Tuesday, September 17, 2013


IPCC models getting mushy | Financial Post
[Ross McKitrick] To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying. There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of the 20th century, and the implications for policy and global politics could be staggering.
...Finally, the IPCC has proven, yet again, that it is incapable of being objective. Canadian journalist Donna LaFramboise has meticulously documented the extent to which the IPCC has been colonized by environmental activists over the years, and we now see the result. As the model-versus-reality discrepancy plays out, the last place you will learn about it will be in IPCC reports.
Australia’s record hottest 12 month period? Junk science say the Satellites « JoNova
For the third time this year we’ve been hit with claims of a “hottest ever” record that doesn’t tell us anything about the climate, but does reveal a lot about the sick state of government funded science, corrupted, decrepit, and so far from being scientific it might as well be run by Greenpeace. If the government stopped funding climate science entirely, climate research might speed up.
Rajendra Pachauri, Fake Nobel Laureate (Part 3) | NoFrakkingConsensus
What this means, therefore, is that a committee dominated by left-leaning individuals in a small, left-leaning country made a deliberate decision to enhance the profile and prestige of the IPCC by honouring it with the 2007 Peace Prize. Most news reports about the IPCC still mention that prize.
Why wasn’t this bizarre and unnecessary fiction shut down immediately? Does the average Norwegian think it’s OK to call people Nobel laureates when they’re not? What about the average Norwegian journalist? Or the Nobel organization itself?
Phil Plait attacks CNBC’s Joe Kernen but debunks himself with his own ‘drivel’ | JunkScience.com
Yes, it is the dose that makes the poison. Water with 0.04% arsenic may be lethal — but an atmosphere with 0.04% CO2 is… not an obvious problem despite tens of billions of dollars worth of investigation.

Remember when Plait recommended that you could prove the toxicity of CO2 by tying a plastic bag over your head?

No comments: