Tim Ball: Consensus Argument Proves Climate Science Is Political | JunkScience.com
Claims of a consensus was an early sign climate science was political.
If one accepts the IPCC radiative forcing values of anthropogenic radiative forcings of +1.6 (+0.6 to +2.4) Watts per meter squared and/or the solar radiative forcing of +0.12 (+0.06 to +0.30) Watts per meter squared as correct, what the Levitus et al data shows is that the global radiative feedback is negative(and this necessarily would include the water vapor, sea ice etc radiative feedbacks).
Slanting the debate | Climate Nonconformist
For all the statements that Rose made, including her ad homs on Lindzen and baseless claims against Marc Morano (seriously, what has she been reading about him?), there was one by the presenter that astounded me. “Maybe Anna has made a mistake by giving oxygen to Nick’s scepticism.” This was an indulgement of Ben Goldacre’s point that skeptics are being given a free ride by the media, that this is a “problem”. I would have thought that for something with such massive policy ramifications, greenhouse gases deserve a very serious debate. The suggestion, which was considered by Rose as well as the ABC voice-over, is the antithesis of a free society.
- Bishop Hill blog - Hockey Stick Illusion denial
I came across this review of Michael Mann's book in Times Higher Education. The author, Jon Turney, is a green science writer, so you know exactly what to expect, but the thought struck me that it is completely amazing that Mike Hulme's is still the only review of Mann's book to even mention the Hockey Stick Illusion.
Are they all in denial or something?
The climate science community literally went off the rails with the new 'hockey stick' science introduced by Michael Mann - from utilization of questionable statistical techniques to the ugly Climategate and Fakegate fiascoes, a 'dark science force' was unleashed which is still reverberating
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment