Friday
Jun172011
by 
Josh
Josh 
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Apr 24 - harryjkevin91
on
Seeking Help With Dissertation -
Apr 18 - chricton123
on
The Benefits of Using Tutorbin for Custom Writing Services
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (16)
The fact is that skepticism is the core of any investigative enterprise, be it science, reporting, or whatever.
That you embrace a skeptical mindset does not mean that you will not follow honest evidence, but it does mean you require a reasonable standard of proof before you accept it.
He should be careful of snipers, exposed above the parapet like that.
Maybe Mark Lynas could have a little chat with Zebedee and help her to convert to the light side....!
What happened to Josh 104?
'You see the sort of people we're up against''
'Most unreliable sir'
"If you knows of a better 'ole, go to it!" (h/t Bruce Bairnsfather) - But you're most welcome to the sceptic trenches!
SHx, needed some laundering probably. No doubt it will reappear in a jiffy.
My take on the story:
The comments on this topic are pouring in, aren't they? Its as if someone opened a tap.
Eek what a mess:
Here's the proper link: Greenpeace in the IPCC: why the surpise?
My write-up - really intended for people who are totally unaware of what is going on, which is the vast majority (but certainly a small minority here):
http://thoughtsoftheguru.com/2011/06/the-invisible-battle/
Laugh it up, fuzzballs:
http://oi52.tinypic.com/28hnd5e.jpg
Dude, this is the [snip] Internet. Why doesn't your site make links...
work
YOU KNOW
"links"
me thinks?
Your site doesn't make links work.
They just show up as text.
Maybe you should be sending out faxes, one at a time, you shock jock!
So now I type "<" and "href" and...wait..."title" doesn't do anything and it comes out as raw text instead anyway?
Why?
Who are you really talking to?
Anybody?]
Nik
Try [a href="http..etc"]Link text[/a]
(but substitute <> for the square brackets)
Nik,
What a fine ambassador for New York city you are.
not sure if the following have been posted, bish, but it's great to see Big Mac get some credit in the MSM:
17 June: Washington Times Editorial: EDITORIAL: U.N. climate propaganda exposed
Industry lobbyists behind ‘scientific’ claims in IPCC press release
Since this statement was supposedly based on actual scientific research, Steve McIntyre, editor of the Climate Audit blog, did what the IPCC must have assumed nobody would bother doing. He checked the sources cited in the report...
That’s why the Environmental Protection Agency needs to pull the plug on the job-crushing cap-and-trade style regulations it seeks to impose. The agency based the whole of its “endangerment finding” on the work of IPCC, as if it were scientific. It would be more honest for the EPA to say its rules are based on the desire of Greenpeace and the renewable-energy industry to raise taxes on competing sources of electricity. They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this fraud.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/17/un-climate-propaganda-exposed/
17 June: Economist: The IPCC and Greenpeace
Renewable outrage
Steve McIntyre, who runs a blog on which he tries to hold climate science to higher standards than he sees it holding itself, picked up all these IPCC/Greenpeace connections and posted on them angrily, calling for all involved to be sacked. “As a citizen,” he says, “I would like to know how much weight we can put on renewables as a big-footprint solution. Prior to the IPCC report, I was aware that Greenpeace—and WWF—had promoted high renewable scenarios. However, before placing any weight on them, the realism of these scenarios needs to be closely examined. IPCC has a mandate to provide hard information but did no critical evaluation of the Greenpeace scenario."
His desire for solid, honest answers is plainly one to be shared...
But the press release which focuses on an outlier, not on the range of options, is also and more worryingly the sort of mistake you get in organisations that assume everyone wants to hear the party line...
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/06/ipcc-and-greenpeace
17 June: Reason: Ronald Bailey: A Bad Week for Climate Change Alarmists*
This statement comes from an IPCC press release. The study on which the claim was made wasn't made public until a month later. By then the media had moved on, and the meme that renewables could solve climate change by 2050 launched. What McIntyre found was that the scenario highlighted in the press release was ulitmately derived from a report issued jointly by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council. That's right - activists and lobbyists collaborating. Who would have thought?...
The second foot-shooting occurred when it was discovered that climate change researchers at the University of Colorado have been quietly adjusting the figures for sea level rise...
Nerem replies that the adjustment adds just an inch over a century to the figures which doesn't amount to all that much when computer models project that the future rise is sea level will be 2 to 4 feet over the coming century.
Now Nerem says that his group is thinking about making both the adjusted and unadjusted data public. Well, yes...
http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/17/a-bad-week-for-climate-change
I think there is scope for an economist, or two, to write a study on how to repair the world economy following the damage inflicted by the IPCC and AGW scam