Tag Archives: science

That’s exactly what “partisan” means

He reads, but can he speak Eng­lish? “There are prob­a­bly peo­ple now think­ing I’m par­ti­san for say­ing the sci­ence is in on cli­mate change. Well, I don’t think that’s par­ti­san. I think I can read Eng­lish. And I think the evi­dence is over­whelm­ing. I don’t think I will be par­ti­san. I don’t think you’re par­ti­san […]

Let’s look at the data

DeconstructingGW.png

This is a very fine sum­ma­ry of the case that noth­ing very unusu­al is hap­pen­ing to the glob­al cli­mate and of the evidence—direct data, not proxies—that the IPCC pro­jec­tions are sim­ply wrong about the key fac­tor they say will result in alarm­ing cli­mate change (by the way that’s not CO2)

Lindzen has a record that calls for atten­tion. He has researched and taught atmos­pher­ic and cli­mate sci­ence for more than 30 years, most recent­ly as Alfred P. Sloan Pro­fes­sor of Mete­o­rol­o­gy and chair of the Depart­ment of Earth, Atmos­pher­ic and Plan­e­tary Sci­ence at the Mass­a­chu­setts Insti­tute of Tech­nol­o­gy. He was lead author of a chap­ter in the 2001 Third Assess­ment Report of the Unit­ed Nations’ Inter­gov­ern­men­tal Pan­el on Cli­mate Change (IPCC).

Plimer review: more from G Schmidt

Dr Gavin Schmidt has fur­ther crit­i­cisms of my review of Plimer (and of Plimer’s book). I’m hap­py to repro­duce them as emailed (pre­sum­ing again that he has no objec­tion). He has three main points con­cern­ing the Weg­man ‘clus­ter’ analy­sis of the Mann autho­r­i­al rela­tion­ships; whether the Hock­ey Stick arti­cle was a ‘fraud’, and; whether Plimer’s account of paleo-cli­mate vari­abil­i­ty mat­ters to cur­rent con­cerns.

Evidence and muddling through

The dif­fer­ence is that ‘mud­dling through’ is a strat­e­gy bound to evi­dence, eval­u­a­tion, and adap­ta­tion. In pol­i­cy as in busi­ness entre­prise, grand visions and defin­i­tive mod­els, like ‘set­tled sci­ence’, call for com­mit­ment and resist new enquiry or con­trary fact.

Prof Lind­blom con­trast­ed what he called the ‘root’ method of deci­sion-mak­ing with the ‘branch’ approach. The root method required com­pre­hen­sive eval­u­a­tion of options in the light of defined objec­tives. The branch method involved build­ing out, step-by-step and by small degrees, from the cur­rent sit­u­a­tion. Prof Lind­blom claimed ‘the root method is in fact not usable for com­plex pol­i­cy ques­tions’. The prac­ti­cal man must fol­low the branch approach – the sci­ence of mud­dling through.” Extract from John Kay in the Finan­cial Times

Time, void? They’re 4-letter words!

Is there such a thing as tak­ing the sim­pli­fi­ca­tion of sci­ence too far? Of course there is! Rel­a­tive­ly oulip­i­an; a marvellous—but mild­ly monontonous—monosyllabary.

Say you woke up one day and your bed was gone. Your room, too. Gone. It’s all gone. You wake up in an inky void.” Extract from Rel­a­tiv­i­ty explained in words of 4 let­ters or less

A climate rebuttal

More than 100 scientists reject the climate-alarm call

<

p>A strong mes­sage with <a href=“http://climatesci.org/2009/03/31/open-letter-by-the-cato-institute-on-climate-science/” title=“Climate Sci­ence: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News

Climate ‘tipping’ points fall down

If you’re alarmed by claims—sometimes from offi­cial sources—about CO2 from thaw­ing per­mafrost or cat­a­clysms caused by a slow­ing or rever­sal of the “Merid­ion­al Over­turn­ing Cir­cu­la­tion”, then relax!

It looks like nei­ther one nor the oth­er of these exot­ic risks stands up to sci­en­tif­ic scruti­ny.