Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
“Experts” like to make predictions. They like to say that by a certain date a certain thing will happen. This is really common by people predicting the market penetration of one technology over another. Have you noticed that these types of predictions are almost always wrong. Why do “experts” make silly predictions when the success rate of such predictions is almost always poor? It almost seems like these experts believe that everyone else cannot predict the future but they can!
Predicting the weather is really tough. While you may rely on the prediction of weather for the following day, have you ever heard of a baseball game being cancelled on that prediction? Would you cancel your family plans for next weekend based on the 7 day outlook? Of course not.READ MORE
Most people that read this site know that I get frustrated by the many absurd statements that both sides make regarding the subject of global warming. I am regularly frustrated by the claims and accusations that occur. I would really like to throw this entire conversation back to the scientists and tell them to not make any statements, claims, or predictions until they have good hard science to back it up. I also want them to compare those claims of damage with claims of damage from all other bad things and offset the good things of the status quo.READ MORE
I picked this up at ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Company). There is a lot of talk about Climategate and Glaciergate but now we find a new instance of the IPCC reports that were not based on peer-reviewed scientific information.
Now that the IPCC has admitted one problem, it is obvious that everyone is going to go through every claim with a fine-tooth comb. For the sake of the IPCC, I hope that there aren’t more problems discovered. If there are, then the entire global warming conversation will take a significant move towards skepticism. It is interesting that this is almost precisely the problem that Michael Crichton described in his novel on global warming “A State of Fear” and why he spoke out about the issue of bad scientific discover.READ MORE
An excellent opinion in the Wall Street Journal. It is absolutely amazing that there are so few media companies that try to get the story straight.
Last November, U.N. climate chief Rajendra Pachauri delivered a blistering rebuke to India’s environment minister for casting doubt on the notion that global warming was causing the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers.
“We have a very clear idea of what is happening,” the chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told the Guardian newspaper. “I don’t know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.”
I am absolutely amazed at the arrogance of Dr. Rajendra Pachauri when he says “It was a collective failure by a number of people. I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.” How can you legitimately say that he is running an international agency that is designed to collate the scientific truth when he says this. He needs to own up to a massive mistake that has caused nations around the world to take massive actions to curb industry.
From Times Online:
The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel’s assessment of Himalayan glaciers.
Doug Craig over at Redding.com recently published an article covering the abbreviated history of research regarding greenhouse gases and the history of our scientific understanding of them. He naturally skipped those researchers and scientists that discuss the cooling affect of aerosols.
Mr. Craig’s article is pretty typical of the problem in this debate for both sides. His article is filled with references to “hoax” in this discussion. Hoax is a word that is often referenced by some that doubt global warming predictions (or more precisely, the efforts to reverse the influence). In this case, Mr. Craig is making fun of it with the natural assumption that he thinks such people are fools for thinking it is a “hoax.”READ MORE
I have talked about RealClimate.org many times in the past. In general, the gentlemen over there are pretty smart but they do tend to be one-sided in their analysis. They consistently take the side of “global warming is caused by humans” and they don’t treat others with much respect.
I started questioning their partisanship when they lashed out at the UK judge that said that “An Inconvenient Truth” was not 100% factual. They didn’t like me calling them out on that. They then spiked some of my comments on their site when degraded scientific discussion to a challenge of who has a bigger wallet.READ MORE
I am shocked and dismayed! (Not really – just being a bit sarcastic and melodramatic)
One of the foundations of predicting the climate is that we have some idea of how water moves around the planet. That water can be in the form of water vapor or liquid water that is flowing in streams, lakes and the oceans. Since the Earth is approximately 2/3 water and water vapor is the single largest greenhouse gas, the way it acts is very important for understanding climate and predicting the future of climate.READ MORE
I originally found this opinion in “The Detroit News” and so you can click through and read the entire article. I really cannot explain this topic better than Mr. Taylor and I suggest that you read my highlights here and then read the full article if it is interesting to you.
Understand that Mr. Taylor works for the Heartland Institute which is known as being pretty close to the edge when it comes to rational discussion on this issue. However, even people with extremely strong feelings on an issue are not totally wrong and need to be listened to.READ MORE
When I first saw this article, I almost laughed. How could mushrooms be significant. But then I remembered that the northern forests are an extremely important part of the carbon cycle of the globe. I also remembered that the computer models need to accurately understand the roles of the northern forests in order to make predictions of doom due to global warming. Therefore, if mushrooms affect this contribution and if we don’t understand the mushrooms then we obviously have some issues with the models.
There is an old saying, “Garbage in = garbage out.” Whose turn is it to take out the garbage?
The fight against climate warming has an unexpected ally in mushrooms growing in dry spruce forests covering Alaska, Canada, Scandinavia and other northern regions