For many people the answer has to be "yes", but this is one of many questions put to the high profile climate scientist Judith Curry in this interview. Judith is an authoritative voice who has won many friends for her even-handed approach, so her interview is well worth reading.
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Monday, 27 February 2012
This booklet by Andrew Montford, published by the GWPF gives an in depth account of the transformation of the Royal Society from being a highly respected Scientific Body to its present status as a political campaigning organisation for the climate change bandwagon.
Sunday, 26 February 2012
Christopher Booker in today's column in the Sunday Telegraph highlights the huge sum being spent by the government in its "overseas aid" programme to help to "fight climate change". No longer does the government regard aid as a means of alleviating poverty and disease, as you will see when you read the article. This is apart from the money given directly to fight climate change. As Booker says, the UK government seems strangely obsessed with this objective, despite its enormous national debt and a flat-lining economy.
Saturday, 25 February 2012
British Gas has come out publicly and blamed the government's green taxes for the steep increase in gas and electricity bills according to this report in the Sun newspaper. They join a growing band of prominent businesses and organisations to question the government's green energy policy. The consensus seems to be shifting away from renewables at any price toa much more pragmatic one of considering the economy as well.
Friday, 24 February 2012
Thursday, 23 February 2012
Professor Richard Lindzen is a heavyweight in the global warming debate. He has a record of achievement which means he cannot be ignored. This week he came to Westminster to give a lecture. This article gives an account of the lecture and its impact on the author. We need to hear more from people like Professor Lindzen who is a voice of sanity in a world of half truths and exaggeration.
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Monday, 20 February 2012
Sunday, 19 February 2012
Below is a very interesting comment by a senior Canadian climate scientist on how computer climate models should be tested.
"1. Why DO climate models have NO error bars (confidence intervals, say 95%) based on real observations?
2. I know the UK met office answer, that is: We have to just wait till say 2050 or 2100 to verify that "our models are right!"
3. NO that is NOT true! Let me explain;
The UK Met office and other climate modeling centres can do the following experiment:
Let them take their BEST AVAILABLE MODEL TODAY and let it be started in a PURE FORECAST MODE from about say 1950 or 1975.
yes it can be done! I did it for ocean wave models while at Env Canada , we call it a hindcast mode.
Let the UK met office run their best climate models from say 1950 till say 2010 (again in a purely fcst mode, NO adjustment of any kind) and then obtain fcst products say mean temp trends for five continents and three ocean basins and then do some error analysis using observed mean temp trend for five continents and three ocean basins for say 2010, 2011 and 2012.
Using these error stats, let them then obtain error bars for their fcst for 2050 and beyond.
My hunch is: the error bars will look like this:
For 2050: mean temp increase: 2C +/- 10C
For 2100; Mean temp incerase 3C +/- 15C ( something like these)
So you see these mean temp increase will be OF NO USE FOR ANY CLIMATE POLICY! Such fcsts will be TOTALLY USELESS! (right now all climate models give error bars based on so many climate model outputs, that is they compare model to model NOT model to real observations!)
Kindly allow me to give my personal experience:
Two years ago I gave a seminar on the GW science at York University here in Toronto. My seminar was arranged by my former good friend at Env Canada (Kaz Higuchi a good scientist and now on the Editorial Board of the Journal "Theoretical & Applied Climatology") and I gave a talk for over 40 minutes and during Q&A session, I said that "it would be useful for climate modelers to do this experiment and obtain error bars based on observed data"
Kaz told me that "the Canadian climate modelers DID EXACTLY THAT some few years ago and obtained such wide error bars they NEVER BOTHERED TO PUBLISH THOSE RESULTS!"
That is the problem with all climate models!
These modelers CAN do the experiment I suggest above BUT will NOT do it!"
