This should be fun, seeing how this one spreads. Yesterday, verifiable idiot Michael Anderews at Daily Tech, who I've written about briefly before, wrote up his latest stunning news item of scientific debunking of global warming. The headline on it -- "NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming" -- is almost technically not completely false; NASA researchers indeed believe that solar cycles regularly raise and lower global temperature by roughly 0.1 degree Celcius. And indeed this occured in the "past" as well as the present, including many millennia when mankind, not being around yet, surely bore no responsibility.
Oh, and "study" could be meant in the sense of general research, rather than a specific report; as in: "my STUDY of Michael Andrews over the past year or so suggests that he is a buffoon."
But when Andrews writes of a "new research report," he's a bit off, seeing as A) it's not new, and B) there's no report.
What seems to have happened is that in May 2008, a NASA guy wrote a general interest article, relying on NASA materials and quoting NASA researchers, about solar variability and climate change. It ran on Science Daily's site on May 12, 2008. The article is about how climate-change researchers are working to understand the relationship between solar variability and earth's atmosphere, in order to more accurately measure and predict the real global warming problem happening now, being caused by man-made emissions. (Andrews concedes that the "NASA study" blames current global warming on human behavior, but writes that this was where the study "went badly off the tracks.")
Andrews appears to have just stumbled across the article, didn't notice the old date, mistook it to be refering to a new study, completely misinterpreted the actual substance of the article, and -- voila! -- hot news item!
And guess who's buying it hook, line and sinker?
This morning Newsbusters posted an article touting that "the NASA study has found that solar activity is the real culprit of any global warming." American Thinker predicts that the NASA scientist in charge will probably now be fired for "telling the truth." Neal Boortz blogs that "NASA believes the sun's radiation may have more to do with climate change than your cute little hybrid and reusable grocery bags." And... well, you can Google and enjoy for yourself.