If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Congressional report that questioned global warming data plagiarized from Wikipedia   (tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 129
    More: Stupid, Wikipedia, George Mason University, global warming, R-TX, climate change, climate scientists  
•       •       •

1816 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Nov 2010 at 3:11 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



129 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-11-23 01:09:54 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2010-11-23 01:21:09 PM  
I'm amazed they bothered to take the time to plagiarize. That's a step up from the usual fingers-in-the-ear, we're right and we don't have to prove it that Deniers usually give.
 
2010-11-23 01:32:33 PM  
A friend in university marked first year papers. She said she caught most people copying off Wikipedia because they left the superscript footnote references in. [cool story.]
 
2010-11-23 01:39:27 PM  
Well, look at it this way -- it could have been Conservapedia.
 
2010-11-23 02:11:09 PM  
ahhh... joe barton. possibly the dumbest man in congress. thank god he'll likely be the next chairman of the house energy and commerce committee.
 
2010-11-23 02:13:36 PM  
GAT_00: I'm amazed they bothered to take the time to plagiarize. That's a step up from the usual fingers-in-the-ear, we're right and we don't have to prove it that Deniers usually give.

Plagiarism involves less creative effort if you're trying to make a page count without actually repeating "la-la-la-la-la...."
 
2010-11-23 02:57:56 PM  
Diogenes: Well, look at it this way -- it could have been Conservapedia.

Or cribbing off of Fark Climate IndependentsTM, who simultaneously claim that the climate is changing, the change isn't driven by human activity, and that human activity will change the climate for the better.

That said, it's not like they could have plagiarized scientific journals to back up their ridiculous assertions.
 
2010-11-23 03:14:38 PM  
They used a source? I thought they just made shiat up or blamed it on God.
 
2010-11-23 03:16:10 PM  
"plagiarized from Wikipedia"

Why not just make it up?
 
2010-11-23 03:18:50 PM  
Diogenes: Well, look at it this way -- it could have been Conservapedia.

Conservapedia is where bad ideas go to die.
 
2010-11-23 03:26:49 PM  
FlashHarry: ahhh... joe barton. possibly the dumbest man in congress. thank god he'll likely be the next chairman of the house energy and commerce committee.

Louis "terror babies" Gohmert is the dumbest person in Congress.
 
2010-11-23 03:29:21 PM  
Rent is too damn high: FlashHarry: ahhh... joe barton. possibly the dumbest man in congress. thank god he'll likely be the next chairman of the house energy and commerce committee.

Louis "terror babies" Gohmert is the dumbest person in Congress.


"You used to be better than that, Anderson."
 
2010-11-23 03:32:55 PM  
Rent is too damn high: FlashHarry: ahhh... joe barton. possibly the dumbest man in congress. thank god he'll likely be the next chairman of the house energy and commerce committee.

Louis "terror babies" Gohmert is the dumbest person in Congress.


HEY!! One dumbass Texan at a time. Joe "Sorry about all that seawater in your oil, BP" Barton is who the bright light of stupid is focused on right now.

// Gohmer will be back soon enough, don't worry
 
2010-11-23 03:33:17 PM  
I think Gato Negro wrote most of that entry.
 
2010-11-23 03:33:38 PM  
I can't believe this Joe "I beat Nobel prize winner on plate tectonics" Barton is getting a seat that clearly required some scientific knowledge.
 
2010-11-23 03:35:18 PM  
This is about as close to actual "research" on the subject that these people are capable of. We might as well let a room full of drunk baboons decide our nuclear energy policy.
 
2010-11-23 03:35:26 PM  
Masso: I can't believe this Joe "I beat Nobel prize winner on plate tectonics" Barton is getting a seat that clearly required some scientific knowledge.

Joe proved that no matter how smart you are, someone can come up with a dumb enough question to make you question everything you believe in.
 
2010-11-23 03:39:57 PM  
Which begs the question, which would have been worse:

Using Wikipedia but properly citing it.
or
Plagiarizing a real source.

Interesting question.
 
2010-11-23 03:42:51 PM  
FlashHarry: ahhh... joe barton. possibly the dumbest man in congress.

I'm ashamed of what happened on FARK today. I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a Texas congressman can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case a $20 billion shakedown.
 
