Slashdot Mirror
Alleging 'Malpractice' With Climate Skeptic Papers, Publisher Kills Journal
sciencehabit writes "A European publisher today terminated a journal edited by climate change skeptics. The journal, Pattern Recognition in Physics, was started less than a year ago. Problems cropped up soon afterward. In July, Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado, Denver, noted 'serious concerns' with Pattern Recognition in Physics. As he wrote on his blog about open-access publishing, Beall found self-plagiarism in the first paper published by the journal. 'In addition,' says another critic, 'the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing.'"
The journal had no problems any other journal did. But evidence that REAL scientists did not all buy into the cultish AGM doomsday thinking could not be allowed to exist.
Sorry, real science. You'll have to take a back-seat a while longer to the politicians.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
0/10. Not very original or funny.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Curious minds want to know what sort of "self-plagarism" in a journal's content rates shutting the journal down.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Many conservatives are climate-change skeptics. And many engage in lying about scientific fact in order to 'win' their argument. The first is ignorance, but the second -- think about that sentence. How dumb do you have to be to lie about your own safety in catastrophic situation?
Conservatism has become a joke. They are so caught up in the power of lies, that they have left reality behind.
Sea level temp. hash't raised much in recent years because we haven't had an el nino year (a year in which heat from the ocean moves into the atmosphere) in recent years, yet we have managed to get year equal or even slightly surpassing the last el nino year. Arguing global warming has ended because of no el nino years is like arguing global warming has ended because winter has not been any warmer the summer 6 months ago.
Curious minds want to know what sort of "self-plagarism" in a journal's content rates shutting the journal down.
Apparently not curious enough to read the fine article.
The editors of the journal copy-pasted from an earlier work without crediting their earlier coworkers. So "Ouadfeul, Aliouane, Hamoudi, Boudella, and Eladj" became just "Ouadfeul and Aliouane".
http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/07/16/recognizing-a-pattern-of-problems-in-pattern-recognition-in-physics/
Then again, there is Retraction Watch in case deniers just want to claim that the scientists are sitting on their billion dollar yachts sipping their mojitos, and selectively killing only articles about global warming - hey, might as well add creationism while we are into denialism.
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/17/climate-skeptic-journal-shuttered-following-malpractice-in-nepotistic-reviewer-selections/
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Full disclosure: I'm one of those 'climate skeptics' that journals are trying to silence. Not that I'm trying to write a paper about it. But the 'debate' about climate change really has started to degenerate into the level of fanaticism in decent years. And this news story is a perfect example of that.
The whole idea of writing a previewed scientific paper is to get your research out there and present it to so that the scientific community as a whole can pick it apart. Call it Darwinian research, if nothing else. And this is done via these journals. But if journals beginning throwing out papers that don't agree with their ideology the entire system starts to go all to shit!
It should not be the job of these editors to weed out dissenting options. What they need to be doing is letting people with 'crazy ideas' embarrasses themselves enough that they go away. If their idea is 'that crazy'.
There were three *entire* sentences that were self-plagiarized? They shouldn't just kill the journal, but the author himself!
The horror.
But seriously, it seems to me that the librarian-blogger is full of himself, and that the publisher may be hyper-sensitive to any form of criticism (or might have people making decisions whose virtually religious views on the topic of climate change align with the librarian, and this was used as an excuse to smack down the journal). Of course that is just supposition.
This instance of self-plagiarism doesn't exactly seem like it was malicious, I imagine it was an oversight that the journal and author(s) would have no problem correcting.
When the whole point of a journal, though, is to only publish one viewpoint of an issue, it ceases to become an academic journal. Those people publishing can always start their own journal or publish to web sites they own, although neither of those options would carry the credibility of publishing into an academic journal would.
This post is an incredible steaming pile of feces. So is this site.
The issue isn't dissent. The issue is malpractice. The authors rehashed their old papers without crediting the old papers' co-authors, and the peer reviewers tampered with the review process to favor their own or colleagues' papers.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Not quite. Self-plagiarism is passing off one's own previous work as new work. For example, a college student who reuses a paper from one class to fulfill the requirements of another class. Or, an academic who submits an already published work to another journal.
Even if it was a single author, just copying from an earlier work is enough to be considered self-plagiarism. You must publish original research.
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
Full disclosure: I am not one of those 'climate skeptics', and oil companies are trying to silence me. Scientists found out that our pollution is causing temperatures to rise. Oil companies found out that they were the cause. They then began a campaign to discredit 97% of the scientists who study the phenomenon. They bought their own scientists. They pandered to people so desperate to belong to a tribe that they were willing to believe the president was not born in Hawaii (despite a news artice announcing his birth), evolution was a myth (forget science, our literal interpretation of the Bible must be true, or it's disaster for us all!!) and any other self delusion that allowed them to be counted among the rabble.
You seem to be fitting right in.
Btw, Stanford has a MOOC titled "Writing in the Sciences", that covers plagiarism and other stuff you should avoid. I highly recommend that course.
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
Wow! That means as a software developer, I must self-plagiarize all the time!
Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
But you aren't presenting that reused code as new research advancing the state of the art of the field, right?
How can you publish original research when it's based on e=mc^2... like everything else?
Unique interpretation makes sense in research, but really, what has been original in the last 10 yrs?
Do you have some evidence that journals are trying to silence climate skeptics? Don't journals publish papers from well-known skeptics such as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer? If there actually was some sort of conspiracy, I think a skeptic that had good evidence would be able to simply put his papers on the web for all to see, yet I never see any posts pointing me to an article such as that.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Thank you. I was wondering how the heck you could steal your own writings and pass them off as your own.
Apparently you are no scientist or you would know that the point of peer-reviewed journals (not sure what previewed papers are) is to make sure that they are of reasonable quality before they are published. The reviewers, who have experience in the field, review the data collection and analysis techniques used in the paper and look for systemic or logical errors that would lead to incorrect conclusions/reporting. Sometimes the reviewers miss something, limitations of existing equipment and techniques, or an ambiguity in interpretation of the results means further research is indicated, which may invalidate the original paper. The idea is to only waste at most a few people's time (the reviewers') instead of a whole scientific community's, to filter out the the chaff and improve the quality above what would normally found under Sturgeon's Revelation. In theory there's also an earlier filter at the grant submission stage that avoids funding the more obviously flawed proposals, but funding from industry to promote a financially beneficial result bypasses that filter (for prior examples, see research on morbidity caused by tobacco use). Generally climate skeptic papers aren't censored because what they report is unpopular, they are rejected because of blatant or more subtle flaws identified by the reviewers and which the authors are unwilling to correct. Back into the slush pile. Too bad, so sad.
When you have politically/economically sensitive areas, there can be attempts to manipulate the system to promote certain views. It would appear that there were multiple indicators that this was the case with this journal, starting with an editor with strong petroleum industry ties and choices in reviewers that were likely to be one-sided and leading to substandard peer-review.
Many publishers make plenty of money selling subscriptions to journals and collecting publishing fees from researchers. They would prefer to publish journals, so when they discontinue a journal like this it's going to be either
The only censorship here is the same kind as that of people who walk away furtively from the loony or the crooked politician haranguing people from his soapbox in the middle of a park.
Posting as Anonymous because I've already moderated.
The idea that there is no money in Global scepticism is simple untrue. First there are plenty of people who will give you money for poor science that supposedly shoes global warming isn't happening. Secondly if you can do real science putting doubt on global warming, thats not going to suddenly kill any need to study climate.
The issue here is that the ideas have been picked apart long ago by the scientific community. But these journals are not meant to address the scientific community. They exist to provide industrial boilerplate as quote fodder for politicians and pundits. The real target is people who don't know any better. Even when the journal has been discredited, they will still quote it, because few people will know that it has been discredited.
A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth has its boots on. That is the whole point of efforts like these.
what has been original in the last 10 yrs?
Round corners on handheld devices, according to Apple.
In case anyone wants to know the full extent of the self-plagiarism, here it is.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
the climate skeptic should just publish on wikipedia instead... they don't allow original research there ;-)
If it's not original, it's not research. It might be nice writing, but if you're not moving the state of the art forward, you might as well be in Marketing. :-)
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
I find it hilarious that you use that argument about consensus when the big subject is cancelling the journal with a non-conforming viewpoint. Just a little bit of self-lickking ice cream cone we have going on there. We need to crush the anti-science anti-vax and anti-GMO crowd in our party before we worry about pointing out how stupid the republitards look.
Curious minds want to know why you can't be bothered to spell "plagiarism" correctly but think you're qualified to have the opinion in your sig. You're too stupid to know you're stupid. That's a big problem.
even for you.
Pattern recognition is a branch of machine learning that looks at getting computers to... drumroll... recognise and classify patterns. I know, I worked in that field for over a decade. So how the hell does this journal get away with such a blatant and obviously misleading title?
(glad the journal got killed even if the stated reasons were weak. Seriously, I've yet to see a journal that didn't practice a degree of nepotism when choosing editors and such, and so long as the research itself is new I have zero problem with people self-plagarising chunks of introduction, background or similar "blah blah" bits of filler and catchup)
Apparently you are no scientist or you would know that the point of peer-reviewed journals (not sure what previewed papers are) is to make sure that they are of reasonable quality before they are published. The reviewers, who have experience in the field, review the data collection and analysis techniques used in the paper and look for systemic or logical errors that would lead to incorrect conclusions/reporting.
Really, search for evidence of this. It does not exist. Everyone who has looked into it say peer review only maintains social norms.
No, because you're not pretending the code is new and novel. Self-plagiarism involves sending some portion of the same material off to n>1 publishers and telling each one (implicitly or explicitly) that the work is new and not previously or concurrently published elsewhere.
Where it gets interesting is that large chunks of papers are literally re-telling the same stuff over and over again. For example background material like "Blah first did blah in blah, blah extended blah, blah blah blah, and now we're going to extend/change/analyze/whatever it". You could easily have to tell this same story in dozens of papers over the years as background for your truly new work. Obviously trying to re-write this over and over is a completely pointless waste of time, so many academics just copy/paste the same old crap and then get on with the rest of the paper. Is that sort of self-plagiarism bad, and if so why?
(Anonymous Academic)
It's actually correct.
Another interesting thing is the Pope was Galileo's former classmate and they had a bit of a history of not getting on.
Nearly half the Cardinals voted for Galileo. It wasn't the Pope's call alone.
So in other words, ordinary grubby politics and not really anything to do with Science or Religion.
At the time and since there have been portions of the Catholic church very much in favour of Science.
Actually it all ties together. Christianity Lite sees an unchanging world provided by God to exploit in any way they like with zero consequences. Dumbing down Genesis to such a point where some stuff is taken far too literally (seven days then the modern world) and some stuff totally ignored for the sake of convenience (here's the Earth kids - look after it) produces the denialist mindset.
So that's the core. Marketing, PR and "lobby money" added the rest.
It's not just bad science. It's bad theology as well.
It's pushback. After a few decades of trying to let the lies slide off it became time to point out the liars.
Well, the IPCC models were supposed to tell us by how much we could expect the temperature to rise due to increased CO2. They had huge funding and plenty of time and resources. The answer they came up with was higher than has been observed.
Are you saying that it is because they forgot to take account of the ocean heat absorption? That if they had taken account of it then they would have got a lower, more realistic, climate sensitivity?
Where's the evidence for global warming?
Even if it was a single author, just copying from an earlier work is enough to be considered self-plagiarism. You must publish original research.
Not at all. There's a fair amount of boilerplate that goes into a paper. If it hasn't changed since the last research paper by the authors, then it doesn't require a rewrite. It's not original research.
I'm pretty sure I could come up with high profile examples from mathematical physics, for example where an author copy/pasted from one of their previous papers, summaries of other peoples' research.
As was noted elsewhere by artor3, the real problem was not crediting additional authors of the previous work. Even that doesn't strike me as a very serious problem since the primary author was the same for both papers, apparently, and may well be the sole author of the copied text.
Instead, the nepotism is probably what ended the journal. That's a much more serious issue.
Roig (2002) offers a useful classification system including four types of self-plagiarism: duplicate publication of an article in more than one journal; partitioning of one study into multiple publications, often called salami-slicing; text recycling; and copyright infringement.
The bad articles don't lead to self embarrassment by the authors ... takes much to much effort to debunk every of such articles. It is the job of the editorial office to prevent obvious faulty articles to be published. ;)
So that 'skeptics' like you can not quote them wrongly
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If it's not original, it's not research. It might be nice writing, but if you're not moving the state of the art forward, you might as well be in Marketing. :-)
They are.
