UN International Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2001 report.

Despite acknowledging that the report by Professor Wegman correctly identified flaws in Professor Mann's study, the National Research Council concluded in 2006 that its criticisms were irrelevant due to the fact that more reliable later studies confirmed its conclusions.

Now Professor Wegman's report has been dealt another setback.

In a report in 
USA Today, three leading plagiarism experts -- Cornell's Paul Ginsparg, Ohio State's Robert Coleman, and Virginia Tech' Skip Garner concluded that significant passages in the "study" were lifted from "textbooks, Wikipedia and the writings of one of the scientists criticized in the report" without proper citation.  They call the academic misconduct, "actually fairly shocking," "inappropriate," and "fairly obvious".

Others have also noticed and complained about the plagiarism.  According to
USA Today:

[I]n March, climate scientist Raymond Bradley of the University of Massachusetts asked GMU, based in Fairfax, Va., to investigate "clear plagiarism" of one of his textbooks.

Bradley says he learned of the copying on the Deep Climate website and through a now year-long analysis of the Wegman report made by retired computer scientist John Mashey of Portola Valley, Calif. Mashey's analysis concludes that 35 of the report's 91 pages "are mostly plagiarized text, but often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning." Copying others' text or ideas without crediting them violates universities' standards, according to Liz Wager of the London-based Committee on Publication Ethics. 

George Mason University is investigating the charges.  In the past Professor Wegman had responded to rumors that part of the report might have been plagiarized, calling them "wild conclusions that have nothing to do with reality."  Rep. Barton also appears to be standing behind the report.

Of course the plagiarism does not invalidate the report's criticisms, it just showcases the bias and incompetence that's marring the arguments of both sides of the climate debate.  It also represents a major black mark on the record of Professor Wegman.

Proponents of the theory that man is causing climate changes were recently caught up in a similar debacle when emails leaked from the Climate Research Unit in England.  While those emails seemingly implicated CRU director Phil JonesProfessor Mann, and others in clear and blatant academic misconduct and subversion of the peer review process, subsequent investigations largely exonerated those involved.  Professor Jones and Professor Mann were among those chastised, though, by various panels for their indiscretions in the scandal.  And they're lucky they didn't get worse -- given the seemingly damning nature of the emails, one has to wonder whether a bias wasn't involved in those exonerations.

At the end of the day the CRU scandal and the new scandal surrounding the Wegman report show off the embarrassing and disturbing state of climate research today.  

Understanding and reacting to the Earth's climate is absolutely critical and is a worthy topic of research.  However, with impassioned observers on both sides of the climate change debate seemingly willing to compromise their integrity to fallaciously promote their point of view, one has to wonder how this critical, yet broken field of research can be fixed and restored to honor.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Total Solar Input
By pityme on 11/23/2010 10:19:37 AM , Rating: 5
The thing that bothers me the most is that nobody is looking at the total sun input. We have estimate and Nasa is sending a new satelite up to better measure total irradiance. We worry about the amount absorbed by CO2o et. al but we are very ignorant on the amount delivered. Assuming that the Sun is a "constant source of xx" is silly to me. Look at any pictures of the sun and tell me that is a stable energy source. Then realize that only a portion of the total sun surface irradiates the earth. Then realize that both the earth and the sun are rotating. If the total irradiance is increasing then the amount absorbed would also increase for a constant CO2 profile. I am not for or against the statement of global warming but I believe we do not have anywhere near enough data to say one way or the other.




RE: Total Solar Input
By Goty on 11/23/2010 10:34:52 AM , Rating: 1
Solar output is actually remarkably stable, easily within a few percent maximum deviation over periods like decades, but you must also take sunspots into consideration. We're actually just now coming out of a solar activity minimum.


RE: Total Solar Input
By Shuxclams on 11/23/2010 2:18:10 PM , Rating: 2
Solar Minimum, that means we can expect it to cool down now right?


RE: Total Solar Input
By gamerk2 on 11/23/2010 2:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
Compared to what we are currently at , yes. This actually gives a chance to compare temperatures against the last solar minimum, to see if there is any change from past norms.


RE: Total Solar Input
By AnnihilatorX on 11/28/2010 6:55:30 AM , Rating: 2
The Sun's sun spot cycle is known to be 11 years

Newscientist has a good article on the sun cycle and some discussions on recent research papers into possible links to Climate Change

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627640.800...


