In a nutshell
Free speech is under fire around the world and nowhere does it face greater threat than in the bitter dispute over man-made global warming. Continue Reading →
Views: 2373
Climate of conversation
Why James Lovelock changed his mind on climate change
Only two years after The Revenge of Gaia
From a sparkling interview by James Delingpole in the Spectator. Do read it.
Climate change was so serious a threat, he told the Guardian in 2010, that democracy might have to be ‘put on hold’.
Within two years he’d had a remarkable change of heart. ‘All right, I made a mistake,’ he told the cable channel MSNBC. He still believed —and continues to believe — that manmade carbon dioxide is a problem that needs addressing. But we’ve plenty of time to do something about it before any dangerous effects are felt, and in any case, the cures being advanced by green zealots are often worse than the disease itself.
One of his main bugbears is biomass, such as the woodchips from old oak forests in the US, which are shipped across the Atlantic to be burned for electricity at the Drax power station: ‘This is one of the most monstrous examples of green absurdity that I know of. It’s wicked!’
He said, by the way, the answer’s nuclear.
Views: 262
Science insights as Judith Curry changes course
Dr Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology speaks during a Senate Commerce subcommittee hearing on “Data or Dogma” in 2015
Judith describes a recent interaction with a senior student who works in a field that is certainly relevant to climate science but doesn’t identify as a climate scientist: Continue Reading →
Views: 143
Science wants answers; climate science wants no questions
I warmly recommend anyone curious about the peculiar status of climate science and the theory of dangerous anthropogenic global warming to read and circulate this devastating analysis of modern climate science by Dr Robert McBride. The hard-hitting letter was published two days ago in NZ Farmers Weekly (paywalled). It concisely describes the extraordinary differences that have evolved to mark climate science out from other branches of science. It is accessible and significant. Robert works for agKnowledge in the South Island and earned a PhD in soil science in the US. – RT]
UPDATE 1145, Saturday 30 January: 300 scientists demand NOAA stop hiding its data – see below
So called “climate science” is not science. Science is a process typically involving controlled experiments to isolate a single variable in an effort to get the best answer to a specific question. Continue Reading →
Views: 87
Anthropogenic Global Warming and the Scientific Method
• Guest post •
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) alarm has been with us for a good while now. The matter seems to become more contentious rather than less. Unhappily, as a result of the mediocre quality of science education, many people do not know how to evaluate either a scientific hypothesis in general or AGW in particular — and irrespective of whatever anyone might think, because of how it is framed and evaluated, AGW is no more than a hypothesis. Continue Reading →
Views: 95
Students desire knowledge
and they will find it
Amid all the world-wide signs of a major sea-change in climate thinking (yes, that’s a pun) comes the encouraging news that New Zealand university students prefer the truth over activist drivel. Why did we ever doubt them? Continue Reading →
Views: 306
Nature is the latest living God
I’ll keep this simple, to avoid ecclesiastical clashes. Last thing I want is a fight to break out between science and religion. Oh, wait …
First, a reader, Rob Taylor, said:
So, in denier fairyland, this all balances out, somehow? Let’s see – crippling drought in one place, horrendous floods in another simply shows that all is hunky-dory?
Then I said:
“Who could approve of them, you twit? But this is Mother Nature. This is God’s will. There’s nothing new here – not for thousands of years. This is life. This is how it goes.”
Another reader, Nick, said:
“this is Mother Nature. This is God’s will” – is that really what you believe? I had been conducting these discussions on the assumption everyone accepted that science rather than divine intervention could explain the weather. Please correct me if my assumption is false. Does anyone else here think that any changes in the climate are “Gods will”?
My meaning here was perverted and then Nick hijacked it. However, together they raise an arguable point about our relationship with our surroundings, so let me explain. Rob made out that we can prevent these natural disasters. His mistake was in believing that we have sufficient influence on the weather to ameliorate droughts and floods. It’s a nutty idea and we don’t. Continue Reading →
Views: 358
Renowden has no evidence for CAGW
This is in response (slightly delayed by an Easter break) to the list of “proofs” produced by Gareth Renowden, at Hot Topic, in answer to my request of Sir Peter Gluckman, the PM’s scientific advisor, for evidence of a human cause for anticipated dangerous climate change, more properly referred to as the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) theory.
On 17th April, I wrote:
I would remind Sir Peter that evidence is required to establish the following key factors in the global warming debate — evidence that has not surfaced so far. We have been looking for evidence to show:
1. The existence of a current unprecedented global warming trend.
2. That the greenhouse effect is powerful enough to endanger the environment.
3. A causal link between human activities and dangerously high global temperatures.
4. That climate models have a high level of skill in predicting the climate.
5. A causal link between atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and global temperatures.
6. A causal link between global warming and the gentle rise in sea level.
In response to this, Gareth claims “there is plenty of evidence to address every one of his points” and presents some attractive and interesting graphics in support. I’ll comment on what he says to each point.
1. The existence of a current unprecedented global warming trend.
GR: “…is [the current warming] unprecedented…? Well, no.” Continue Reading →
Views: 97
Now Gluckman wants evidence too
How quickly the climate debate changes
From the Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee comes an announcement with the heading:
Release of an important report on the relationship between evidence and policy formation
It begins:
One of the key challenges for all governments is how to make the best use of evidence in both policy formation and policy evaluation.
It’s reassuring to hear that the PM’s science advisor is prepared to look for evidence. At least in relation to global warming, it’s not an instinct he’s been noted for. He tells us he’s released a report, Towards better use of evidence in policy formation, and I’d like to read it.
Until I do, I would remind Sir Peter that evidence is required to establish the following key factors in the global warming debate — evidence that has not surfaced so far. Continue Reading →
Views: 289