2010-11-23 03:43:46 PM  
Good thing morons don't care about facts or what sources their information comes from. They just wait for someone with a pickup truck to assure them it's in the Bible.
 
2010-11-23 03:44:15 PM  
LouDobbsAwaaaay: This is about as close to actual "research" on the subject that these people are capable of. We might as well let a room full of drunk baboons decide our nuclear energy policy.

I'd much rather have the drunk baboons.

It's like choosing between having your freshly-washed car hit with one bird bomb or ten tons of elephant excrement.
 
2010-11-23 03:48:05 PM  
lennavan: Which begs the question, which would have been worse:

Using Wikipedia but properly citing it.
or
Plagiarizing a real source.

Interesting question.


What's sad is that using Wikipedia is so hilariously lazy it's unbelievable. A single click on the footnotes and ten minutes vetting the primary source would up the credibility considerably.

Using Wikipedia as a source is like using Fark headlines to decide what happened in the news. It's all bullshiat, but it's still an aggregator.
 
2010-11-23 03:53:07 PM  
Everyone knows all global warming data is unquestionable.
 
2010-11-23 03:53:38 PM  
I like this game: Joe "Wind power gun stop my sailyboat" Barton
 
2010-11-23 03:54:12 PM  
thurstonxhowell: I like this game: Joe "Wind power gun stop my sailyboat" Barton

Joe "Airplanes can't take off from a treadmill" Barton.
 
2010-11-23 03:55:27 PM  
 
2010-11-23 03:57:51 PM  
SevenizGud: Everyone knows all global warming data is unquestionable.

I like to leave that job to climate scientists, not politicians who cite "Jesus will save us" as evidence the Earth will be ok.

Link (new window)
 
2010-11-23 03:58:36 PM  
Joe "evolution is the devil" Barton
 
2010-11-23 04:03:01 PM  
You can't really plagiarize Wikipedia unless the contributor specifies in their contribution that the data is copyrighted. The textbooks are another story.

But I will need to see the final actual comparisons as a TPM report of "likely" is not really dependable.

Also, as much as some my try to believe, it doesn't invalidate the findings.
 
2010-11-23 04:03:22 PM  
SevenizGud: Everyone knows all global warming data is unquestionable.

Hey, question it all you like. In fact, I encourage it. But come armed with vetted facts, not supposition.
 
2010-11-23 04:04:35 PM  
Wikipedia should be happy that Republicans plagiarize their work. They're giving Wikipedia voice of authority that can be trusted.
 
2010-11-23 04:07:55 PM  
Still not anthropogenic, warmtards
 
2010-11-23 04:08:56 PM  
Mike_LowELL: Wikipedia should be happy that Republicans plagiarize their work. They're giving Wikipedia voice of authority that can be trusted.

Actually, if Republicans are repeating it, usually the first assumption is that it's horseshiat.
 
2010-11-23 04:10:05 PM  
RolandGunner: You can't really plagiarize Wikipedia unless the contributor specifies in their contribution that the data is copyrighted

Plagiarism is not the same thing as copyright violation. You can plagiarize works in the public domain. Way to not go to college.
 
2010-11-23 04:11:45 PM  
Old news is old.
 
2010-11-23 04:25:43 PM  
good at campaigning and being loud or happens to be in a county that blindly votes R/D, they tend to not be good at much else...
 
2010-11-23 04:29:22 PM  
RolandGunner: You can't really plagiarize Wikipedia unless the contributor specifies in their contribution that the data is copyrighted. The textbooks are another story.

Why am I not surprised you have absolutely no idea how plagiarism works?
 
2010-11-23 04:29:47 PM  
FlashHarry: ahhh... joe barton. possibly the dumbest man in congress. thank god he'll likely be the next chairman of the house energy and commerce committee.

I thought the Energy and Commerce chairmanship was going to John "global warming ain't in the Bible" Shimkus.
 
2010-11-23 04:30:30 PM  
EmployeeOfTheMinute: Still not anthropogenic, warmtards

Your argument is compelling. I would stick with just that bare assertion because the addition of any facts would jeopardize it.
 
2010-11-23 04:31:56 PM  
The Homer Tax: RolandGunner: You can't really plagiarize Wikipedia unless the contributor specifies in their contribution that the data is copyrighted. The textbooks are another story.