RE: Total Solar Input
By Ytsejamer1 on 11/23/2010 10:41:47 AM , Rating: 4
To pityme - I think that is a pretty good way of looking at it. We can all argue about whether global warming is man made or not, but it really doesn't have any effect on how do we as humans, minimize our impact on the planet's resources.

Regardless of whether CO2 build up is man made, we need to find ways to harness the energy that exists naturally in this world...solar, wind, tidal, etc.

One of the great tactics used in politics is that if you can debate something, you can stall change...whether it is relevant or not. Health care issue was a great example...let's debate it to death. If we debate it, it means we should keep things the way they are until everyone agrees on something...which will never happen.

So if we want to keep on debating this issue of man made CO2 buildup and whatnot...fine, keep debating. Let's have discussion on it. But it really has ZERO bearing on how much R&D, effort, etc, we should be focusing towards maximizing our renewable energy resources.


RE: Total Solar Input
By INeedCache on 11/23/2010 10:54:45 AM , Rating: 5
Liked your post. This is what is being lost on all of the fools arguing on both sides. Which side "wins" has now become more important than anything else, including the reduction of pollutants and the R&D for clean, renewable energy. Scientists are like politicians, they have agendas, and many focus on furthering their agenda more than they do actual findings from actual research. Someone else here wrote to focus on "good science". Well, good luck in discerning what that is. People tend to believe the science that supports what they want to believe. I am a degreed meteorologist and worked as a weather forecaster and climatologist for nearly 30 years, and I find some of the stuff out there from both sides to be utterly laughable. But not nearly as laughable as many comments from people who wouldn't know climatology from astrology.


RE: Total Solar Input
By Reclaimer77 on 11/23/2010 4:14:21 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I am a degreed meteorologist and worked as a weather forecaster and climatologist for nearly 30 years, and I find some of the stuff out there from both sides to be utterly laughable.


Yes and you can't even tell me with certainty if it will rain or not tomorrow. Much less what the climate will be in 50 years. Or who's fault it is.


RE: Total Solar Input
By priusone on 11/24/2010 9:59:38 AM , Rating: 2
The one at fault is the one you disagree with.

How many spotted owls and millions of acres of forest (which just seam to burn anyways) have been saved by 'concerned' citizens.

How many jobs have been forced overseas because of people crying about 'environmental impacts' of manufacturing and producing companies?

Slightly biased, but I hope the point gets across.


RE: Total Solar Input
By Suntan on 11/24/2010 10:31:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes and you can't even tell me with certainty if it will rain or not tomorrow.


Too true.

I had a buddy in college that had a roommate who was getting a meteorological degree. I’m not sh!tten that some of the guy’s homework included coloring pictures with colored pencils...

-Suntan


RE: Total Solar Input
By wolrah on 11/25/2010 12:50:00 AM , Rating: 2
You do realize that's a completely retarded argument. It's basically like saying "the traffic reporter can't tell me exactly where I'll be at 6 PM on my drive home, so how can he predict that traffic will be heavy this weekend?"

Making predictions of where the average will go for a large sample area is a lot easier than specifics. In this case, the weather in your town is far more specific than the overall average temperature of an entire planet.


RE: Total Solar Input
By sleepeeg3 on 11/24/2010 12:16:33 AM , Rating: 2
You forgot nuclear...

Zero bearing? That all sounds sensible, but if CO2 emissions were man-made and the apocalypse due to GW was projected to occur by 2050, then it would drastically increase the amount of resources we should devote to building nuclear plants and making other alternatives more efficient. That is what climate scientist and the government are trying to get you to believe.

Problem is money is not infinite and forcing subsidies and government sponsored R&D costs vasts amounts of money. Solar & wind cost between 3-4x as much as nuclear and coal. As nuclear and coal costs increase, companies will have more incentive to invest R&D into alternatives. Instead, forcing us to use solar & wind means all of our costs increase 3-4x, because energy is the backbone of everything we do!