Sorry, but no. One guess as who I work with these days now that I've moved out of engineering in power generation and into computer wrangling of clusters. The resource exploration industry uses a lot of computer power so there will be a few readers like me that work surrounded by geophysicists. Climate is on a bit of a different time scale to what they deal with - as should be obvious.
So sorry, your silly bluff has failed. Why did you even try? Do you think so little of the readers here that you forgot that any field you mention is going to have someone familiar with it reading the article?
The copy pasted boiler plate typically is pretty clear it is describing a setup of a larger experiment that may have multiple results, as opposed to copy-pasting sections of results. A lot of the time such stuff gets abbreviated in later papers, with some details left out and pointed out as explained in a previous paper. Even without that, you still reference older papers that introduced the experiment, so it is pretty obvious you are acknowledging that previous work. As a result, usually certain papers end up with a high number of citations from within the group, because they have detailed experiment description (either one of the early first papers, or some large update paper later on).
Even then, that is mostly limited to the introduction and physical setup description, and the second half of a paper will have very little of it. The only reason to have large amounts of summaries of other people's research beyond a couple intro paragraphs is to either respond to someone else's specific work (and you're doing it wrong if the summaries/repeat descriptions of their work take up any where near the majority of your paper), or a review paper which is explicitly labeled as such usually.
I don't know if any particular research that can back that up or refute it. But at least in my case, the papers I've reviewed, and the proof reading I've occasionally done of others reviews when they wanted to double check something, and the results I've seen from other reviewers on the papers I review, and the reviews I've gotten on my own paper have all mostly been about the methods, analysis, and unresolved questions in a paper. A few have not, but that looked like laziness and not reading the paper (which doesn't help with maintaining social norms either). I did know of one project that seemed to have a reviewer with some grudge, but it was simple enough for them to request a new reviewer from the journal editor when the review was not pointing out any errors. I'm not saying the system is perfect, and a bad editor can allow things to go horribly wrong, but it least in one corner of the science world, I can tell it does work the way the GP said.
Where it gets interesting is that large chunks of papers are literally re-telling the same stuff over and over again. ... Obviously trying to re-write this over and over is a completely pointless waste of time, so many academics just copy/paste the same old crap and then get on with the rest of the paper. Is that sort of self-plagiarism bad, and if so why?
In the "keystone" course I took, (i.e. basic library use and academic writing) which included avoiding both self- and ordinary plagiarism, the main issue was clearly distinguishing among your new work, your new interpretation of others work, and the previous work of others and/or yourself.
The college uses an automated plagiarism-detection-and-measurement service, which compares newly submitted work against a database of previously submitted work, published work, and crawls of the web. We were warned, not just against using copy-and-paste boilerplate in multiple papers (or papers for multiple classes) but that the tool also tended to false-positive for self-plagiarism due to a person's writing style and word choices resulting in a tendency to put identical multi-word strings of significant length in more than one paper.
(I made a point of having a discussion with each prof, giving a heads up that I make extensive web posts under handles, consider it fair to use the same research and phrasing both in a discussion here and in a paper, and would be more than a little annoyed if the tool claimed I'd lifted a paper from my own contribution to a forum thread on some hot topic. So far I've had no problems.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The only reason to have large amounts of summaries of other people's research beyond a couple intro paragraphs is to either respond to someone else's specific work (and you're doing it wrong if the summaries/repeat descriptions of their work take up any where near the majority of your paper), or a review paper which is explicitly labeled as such usually.
The copy/paste was supposedly a few sentences which would easily fit into any of the more or less legit situations you mention. At a brief glance, the copied section didn't appear to me to be discussing original research, but I didn't look at it in context.
But in addition to not attributing the additional authors of the previous paper, they apparently didn't cite the paper either.
The article also cites the biggest problem of all which can be inferred from the odd name of the journal. Apparently, the sponsoring business was expecting a physics journal, not an advocacy journal for a particular flavor of climatology theories. I wonder how things got that out of hand.