Why am I not surprised you have absolutely no idea how plagiarism works?


Because he copied the definition of plagiarism from Wikipedia.
 
2010-11-23 04:33:35 PM  
sprawl15: The Homer Tax: RolandGunner: You can't really plagiarize Wikipedia unless the contributor specifies in their contribution that the data is copyrighted. The textbooks are another story.

Why am I not surprised you have absolutely no idea how plagiarism works?

Because he copied the definition of plagiarism from Wikipedia.


How do you know he isn't the one who submitted to Wikipedia in the first place?
 
2010-11-23 04:35:17 PM  
RolandGunner: You can't really plagiarize Wikipedia unless the contributor specifies in their contribution that the data is copyrighted.

Actually, when you violate copyright, it's called copyright violation.

/I'm Rick Romero, Action 4 news
 
2010-11-23 04:36:58 PM  
thurstonxhowell: RolandGunner: You can't really plagiarize Wikipedia unless the contributor specifies in their contribution that the data is copyrighted

Plagiarism is not the same thing as copyright violation. You can plagiarize works in the public domain. Way to not go to college.




The term denotes a wrongful appropriation of someone elses work. It is not wrongful if they have posted it to an open source project with no instructions to provide proper attribution.

It can not plagiarism because Congress is not a college classroom. The whole purpose and concept of plagiarism doesn't really exist in the legal or the public context. There are no set restrictions on congressional reports that they must contain original material, there are no grades given, etc. etc.

In this particular context only copyright matters, hence my focus on copyrights.

So yeah, TPM is still retarded.
 
2010-11-23 04:37:09 PM  
sprawl15: The Homer Tax: RolandGunner: You can't really plagiarize Wikipedia unless the contributor specifies in their contribution that the data is copyrighted. The textbooks are another story.

Why am I not surprised you have absolutely no idea how plagiarism works?

Because he copied the definition of plagiarism from Wikipedia.


I predict that we've seen the last of him in this thread. It's a shame, really. I would love to see him try to sound smart with his ignorance on full display.
 
2010-11-23 04:38:12 PM  
thurstonxhowell: I predict that we've seen the last of him in this thread. It's a shame, really. I would love to see him try to sound smart with his ignorance on full display.

Be careful what you wish for, it may be granted before you finish asking.
 
2010-11-23 04:39:42 PM  
Wait a second!!!

Wait a second!!!

FTFA: USA Today points out that "the charges of plagiarism don't negate one of the basic premises of the report

This is 100% true. In fact if they used the information from well respected text books it should actually support their claims.

...

FTFA: 35 of the 91 pages are "are mostly plagiarized text, but often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning."

Oh well then you're farked!
 
2010-11-23 04:40:07 PM  
thurstonxhowell: sprawl15: The Homer Tax: RolandGunner: You can't really plagiarize Wikipedia unless the contributor specifies in their contribution that the data is copyrighted. The textbooks are another story.

Why am I not surprised you have absolutely no idea how plagiarism works?

Because he copied the definition of plagiarism from Wikipedia.

I predict that we've seen the last of him in this thread. It's a shame, really. I would love to see him try to sound smart with his ignorance on full display.


Damn. My prediction was wrong 11 seconds before I made it.

Still, none of what he wrote addresses the fact that he said plagiarism, not copyright. Kind of hard to claim you were focusing on copyright when the only thing you said specifically used the unrelated word "plagiarism".
 
2010-11-23 04:40:12 PM  
RolandGunner: In this particular context only copyright matters, hence my focus on copyrights.

Can you show the class where in the article the word 'copyright' was used?
 
2010-11-23 04:41:55 PM  
RolandGunner: Also, as much as some my try to believe, it doesn't invalidate the findings.

I guess you missed this part:

FTFA: 35 of the 91 pages are "are mostly plagiarized text, but often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning."

Sounds like they cherry picked and flipped a lot of it around.
 
2010-11-23 04:43:58 PM  
RolandGunner: It can not plagiarism because Congress is not a college classroom.

HURRRRRRRR!!!!!


Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as "the wrongful appropriation, close imitation, or purloining and publication, of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one's own original work."[1][2]
 
Displayed 50 of 129 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report