As for healthcare, what we got solved nothing, added taxes for everyone through taxing the health industries, increased the cost for senior citizens and anyone paying for health insurance, now that preexisting conditions can not be denied. 26 million people are still projected to be without health insurance. No changes were made to reduce the maximum litigation costs or streamline paperwork. Debate should continue until a reasonable compromise is made. Instead, Democrats forced additional taxes on everyone against the majority view of the people:
http://www.pollster.com/HealthCarer.png
You don't stop debate, because you are tired of hearing about it or the Democrats wear you down. This shortsighted view is why we have the garbage that we have now.


RE: Total Solar Input
By Ytsejamer1 on 11/24/2010 9:03:29 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't count nuclear as a natural resource, but I agree with you, we need nuclear as well. I totally dislike those "not in my backyard" peeps that want to power the world on happy thoughts.

Along with all of that investment in energy production, we need to improve our aging grid. There's lots of opportunity for expanding our domestic energy portfolio while at the same time improving our infrastructure. That will lead to both plenty of white collar and blue collar jobs that cannot really be outsourced...and with more people working, paying taxes, etc, the economy will get better. Without having to borrow hundreds of billions from China, just to send hundreds of billions to the middle east for their oil, we can make ourselves a bit safer. See the pattern here? There's a great opportunity for the US to improve itself by nutting up and taking on this issue directly rather than arguing about whether or not warming was caused naturally or by man. As I said, it has ZERO bearing on whether we should be working on developing clean, renewable energy from the world's natural resources.

As for debate and health care...debating should continue, as should there be improvements made in all facets of it. Is it perfect? No...not even close. Doesn't mean we don't move forward and try something else. If we wait back for some magic complete solution to every problem to just appear at no cost to anyone, we'll be waiting forever. It takes hard work, difficult decisions (hopefully more right than wrong), and time to make something happen in a positive direction.

Polls don't mean crap to me...there's so much more misinformation on the subject than there is legit information. I talk to fairly well educated people, but they're convinced President Obama is Muslim (he isn't), wasn't born in US (he was), and his wife is a racist (wrote about racism in a college paper and a single quote was taken out of a larger context)... People will believe what they want to and cling to any bit of information (true or not) that reinforces their outlook. You know what? God bless...everyone is entitled to their opinion.


RE: Total Solar Input
By tng on 11/24/2010 9:40:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
...but they're convinced President Obama is Muslim (he isn't)....
Agreed, this is just pathetic crap.

quote:
...wasn't born in US (he was)...
This is still a question in my mind. Don't know if he was or not, but the records on this have been locked up tight. If it is not evidence of foreign birth, there is something that he doesn't want known. There has been a Certificate of Live Birth released, but no Birth Certificate released. Yes they are different and yes it does matter. I don't think personally that it proves that he was not born a US citizen, but probably something else that is just embarrassing.

On the Michelle Obama racist issue, I haven't read the paper she wrote, so I wont comment on that, but she has made some provocative statements in the past. Probably regrets some of them now.


RE: Total Solar Input
By Miqunator on 11/24/2010 12:55:18 AM , Rating: 2
I was contemplating whether I should bother expressing my views before reading your post. Thanks for saving me the trouble.


RE: Total Solar Input
By Lerianis on 11/24/2010 7:17:40 AM , Rating: 3
I agree that we need to start relying on other 'natural'..... wait.... oil IS a natural source of energy? Oops.... that argument out the window.

Seriously, I am all for cutting down on pollution... but NOT if we have to bankrupt Americans in order to do so! Seriously, Americans CANNOT AFFORD 40K+ cars that ONLY get 20 miles each way! Most Americans have to drive more than that each day.

Get them up to 100 miles each way AND 1/2 or less the price, THEN we can talk!


RE: Total Solar Input
By espaghetti on 11/24/2010 1:24:11 PM , Rating: 2
I would also like to take my wife and kids with me to go shopping and have enough room for them and the stuff we buy in the vehicle.
Wait! I know we can use the SUV we have right now!
20mpg. 2007 emissions standards. I'm OK with this.
If there are people here that don't like it, just remember :
I am legally allowed to obtain liberty (freedom for those of you in Rio Linda),
and pursue happiness.
Stay out of my car.


RE: Total Solar Input
By osalcido on 11/29/2010 12:24:05 AM , Rating: 2
Are you trying to ridicule EVs by purposely throwing out statistics for decades old technology ? Or are you seriously that ignorant?

