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 […]
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).
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.
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
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
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
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.