I have just been told that in Chapter 8 of IPCC Report AR4, 2007 section
184.108.40.206 "Metrics of Model Reliability" it says:
What does the accuracy of a climate model's simulation
of past or contemporary climate say about the accuracy of its projections of climate change? This question is just beginning to be addressed, exploiting the newly available ensembles of models."
Did you get that? "This question is just beginning to be addressed"! So now we know!
Saturday, 18 February 2012
The Met Office were invited to answer questions from the public on any climate or weather related topics, so I gave them a question - see here for the question followed by their answer. Unfortunately there was no opportunity for a follow-up question, but some colleagues have made the following observations :- "From what I can see,
there's now so many climate models, each being
tweaked and run with different scenarios, that
the range of outputs is so broad that they
encompass the entire spectrum of possibilities.
Also being "consistent with" is not much better
than implying that correlation shows
causation. "Consistent with" suggests just one
explanation, which doesn't sit very well with the
IPCC 4AR table 2.11 (WGI, chapter 2, page 201) in
which the level of scientific understanding of 13
of the 16 listed forces is shown as on the "poor"
side of medium. To put that another way, if
science doesn't understand a bunch of natural
forces then it's deceitful not to say that
perhaps these forces account for some or all of the observed variation."
Friday, 17 February 2012
Sea level appears to be falling according to this article which is quite comprehensive. So next time you meet an alarmist it is worth throwing this new information into the discussion. Has anyone told the Maldive government? I bet this won't be on the news anytime soon!
Thursday, 16 February 2012
This piece replicates a letter written by a senior chemist and a member of the Royal Society to Nurse when he took over the Presidency of the Royal Society in 2010. He never received a reply. It was an excellent letter and is well worth reading.
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Monday, 13 February 2012
Sunday, 12 February 2012
This piece by the excellent Donna Laframboise, highlights a new report by Andrew Montfort on the behaviour of the once highly regarded institution, the Royal Society. What it shows is that once you become dependant on government money for your survival then you lose your independence, and ultimately the respect you once had for impartiality. Climate alarmists often talk about the way "big oil" is buying opposition to the global warming bandwaggon, though this myth is evident from the fact that oil companies gain to profit massively from renewables as well as oil; however what is clear is that institutions like the Royal Society are now completely under the patronage and power of big government in a way that never happened under royalty.
Saturday, 11 February 2012
That is according to this report by the BBC, no less! Of course the temperature change from year to year is minute and so the errors are only small, but the fact that they are virtually all on the warm side tells you something - that they are biased towards fulfilling their own prophecy.
Friday, 10 February 2012
Thursday, 9 February 2012
Wednesday, 8 February 2012
Imagine that Chris Huhne was still our climate change minister and that he announced that he had now become sceptical of the global warming hypothesis. Well that is what this story is telling us has happened in Germany, where the Greens are a much more powerful force than they are here in the UK.
Tuesday, 7 February 2012
Monday, 6 February 2012
This article explains how the USA Environment Protection Agency has now brought out new stringent rules about mercury emissions from fossil fuel power stations. The reductions in mercury emissions are so small as to be practically of no use. It is another example of a lot of financial pain for many, leading to no practical gain.
Sunday, 5 February 2012
This article by Lord Christopher Monckton relates to the demise of Climate Minister, Chris Huhne, but the most interesting thing in it is the calculation of the actual cost and effect of the Climate Change Act. If only the government would be confronted with such material on a regular basis.
Saturday, 4 February 2012
This report looks at the details. It seems that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, not that there is any evidence that CO2 reduction is necessary.
Friday, 3 February 2012
That is according to government minister, Lord Marland. See this article in the Telegraph for details. There is still legal action going on to reverse the cut in subsidy which has been declared illegal in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. We now await the verdict of the Supreme Court.
Thursday, 2 February 2012
Wednesday, 1 February 2012
This piece in the Washington Post looks at the change in rhetoric of the US President, which seems to refelect the increasing scepticism of the subject. Instead he now talks about sustainable energy and fuel security, while pursuing the same policies.