Nissan Leaf has a range of 70-100 Miles on a single charge. Base price is 32,780 minus a $7500 federal credit and up to $5000 more off in certain states.

Total cost: $20,280


RE: Total Solar Input
By kattanna on 11/23/2010 11:35:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I believe we do not have anywhere near enough data to say one way or the other.


thats probably the most accurate description of climate science as it stands right now.

there are people though who are looking into how the sun affects our climate and have noticed as the sun changes so does our climate. one of the "feedbacks" that is rarely taken into account in most climate models is cloud cover. it appears that when the sun is in quiet phases we get more clouds, hence lower energy input and lower temps.

we do know that during long periods of low sunspot activity the planet does cool. look into maunder minimum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

another thing that can affect the climate is what is called the milankovitch cycles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

that also affects how the sun affects us.

so, the sun and our place within our own galaxy are being explored, but there is still lots to learn.


RE: Total Solar Input
By Boze on 11/23/2010 1:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
there are people though who are looking into how the sun affects our climate and have noticed as the sun changes so does our climate.


The single largest nuclear reactor in the solar system and it takes this long for people to figure that out... Brave, you brave souls.


RE: Total Solar Input
By kattanna on 11/23/2010 2:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
LOL yeah, it seems its one of those head slappingly obvious things.

yet, it is being done by real scientists so that means actual data and since we are talking about the solar system there is no fast cycles to any of it. so it takes real time. plus its only been relatively recent that we have had instruments that can make dedicated long term readings.


RE: Total Solar Input
By cruisin3style on 11/23/2010 2:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
Plus unless I heard wrong I thought that the earth was slowly moving closer to the sun...dunno how fast or close or even if that's true but thought I'd throw that out there. Maybe someone who knows can chime in


RE: Total Solar Input
By sleepeeg3 on 11/23/2010 11:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
It has been looked at and solar activity directly correlates with temperature. Of course, the global warming scientist would be out of a job, if they ever started looking at this, so it gets brushed under the table.
http://right-mind.us/blogs/blog_0/archive/2008/02/...


RE: Total Solar Input
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/24/2010 12:09:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, this is a very good point. The average temperatures of other planets out to Jupiter are increasing to the same degree that the Earth's average temperature is increasing, given the fall off in output with the square of the distance. I think we are just to the average temperature we were at in 1700 when the Earth started cooling.

One thing no one has pointed out, as well, is that prior to the recent cooling after 1700, parts of Greenland were habitable and farm-able, but those farms were abandoned because it got too cold. They are still not farm-able since it hasn't gotten as warm as it once was at that latitude. This indicates global warming and cooling as a function of input more than anything else.


RE: Total Solar Input
By MCKENZIE1130 on 11/29/2010 8:10:21 PM , Rating: 2
In order to meet Christmas, Some commodities have been, discount .In addition Buy $ 300 and receive a free glasses or a wallet, as a Christmas gift . welcome all friends to order. Reputation, quality, absolute guarantee. please log in: http://www.fashionsb.com . so what, move your mouse .


Smears don't change the facts
By Tony Swash on 11/23/2010 10:09:08 AM , Rating: 5
To quote the article
quote:
Of course the plagiarism does not invalidate the report's criticisms,


They key finding of the Wegman was that the statistical methods used to create the so called"Hockey Stick" graph were deeply flawed. The hockey stick graph purported to show that the temperatures of the last portion of the 20th century were hotter than anything seen for a 1000 years and anomalous and hence needed explaining by some special forcing agent i.e. CO2.

The paper that created the hockey stick was precisely and forensically critiqued by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick who showed in detail that the hockey stick shape was a product of poor statistical methodology and did not exist in the actual data.

If you want background information on this issue and an account of the whole saga go here

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-t...

The Wegman report found that the statistics used in the hockey stick paper were indeed deeply flawed and that the hockey stick graph had no scientific value.

Nothing in the claims about plagiarism alters this conclusion. Its the anniversary of Climategate and the warmist alarmists want to counterattack. Don't believe headlines, look for yourselves, follow the data and trust in good science.




By therealnickdanger on 11/23/2010 11:01:49 AM , Rating: 2
^

Historically known as "argumentum ad hominem". Don't like the results? Attack the validity of the argument based upon the character of the messenger.