When you google "peer review problems" the first hits are:
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2013/10/04/open-access-is-not-the-problem/
and this
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/04/science-hoax-peer-review-open-access
and this
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong
and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
So, should all the journals discussed there be closed down? Peer reviewing ending up favoring somebodies paper whom the anonymous reviewers happen to know or like, or whose conclusions they agree with is a well known problem. As is peer reviewers delaying papers that disagree with their own research, despite impeccable research.
The problem is not that the peer review process used here was acceptable and should in fact have continued. The problem is double standards.
The research is original (btw, who says I must....Perhaps I just want to refine a previous idea), just 3 sentences where not.
I work in science, I have no idea if I ever reproduced a few sentences that I wrote earlier (not unlikely since it could be that I simply come to the same sequence), but if I did, I sure do not need some people who have no idea what I am writing about running diff -u on my text and somehow conclude that my paper has less value because there are a few words identical with a previous work.
This witch hunting has to stop. The point of citing is to give credit to people and to connect things together. Every paper I read omits 100s of citations because nobody can read everything and some things become "commonly" accepted. The fact that it is now digitally trivial to show when you verbally copied a sentence is just a tiny part of the cases in which a citations should have been provided. But it is not in anyway worse than all the other cases.
Since nobody is able to cite all that should be cited, we should not get overly hung up by it. Its worth to comment on it 1) by the reviewers/editors 2) by letters to the journal 3) by other publications on the same subject 4) personally (polite) by an email or verbally. It is NOT worth closing journals over, firing scientist over or generally making a big fuss about.
Though there is something called good-practice etc etc, being overly pedantic about self-citing hurts science far more than it benefits it.
Note to anyone more right-wing than center:
The instant you start up any productive project, you will start getting advice and other "help" from people who actually totally disagree with you.
Hint -- it's all toxic. We call this "concern trolling."
If you let them in, they will quietly find some unaccountable way to sabotage you, and then leave. Their leftist buddies will cover up for them. This is one of the many reasons we say liberalism is a mental health disorder; it's pathological.
Just keep in mind the typical liberal MO...
http://nypost.com/2014/01/11/why-bridgegate-made-headlines-but-obamas-irs-scandal-didnt/
Futurist Traditionalism
So you don't think liberals form a type that, because of a shared ideology/psychology, tends to respond in similar ways to similar stimulus?
Oh, OK.
Futurist Traditionalism
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/peer-reviewed-magazine-axed-after.html
That explains the entire scam.
There is no such as 'man-made global warming', and there is no such thing as 'CATASTROPHIC man-made global warming' - funny how they never use the word 'catastrophic', isn't it, since non-catastrophic anything isn't going to be a problem. Funny how they renamed it 'climate change' while still insisting it means 'CATASTROPHIC man-made global warming', isn't it... Anybody would think the so-called 'scientists' who came up with this LIE are a bunch of worthless parasites, who live off the publics' taxes and have to come up with more and more ALARMIST nonsense in order to get more funding.
Self-plagiarism? WTF? They used their own words, without giving credit to themselves?
I'm not reading this article because the summary alone is ludicrous.
Let's build a model of the Earth's atmosphere.
First let's model the Earth as a point particle with perfect blackbody characteristics. Taking into account the received radiation from the sun, that should get us a global temperature of ~6 degrees C.
But wait, we know the Earth isn't a perfect blackbody, so we'll factor in an albedo of ~ .3 and get a global temperature of -18 degrees C.
This isn't a very good model so far, is it? Well, let's model the atmosphere as a layered column of gases, then. Oh hey, funny thing. It looks like if you increase the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, it heats up, and then the atmosphere can hold more CO2, leading to arbitrarily large temperatures. That can't be right. Let's revise the model...
That brings us to the beginnings of the 20th Century in terms of atmospheric modeling. You can read more about subsequent steps in this textbook, or perhaps this one. I can particularly recommend the former as it is brief and a good introduction to the problems associated with e.g. where in the atmosphere CO2 is concentrated, and its peculiar vibrational modes.
All of Science is to some degree wrong. Congratulations on your discovery of this fact. The question is, how wrong? And with these models we try to estimate that. We would all dearly like for there not to be such thing as the greenhouse effect right about now, believe you me. However, since it is trivial to show that an atmosphere with a greater proportion of CO2 will retain more solar radiation, and this has been known since the early 19th Century, we're not holding out much hope for that hypothesis. Wrong we may be, but that wrong we are surely not. I don't know where in your fathomless depths of ignorance and hubris you find the means to dispute apparent fact, but keep in mind that when many others' opinions differ from yours, it's unlikely to be a conspiracy.
