Links

The Value of Peer Review | Planet3.0

Just because something is in the peer reviewed literature does not make it true. Just because something is not in the peer reviewed literature does not make it false.

Major 30% reduction in modelers estimates of Climate Sensitivity (Skeptics were right) « JoNova

Effectively the power of CO2 to warm just got 30% less, according to a team of researchers, many of whom have in the past have published more alarming papers. Remember “there is no debate” and “global warming is a fact” a lot “like gravity”. (And that gravitational constant g could be revised by a third soon, right?)

Mainstreaming ECS ~ 2 C | Climate Etc.

JC comments: James Annan’s blog post starts with this sentence: “At last the great and the good have spoken.” I.e., some IPCC lead authors are paying attention to the lower sensitivity estimates. It will be very interesting to see how the IPCC AR5 plays this. I suspect that the uncertainty monster will become their good friend, ‘not inconsistent with.’ It will be very interesting indeed to see if the IPCC budges from the 2-4.5 C range that has remained unchanged since the 1979 Charney report.

North Dakota has coldest April on record; South Dakota 2nd coldest | JunkScience.com

Don’t the Dakotas know that atmospheric CO2 is the highest its been in 3 million years?

They were wrong, Age admits. But keep believing those warmists | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

Sure, warmists exaggerated the temperature rise so far, The Age finally admits. But we still have to believe they’ll be right about the apocalypse to come:

On academics, abstraction, and model addiction | Climate Etc.

What we can see in academic support for climate change is an emotional zeal combined with a highly developed form of abstract thought that is not very healthy, especially when it is combined with a strong sense of self-interest. – Greg Melleuish