RE: Smears don't change the facts
By Nfarce on 11/23/2010 11:35:44 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Nothing in the claims about plagiarism alters this conclusion. Its the anniversary of Climategate and the warmist alarmists want to counterattack.


You hit the nail on the head with that. Never mind that so much of that "data" that was captured for AGW reports was inaccurate. For example, temperature sensors placed in the middle of asphalt parking lots and right next to building air conditioning units.

Someone has done a lot of research on that very topic:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/


RE: Smears don't change the facts
By kattanna on 11/23/2010 11:53:53 AM , Rating: 3
lets not forget these little gems

NOAA 16 satellite degradation

http://climatechangedispatch.com/climate-reports/7...

quote:
readings for June and July 2010 for Lake Michigan showed crazy temperatures off the scale ranging in the low to mid hundreds - with some parts of the Wisconsin area apparently reaching 612 F. With an increasing number of further errors now coming to light the discredited NOAA removed the entire set from public view. But just removing them from sight is not the same as addressing the implications of this gross statistical debacle


or new zealand having to make their temp records unofficial after being taken to court

http://climateresearchnews.com/2010/10/legal-victo...

quote:
New Zealand Government Abandons ‘Official’ Climate Record

The NZCSC story reports that the NZ authorities, “formally stated that, in their opinion, they are not required to use the best available information nor to apply the best scientific practices and techniques available at any given time. They don’t think that forms any part of their statutory obligation to pursue “excellence.” NIWA now denies there was any such thing as an “official” NZ Temperature Record, although there was an official acronym for it (NZTR). However, the position now taken by the NZ government is that all such records are now to be deemed as unofficial and strictly for internal research purposes. The article urges that if the government will not affirm that their temperature reconstruction is official then, “Nobody else should rely on it.”


RE: Smears don't change the facts
By foolsgambit11 on 11/23/2010 4:36:35 PM , Rating: 2
To quote the article,
quote:
[T]he National Research Council concluded in 2006 that its criticisms were irrelevant due to the fact that more reliable later studies confirmed its conclusions.
In other words, while the Wegman report, and its sources, may have cast doubt on (or even invalidated) the Mann study, it didn't disprove the conclusions. It only showed that more research was needed, some of which has been done already.

I read somewhere that Mann himself stated explicitly (in the infamous hockey-stick paper, I think) that more and better data were needed before his conclusions could be validated. So while the report was held up as conclusive politically, it wasn't claimed to be so scientifically. Again, it goes back to politics. The scientific research, taken apart from the politics, is really quite interesting. But in the political realm, it becomes (to paraphrase from Yes, Prime Minister), "your facts are just statistics, but my statistics are facts."


RE: Smears don't change the facts
By tng on 11/25/2010 2:01:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
.....Mann himself stated explicitly (in the infamous hockey-stick paper, I think) that more and better data were needed before his conclusions could be validated. So while the report was held up as conclusive politically, it wasn't claimed to be so scientifically.
All good, if what you say is true, but it was held up as the pinnacle of science on the subject. It was also used to start a global campaign against mainly the Western way of life by everybody out there who may or may not have had an agenda of some kind.

The fact of the matter is that this report was used as scientific fact even though they knew it was deeply flawed. Why would you trust anything from them? Climategate was inevitable.


By Reclaimer77 on 11/23/2010 5:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that the Hockey Stick even existed, or made it to the position of a final conclusion of a theory, should be alarming enough. If the scientific method had even bothered to be used, that much would have been obvious.

You're being too kind by calling it "flawed". The methodology used to arrive at the Hockey Stick graph was purposely falsified and unethical.

If there really was a "scientific consensus" that the Hockey Stick was valid and factual, then I think it illustrates what a sad state the Scientific Community is in, as well as those who blindly follow them.


Correction
By amanojaku on 11/23/2010 9:47:14 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The climate change debate has never been an intellectual debate and has always been about dirty politics




RE: Correction
By AssBall on 11/23/2010 9:56:22 AM , Rating: 5
What a giant mess this is. My Grandpa wasn't an educated man, but he had a saying:

"You gotta be careful, son, bullshitting only draws you into more bullshit."

He's long gone now, but that fairly sums up the current AGW debate.