This post brought to you by the Anthropogenic Global Warming Conspiracy. Get your membership card today!
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
It is difficult to cite every piece of research that contributes to a paper. Although at least every idea you bring in that is not new should have some citation, or be at the level of being in textbooks on the subject. In the former case, people can then at least find other citations by following the one. It isn't really that difficult to do. But if you are going to go as far as copy-paste wording, and not just summarize some other idea, it shouldn't be that hard to cite the original paper in that case.
(btw, who says I must....Perhaps I just want to refine a previous idea)
If you are refining a previous idea in a way that hasn't been done before, ti is still original research. A new explanation to an old idea or adding data to an old idea is still new work.
I see we have another faggot follower of the whiny asshole Lee Smolin.
The biggest problem with the String Theory detractors is they are even more full of shit than the proponents.
You assholes are going to have to do better than LQG to get rid of the String Theory Infection.
Wow! That means as a software developer, I must self-plagiarize all the time!
And if you reuse code you wrote as a contractor, you may actually be in trouble.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
You almost had me until the phrase "self plagiarism" appeared.
Plagarism: the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
I think my teenage daughter would say "derp."
Mercury is cooler than Venus because it barely has any atmosphere. Gas contains heat, holding it like a thermal battery.
The arguments, however, against C02 are all based on the extremely tenuous concept of "Radiative Forcing", which has nothing to do with its thermal qualities.
Think of it this way; when a planet is surrounded by dust and other light opaque matter, the planet cools because light cannot reach the surface, convert to IR and heat the atmosphere. CO2 is opaque to a thin band of IR, and so, in its own small way, it behaves like dust. If anything, (and that anything isn't all that much since so much light from the rest of the spectrum can still reach the ground), it serves to *cool* the globe, not heat it. But the effects are minuscule.
The only way CO2 could actually heat the planet would be if there was enough of it introduced to significantly increase the gas density of our atmosphere and thus raise the amount of matter which can act as a thermal capacitor. That isn't what is happening.
There are other, far more interesting reasons our planet is undergoing climate change right now. They are linked to electrical and gravitational qualities of the solar system, as evidenced by the rapidly increasing number of comets in our skies and surges in volcanic activity beneath our feet.
C02 is a misdirection to make us blame ourselves, allow carbon taxes, and to fail to see that the elites in all their psychopathic bluster, cannot save us.
Your faith and decision to not question further doesn't mean that skeptics are in denial. The real "denialists" are those who use that label skeptics as such.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Official weather monitoring stations that record temps used to claim global warming exists are often installed near heat sources or heat absorbing and radiating materials. The False Global Warming Temperature Readings (with pictures.)
Yes, shut them down. Few use facts, most take research out of context, ans they only throw chaff in the air to obscure the truth. And , yes, they tend to scratch each others backs, quoting and requoting each other.
Anyone commenting on this post that doesn't agree with the "settled science" of global warming or climate change or whatever the name du jour is today has been modded "Score:-1, Troll." That's very telling since most of the "troll" posts are not trolling. Hopefully this reflection of one side's agenda is fixed during metamoderation.
It make me wonder who is funding this stuff and more importantly why?
How can one possibly plagiarise oneself? Plagiarism is presenting the utterance of another as one's own.
Surely this is merely repetition. If he assigned away copyright to the first utterance, it could be copyright violation, and that is probably a felony offence.
--
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. - Hunter S. Thompson
Do you question today whether your home is not being burgled AT THIS MOMENT? Do you question whether the chemistry of copmbustion will still work and enable you to drive home?
No?
Then your faith and decision not to question further does not mean you are wrong.
Neither does it make you deniers right to deny everything unless it implies "AGW is wrong".
> There is a lot of evidence to support all of these
I wonder what do you _understand_ in these evidence. You should be really omnipotent science erudit to grasp it all. But you are not, You just believe and propagate after the media. And that's it.
Are you a geneticist or climatologist? If your understanding of the eveidence in these subjects are so good