benthic bacteria
Posted on | November 7, 2007 | 10 Comments
I was all excited at the prospect that humans aren’t causing global warming after all, that it’s really benthic bacteria. Then Roger Pielke Jr., suspicious bastard that he is, had to go and pour cold water over the whole deal. Turns out that the University of Arizona doesn’t really have a “Department of Climatology,” as near as I can tell from talking to folks there who study, um, climatology. And whatever the “Journal of Geoclimatic Studies” is, Vol. 23 No. 3 seems to be the first time they’ve thought of posting their work on the intertubes:
Domain ID:D21379999-LRMS
Domain Name:GEOCLIMATICSTUDIES.INFO
Created On:02-Nov-2007 14:50:19 UTC
Expiration Date:02-Nov-2008 14:50:19 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Tucows Inc. (R139-LRMS)
I’ll leave it to others to follow the trail of breadcrumbs back to its source, but I’d suggest that whoever did this has “the skills to interpret complex information in an imaginative and engaging way”.
Related posts:
- Defining the Australian Drought
- Death Valley Rain
- Monsoon: Cause for Optimism
- How Orange County Got Its Name
- Overheard at a Party
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Comments
10 Responses to “benthic bacteria”
Leave a Reply
November 7th, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
Argh! If someone wants to do a Sokal, we need to let it run a while, instead of exposing it so quickly. This seems something that Marc Moran & Inhofe would have loved.
November 7th, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
I loved this description of the terms used in the, ahem, math:
“Where Q is raw mass, u is area, c is osmotic conductivity, ? is the vertical (neo-Falkian) benthic discontinuity, X is concretised diachronic invariance (P-series), F is trans-dimensional flow structure and jy is the non-rectilineal harmonic regressivity of the constant ?.”
Personally, I prefer my mass raw.
November 8th, 2007 @ 4:43 am
> would have loved
Did, briefly, so they say. I wonder if the sample’s large enough to do statistics (grin).
Marc Moran: 15 min., so they say
“Inhofe’s staff … retracted their alert only 15 minutes later.” freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922454/posts
Benny Peiser: 70 min. between mail headers
Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:41:41 +0000
CCNet EXTRA: CO2 PRODUCTION BY BENTHIC BACTERIA
Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:51:04 +0000
CCNet: hoax warning
Anyone else got data on lag times on this one?
November 8th, 2007 @ 4:53 am
Reddit: submitted just 3 hours ago, took an hour before the first challenge, story still in play.
http://reddit.com/info/603vw/details
posted 3 hours ago …
submitted 08 Nov 2007 …
up votes 8
down votes 7
November 8th, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
This is perfect proof of that the denialist crowd cares not at all about the scinece. A permanent record of this event is needed somewhere.
November 8th, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
Well, the story did make Reuters, albeit not in great detail.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL08874582
November 8th, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
OOps: more: here’s the full article & blog:
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/author/alisterdoyle/
Hank: maybe you want to mosey over and post what you found, so it’s attached to the original site…
November 9th, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
Add:
second hand report from RC thread that Rush Limbaugh reported the ‘Benthic Bacteria study on his radio show as a science report. Anyone got a clock running on that?
Mentioned this thread at Reuters with a pointer here.
And now there’s a meta-retraction clock running, starting from the time stamp on a denial by one of the alphabet-guys in that thread who said he was unaware anyone had been fooled for more than a microsecond. Well, that’s measurable!
November 10th, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
One more estimated time-to-reaction, from the Reuters page:
# T Sinclair says: November 10th, 2007 at 11:22 am GMT
Rush talked about it and went to a break. He corrected immediatley after coming off break. Time for correction from Rush was about 90 seconds.
According to Reuters the hoax site’s gone now, so that ends the chance for people to hear about it, repeat it, then look it up, think about it, and retract.
I wonder if it’ll become an urban legend, time will tell.
November 1st, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
This is perfect proof of that the denialist crowd cares not at all about the scinece.