RE: Correction
By amanojaku on 11/23/2010 10:40:19 AM , Rating: 5
Your grandpa was what we call "street smart", while the politicians and scientists involved in the AGW nonsense are what we call "educated fools". I think I'd get along great with your grandpa.


RE: Correction
By Reclaimer77 on 11/23/10, Rating: -1
By jcherrybon on 11/23/2010 4:54:19 PM , Rating: 1
Scientists are aware that the sun's output contributes to the temperature of our planet. People act like nobody but the super intelligent posters of dailytech have thought about factoring in solar output.

There are plenty of studies that look at how solar irradiance affects our planet's temperature, as well as its impact on global warming.

The graphs of solar irradiance show output rising and falling regularly while the average global temperature and atmospheric C02 levels rise steadily together.

To sum up the situation, the sun is where the heat originates (no, this isn't new data) and our atmosphere traps the warmth via the greenhouse effect. What causes that greenhouse effect? Greenhouse gases like C02. Increased levels of C02 in the atmosphere increases this warming effect.

The arguments against humans contributing to global warming tend to contradict themselves.

Originally global warming just wasn't happening. This argument is still actually used whenever it's cold outside. "Global warmin'? It's cold outside!! Dumb scientists!!"

Then when it was proven that the average global temperature has been steadily rising it turned into "It's the sun, stupid!". Except the sun's output has been on the decline lately yet we keep setting records for hottest year almost every year now.

When all else fails just attack Al Gore. Or scare people by saying this is all a scam to spread socialism or other similar nonsense.




By Reclaimer77 on 11/23/2010 5:32:11 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Originally global warming just wasn't happening. This argument is still actually used whenever it's cold outside. "Global warmin'? It's cold outside!! Dumb scientists!!"


That same argument is used whenever we have a hot year by pro-warming propagandists. Hell a few years ago hurricanes were claimed to have been caused by "climate change". The following Hurricane season was one of the mildest in recent times, so much for that theory.

quote:
Then when it was proven that the average global temperature has been steadily rising


Since when? It's been proven the Earth has been on a cooling cycle for the past 6 years.

quote:
Except the sun's output has been on the decline lately yet we keep setting records for hottest year almost every year now.


What? Last year was the third coldest year in the last 115 for the United States. Hell a third of the country was buried under record snowfalls. I guess that's from all the man made Co2 as well? Please.

And the summer of 2009? According to the NOAA, 2009 was far cooler than normal. The 34'th coolest summer since 1895!

Maybe you should bring some facts to the argument instead of making things up or outright lying?


By tng on 11/24/2010 9:21:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That same argument is used whenever we have a hot year by pro-warming propagandists. Hell a few years ago hurricanes were claimed to have been caused by "climate change".
This just shows you how people people who support AGW will twist things.

The lead climatologist at MIT stated (shortly after several people were in the news claiming hurricanes would become bigger and bigger due to warming) that quite the opposite would happen. This was post Katrina BTW.

Hurricanes gather strength when warm water evaporates into cooler air in the tropics. The greater the differential, the larger a storm is. So as the atmosphere warms, the less temp differential there is and the smaller the storms are.

Common sense, but the AGW people made allot of sense to people who don't know anything about the process. People should educate themselves.


By hr824 on 11/24/2010 5:44:04 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=...

If you gonna use NOAA in your denier post you should actually look at the data.

If you notice the table mid way through the report you will notice that in the 10 hottest years on record 2001 -2009 were in them and the latest report for 2010 knocks 1997 off the top 10.

Since NOAA's actual data completely refutes you claims of NOAA's data I assume they are part of the conspiracy of government liberals that hate your SUV.


By tng on 11/24/2010 9:30:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When all else fails just attack Al Gore. Or scare people by saying this is all a scam to spread socialism or other similar nonsense.
Well really, there is no need to actively attack Al Gore. After all he does a good job of discrediting himself.

Al Gore's "carbon footprint" is huge, multiple houses, cars, energy usage, all so far above the average that it is laughable for him to criticize anyone else on their CO2 output.

Also if you follow the money, he has made over $100 million since he started his Global Warming campaign, off of people buying trees from a company that he owns to offset their carbon footprint, public appearances, etc..... Sounds to me like he really doesn't believe what he preaches, just a means to become wealthy.


