Reply to comment
Lockwood's method
July 17, 2007 by Nick Leaton (not verified), 2 years 18 weeks ago
Comment id: 24254
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
This is really awful science and the journalism that follows is even worse.
The research looks at solar irradiation (heat output) over a short 20 year period.
There is not a correlation.
The conclusion is that there is no solar effect at all.
Well using that approach 1945-1975 (30 years) there is no correlation of global temperatures and CO2. Case proved - no anthropogenic effect.
If that's the standard of science let me have some of the millions.
1. You can't ignore other factors.
2. You can't cherry pick your date ranges.
3. If you want to propose no current effect, when the historic effect has been shown (IPCC), you have to put forward the mechanism(s) that have turned the effect off.
Nick