Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
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
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.”
Nigel Lawson has done a remarkable job of explaining the basic problem with limiting the use of carbon based fuels in our world today. His argument doesn’t really take a side on the merits of the science but rather on the realities of economics. His opinion recently showed up in the Wall Street Journal and I have taken the liberty to include selected parts here. I suggest that you click through to read the entire article.
Lord Lawson was U.K. chancellor of the exchequer in the Thatcher government from 1983 to 1989. He is the author of “An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming” (Overlook Duckworth, paperback 2009), and is chairman of the recently formed Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org).READ MORE
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit(one of the MMs of the Climategate emails) recently published an analysis and history of the “trick” that was accomplished and discussed in the “stolen” emails from the CRU of East Anglia. I encourage you to jump over to Steve’s article to read the full analysis but I would like to include a few paragraphs here in the hope that you will want more information that Steve supplies.
Much recent attention has been paid to the email about the “trick” and the effort to “hide the decline”. Climate scientists have complained that this email has been taken “out of context”. In this case, I’m not sure that it’s in their interests that this email be placed in context because the context leads right back to a meeting of IPCC authors in Tanzania, raising serious questions about the role of IPCC itself in “hiding the decline” in the Briffa reconstruction.
Does the problem of ClimateGate bode ill for science as a discipline? This commentary from the Wall Street Journal thinks it might.
With science, the public accepts the reliability of the scientific method. We accept that results are checked and double-checked. We accept that there is repeated analysis and inspection on the problems and that if someone disagrees, there is a mature and reasonable discussion of the issues.
Obviously, the East Anglia CRU emails show that the discussion is not very open. It shows that some people are willing to go out of their way to discredit others. It also shows a general unwillingness to publicly display the technique used to arrive at a conclusion. This all goes against the scientific methodology.READ MORE
Is Scott Adams’ Dilbert making fun of the current ClimateGate controversy?
In ClimateGate, really smart researchers on the climate took a bunch of data and made some conclusions. They didn’t think their pointy-haired constituents that paid their salaries deserved to have all of the data – instead they gave us a thimble of the data. Of course, in their case they didn’t tell us to wear the thimble like a hat – they just said that we should trust them since they are scientists and know what is good for us. In fact that big pile of paper that Dilbert is carrying doesn’t exist from Paul Jones and his friends – they threw the pile of paper away and just left the thimble!READ MORE
David Harsanyi has an excellent editorial on the ClimateGate fiasco that has been dominating this blog and many others across the blogosphere. His editorial originally appeared on RealClearPolitics. He is allowing me to reproduce parts of it here and I encourage you to jump over to the full article to read more.
Who knows? In the long run, global warming skeptics may be wrong, but the importance of healthy skepticism in the face of conventional thinking is, once again, validated.
We found out that respected men discussed the manipulation of science, the blocking of Freedom of Information requests, the exclusion of dissenting scientists from debate, the removal of dissent from the peer-reviewed publications, and the discarding of historical temperature data and e-mail evidence.
The names in the leaked emails of East Anglia CRU are probably not familiar with many readers of this site. While most know of Mr. Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States and Nobel prize winner, and James Hansen of NASA, few scientists in this field get much notoriety.
MagicJavaTV put out a slide show in the form of a YouTube video. It is a great overview of the people involved in this recent revelation.
ClimateGate Who’s WhoREAD MORE
Climate change sceptic Professor Fred Singer, and Professor Bob Watson, the chief scientific advisor at the department of the environment debate the issues over the stolen emails from the East Anglia server.
Thank you to Daily Politics for initially showing this video. You can go there for a more complete interview.READ MORE