Climate Change
By Colorado Bob on 11/23/2010 12:07:12 PM , Rating: 1
Nov. Observed events -

It's been raining in Alaska .....

Rain from Anchorage to Barrow an 'extraordinary event'

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2010/11/22/1568263/rain-from-an...

Hudson's Bay -
Higher-than-normal temperatures have prevented ice from forming in the region, putting it three to four weeks behind schedule, according to the Canadian Ice Service, a division of Environment Canada.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/11/17/hudson-b...

Record high temperatures return to Russia
The weather in Russia will remain abnormally warm for at least the next five days, said the head of the Russian Hydrometeorological Center, adding that the record temperatures have also been recorded in Siberia and a number of other Russian regions.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20101111/161293803.html




RE: Climate Change
By Colorado Bob on 11/23/2010 1:16:30 PM , Rating: 1
The temperature 2 days ago at Nuuk Greenland -

15.8 C or 60.44F

http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/vejrarkiv-gl?region=7&year=2...


RE: Climate Change
By Captain Orgazmo on 11/24/2010 3:37:33 AM , Rating: 4
Current temperature in Calgary, Canada, -28°C. The entire last week has been unseasonably cold in all of Alberta, almost 20 degrees Celsius below historical averages. So I guess an ice age is coming?

You are quoting random weather conditions, which mean nothing in a discussion of climate. You must work for the IPCC.


RE: Climate Change
By Lerianis on 11/24/2010 7:20:33 AM , Rating: 3
Agreed, Captain.... the fact is that small changes in weather mean nothing, and that is what the climate change enthusiasts are by and large pointing at.

We have to realize that our world IS STILL COMING OUT OF A LITTLE ICE AGE! Therefore? The world is going to get warmer, because it was colder than it should be up to now.


Surprised?
By 3minence on 11/23/2010 9:56:28 AM , Rating: 2
The moment politicians become involved it becomes a political issue, not a scientific issue.

The bad part of this is that it's become such a polarising issue. Rational debate on the issue is (probably) no longer possible.




RE: Surprised?
By mdogs444 on 11/23/2010 10:03:47 AM , Rating: 2
Rational debate when never possible - the scientists themselves have been quoted trying to silence critics, and have even come out to say that climate change isn't about science, its about redistributing the worlds wealth. How do you expect to have a rational debate when the leading scientist in the field is talking about "hiding the decline"?

They clearly admit is more ecomonic based than scientific based.


RE: Surprised?
By kattanna on 11/23/2010 2:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The moment environmental groups became involved it becomes a naughty human issue, not a scientific issue


corrected that for you

;>)


not new news
By lenardo on 11/23/2010 10:10:11 AM , Rating: 2
damn get with the news people,

this news is WELL over a month old.

the new news...if jason REALLY wants a hot story

research what

ottmarr edenhofer- chair of ipcc working group III just said a few days ago in a german newspaper/ magazine.

shows what a crock the ipcc is..

its about redistributing wealth, not about climate change, climate change is just the "cause" for the movement of money.




Dead Russians
By Colorado Bob on 11/23/2010 12:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
Amid record temperatures and rampant wildfires, the death rate nationwide shot up 27.4 percent in August compared with the same month last year, the state statistics office said in figures published on its website.

The surge saw 41,262 more people die than during August 2009, while the previous months' figures showed no significant rise year-on-year.

Moscow alone saw 9,000 more deaths in August, or a 68.6 percent hike in the mortality rate, as residents inhaled a toxic mix of smog and smoke from nearby forest and peat-bog fires.

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Deaths_rose_by_q...

Moscow for both months-
Overall, the city experienced 10,935 deaths linked to the extreme temperatures and stifling smog over the two months from July to August, which represents a 60 percent rise in the mortality rate.

http://www.google.com/ hostednews/ afp/ article/ ALeqM5ih6EGeelXvvrhgivI66OKFJ1MFLA




RE: Dead Russians
By hr824 on 11/23/10, Rating: 0
China doesn't care either way
By spkay on 11/23/2010 3:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
Burn baby burn, keep the Chinese economy growing while we whither away......




lol
By zmatt on 11/23/2010 8:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
lol. that is all.




Ah Mick...
By sleepeeg3 on 11/23/2010 11:55:07 PM , Rating: 2
Posting sensationalist nonsense just to get DailyTech's readership up.

