Okay what is the deal with DailyTech?

Question

The first two articles I've ever seen from DailyTech were the horribly inaccurate "global cooling" article here:

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

which was linked to in dozens of questions when it came out, and is refuted here:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080303_ColdWeather.pdf

Now they've got an article about some Hungarian guy who claims the basic equation for the atmospheric greenhouse effect is wrong, yet he couldn't get his paper published in any American peer-reviewed journals. In fact, I couldn't find any papers he's written whatsoever.

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm

I like gcnp's response to this article here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuauAkvzmiEZIv0aKF_9bcnsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080306145123AAhjIMv

So what is the deal with DailyTech? It looks like your generic tech website other than a few AGW articles.

Answer 1

He lists himself as a "futurist."  That term is nearly synonymous with crackpot in my experience.  He's another right-wing nutbar scared the UN bogeymen are coming for him.  Who knows, maybe they really are.

Edit:  Angela, the Hungarian/Hungarian thing isn't a problem, it's the Hungarian/Hungarian(with no peer-review) that is the problem.  The mainstream scientific literature exists for a purpose, the Hungarian journal isn't even listed in Science Citation Index and probably has an impact factor below zero.  Think of it like an ethnic vanity press.

And you know, going off on a tangent, this is a common thread among the skeptic "scientists."  They moan and whine how they can't get their papers published because everyone is against them.  That is *not* the reason.  Their papers don't get published because there are fundamental errors in them.  If they were not so rigid intellectually, they would fix the errors and then publish.  The problem for them is that if they fix the errors, they conclusions are the direct opposite of what they want to show.

edit:  Hi Fumble.  Actually I did find the paper and it is in english.  There are a couple of interesting things I noticed on a first read through it.  For example, his equation for f (eq. 18)  when taken to tau_a very large and inserted into eq. 20, doesn't collapse to the semi-infinite slab result that he says it should (or at least I can't figure out how it works since f goes to zero for tau_a large and that makes 20 for B_0 blow up.  Secondly, his Mars simulation has a constant mixing ratio for water vapor with altitude.  I'm pretty sure that's incorrect since the vapor pressure of ice is a function of temperature.  These are details however, I suspect the real cardinal flaw is something far more complicated I'm not going to see in a short time.  

There is also the problem that his theory can't produce a runaway greenhouse so is incapable of producing Venus.  Typically, when you find a piece of empirical evidence that disagrees with a theory, you modify the theory or assume parts of it are incorrect.  Or at least that is what is traditionally done in science.  Your mileage may vary.  

And yeah, science works such that if you could get a paper in a mainstream journal, you would.  Miskolczi has published before, he knows that.  That he couldn't get it published means something.

Answer 2

You might want to double check Dr. Zágoni's credentials, pretty impressive.  He recently ended an association with NASA because his more recent work did not support the AGW hypothesis, and NASA would have nothing to do with that.  Do you think Dr. Hansen, a vocal critic of administrative "censorship" will defend his right to be heard?  Doubtful.  Will George Soros spend $700,000 on media exposure? Doubtful.

"Some Guy"  lol.

Answer 3

Follow the "Kristopher Kubicki " link at the bottom of the page, which takes you to the site owner's blog, where this post below is currently at that top of the entries:

--------------------------------------...

http://kristopher.us/

Friday, February 29, 2008

To Rush Limbaugh



DailyTech was featured on Rush Limbaugh's show on Wednesdays. I sent him an email regarding his coverage:

Hi Rush,

Thanks for the DailyTech mention yesterday!

I enjoyed your commentary on the article. I really liked that you emphasized the fact that the anecdotal evidence means nothing in this debate -- and you're 100% correct.

Here's the problem Michael Asher and others like myself have. Global Warming is happening -- absolutely -- when you look at the data along a ten thousand year scale. But when you change the scale to 5 years, 50 years, or 5,000 years, the data can back any argument any pundit would like.

Hoax? Well, no. But to say both the right and the left have used climate change to push their agendas is absolutely correct.

Here's the other problem we face. When the media comes around and the evidence becomes undeniable; when scientists and researchers have a more complete understanding of what's going on, there will be a backlash against legitimate environmentalism.

For example, in Chicago, my hometown, we've got lots of these coal power plants. The EPA estimates power plant emissions were responsible for over 1,350 premature deaths, more than 2,300 non-fatal heart attacks and just under 34,000 extra asthma attacks in Illinois each year. Who is going to fix this once global warming, and environmentalism as a whole, becomes the new pariah?

Not Al Gore, I'm sure.

Once again, thank you for the mention,

Posted by Kristopher at 7:52 AM 0 comments

--------------------------------------...

So Mr. Kubicki loves being featured on a neocon talk show, and he claims that his anti-AGW slant on his tech site is to save environmentalism.  That's about as twisted and disingenuous as it gets.  Kubicki's site should be renamed TinfoilTech.

Answer 4

Why do doubters accept at face value (without doing any independent fact-checking) an article from any web-site (e.g. DailyTech) if it agrees with their view of AGW?  Yet they discount articles recognizing the reality of AGW from highly respected scientific journals that have decades or nearly a century of esteemed reputation behind them.

DailyTech is no more reliable than WorldnetDaily (which recently published an article on how eating soy is causing people to become homosexual).  This sites don't have the staff to do any fact-checking or solid editorial quality control, so anything they report needs to be taken with some healthy skepticism.

Answer 5

gcnp58,

"His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary."

Maybe it would help if the journal wasn't written in Hungarian?  Maybe it would help if you point out the flaws in his equations and explain why they are wrong?

Pointing out that the journal is not "mainstream" enough is not really an answer.  Instead, why not push to get this thing "peer reviewed" and let the reviewers come to conclusions?

I'm sure you supported this guy when he was a GW activist.  But now he is on the other side of the fence and you want to discredit him.

Answer 6

Just another Luddite blog, throwing gasoline on  the fires of ignorance and stupidity.