"Of course the plagiarism does not invalidate the report's criticisms..."
You could have decided to not write this article after figuring that one out.

He could have plagiarized the whole intarweb, but it does it not change the fact that the arguments are still valid. You global warming defenders are left with obfuscating the debate, because the science behind global warming is wrong.




Ugh..
By MoneyLoo on 11/24/2010 3:23:07 AM , Rating: 2
Sigh....I read the title and said to myself "One million dollars this is a Mick post." Not sure how I feel about being right..




By topkill on 11/28/2010 12:00:40 AM , Rating: 2
If you think you can actually prove EITHER side of this, you are what is called an ass-clown. (look it up)

You can try to prove whatever left-wing crap or right-wing crap you want all day long with these BS stats floating around. Just state your side of this religious debate and stop lying to yourself that it is anything but a faith based argument in which you will believe what you want.

Stick with real problems that need to be addressed and are provable: We spend $400 BILLION dollars a year on foreign oil in the US. Try turning your economy around with that bleeding you dry.

But NO...the Democrats want to give away free gov't crap to anyone who can fog a mirror while people who work their ass off pay taxes for it UNTIL THE WHOLE THING COLLAPSES ON ITSELF!!!
And the Republicans support the Chamber of Commerce as they campaign to give tax breaks to corporations that shut down US facilities and move our jobs to China and give tax breaks to Multi-Millionaires and Billionaires "because they create our jobs" ROFLMAO!!! They create jobs in China and invest their money over there you IDIOTS! They get a better return on their investments.

And we are so stupid, we keep voting for both sides! Idiots like Barton who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and never worked a day in his life...and THEN APOLOGIZES TO BP???? Are you F'ing kidding me??? And Obama...who thinks we elected him to make us a socialist state? ARE YOUR F'ING KIDDING ME???

They are all morons who line their own pockets and push their own "religions and beliefs" down our throat.

Who represents the REAL America? The people who work for a living and will never be "rich" but keep this company going? We're heading for a collapse and major change folks. We have almost reached our end much like every other empire in the history of this planet. And we let sick, self serving people on both sides play us like fools and drive us over the onrushing cliff.

Enjoy the show folks. It only swings back and forth wilder and wilder from here.




When isn't ignorance bliss?
By eegake on 11/23/2010 3:38:54 PM , Rating: 1
When the inner angst radiated by climate change denialists posting on DailyDreck exceeds the comfort they find in whining about it.

The jury is still out on climate change, but that point is moot. Humans are subject to similar selective pressures as other species, so if humans are a source of climate change, the problem will ultimately be self-correcting.




I can't help...
By msheredy on 11/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: I can't help...
By Paj on 11/23/2010 1:21:45 PM , Rating: 4
oh, we evolved.


Not exactly calling the kettle black, now is it?
By mdogs444 on 11/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not exactly calling the kettle black, now is it?
By Paj on 11/23/2010 1:24:02 PM , Rating: 1
You must have missed the part that said

quote:

While those emails seemingly implicated CRU director Phil Jones, Professor Mann, and others in clear and blatant academic misconduct and subversion of the peer review process, subsequent investigations largely exonerated those involved.


you dont really get exonerated from plagiarism.


By Reclaimer77 on 11/23/2010 4:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
CRU did the investigation on itself. So, big shock, they were "exonerated". You're making this seem like it was a legitimate investigation by a law enforcement team or court of law. It was neither.


RE: Not exactly calling the kettle black, now is it?
By Boze on 11/23/2010 1:26:05 PM , Rating: 2
Actually in the world of academia, I believe you get in more trouble for plagiarism than for outright lying or making up data.

I've fudged some numbers in organic chem labs to make everything "come out right", but I know some other students that have copied a single sentence for a literature paper and not cited it and ended up in front of the Honors' council. Meanwhile my organic chem professor looked at my data and e-mailed me back saying:

"Couldn't get it to line up, couldja?"
"No sir... I couldn't..."
"Haha! B-"

So in the eyes of these academics, its better to lie or make things up than to steal... at least that's been my personal experience.


By hr824 on 11/23/2010 2:52:39 PM , Rating: 1
I guess peer review really dose work, didn't take much to show your a cheater did it.


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki