Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Literary bits and pieces | Main | O tempora, O mores, O M&S »

New blog: Climate Scepticism

There's a new blog in the Climate blogosphere with a contributors list of: Alex Cull, Ian Woolley, Scepticus, dwestonfront, Paul Matthews, Geoff Chambers, Richard Drake, Barry Woods, and John Shade.

Add it to your blog roll - it sounds interesting already!

Check it out here 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (18)

Contributions welcome from BishopHill's Angels

Oct 19, 2015 at 5:10 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers


Oct 19, 2015 at 5:39 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

..a tribute to another B. Hill of cherished memory

Oct 19, 2015 at 5:45 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

You might want to correct your blog-roll.

Oct 19, 2015 at 5:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterBloke down the pub

I just the hope the guys are getting paid for it, by someone immensely evil in the petrochemical industry.

There needs to be a two-way market.

Oct 19, 2015 at 5:50 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Good luck with this.
I'd say that over there if you'd let me but Wordpress evidently is not my friend!

Oct 19, 2015 at 8:48 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Bloke down the pub
I don't think we have a blogroll. What's going on?

Mike Jackson
Can you tell us what happens? Is it just comments or can't you get in?

Oct 19, 2015 at 9:38 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Geoff, I think Bloke down the pub means the Bishop's blogroll.

Oct 19, 2015 at 9:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterIan Woolley

I wish you good luck with your venture. I did try to post but failed. As a computer numpty, I will have to find a 10 year old to ascertain whether I was the problem..

In the meantime, don't let the Knudist Cnuts distract you, as they have Knoodled and proliferated under various semi disguised names, throughout Skandawegia.

Oct 19, 2015 at 10:45 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

if it involves Drake, it will fold very soon

Oct 20, 2015 at 12:11 AM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Very best wishes, guys, but I am another who can't post on Wordpress sites any more. It all came about after I registered with WP at Judith Curry's request. Since then, every time I try to post a comment I get into an endless loop which says that someone else is using my name, or that my password is invalid.

Grrr. I hate them, and they don't have any help facilities for proles.

Oct 20, 2015 at 7:46 AM | Registered Commenterjohanna

they have an article on re-engaging debate by re-running the FAR, SAR and TAR models to see how they faired. I have tried to submit a comment, but like others I do not know whether it was successful.

If you have circa 100 models all projecting/predicting different future outcomes, you know as fact that 99 of them are wrong.

With such a failure rate, is there any confidence that 1 of the 100 is right? And if so, the problem is that one cannot identify at the time of the model run, which is the right one.

The fact that there are circa 100 models confirms that the science is not well understood, nor settled.

If the science was well understood, there would be no more than 3 models each one using a different CO2 emission scenario, or perhaps a maximum of 9 models each one using a different aerosol emission scenario in addition to the 3 different CO2 emission scenarios.

We know the models are useless since of the model runs performed in 2006 all but 2 are way off target (beyond the 95% confidence level) and if these models are better than those used in FAR, SAR and TAR, it is difficult to see what further testing of the earlier models will achieve other than to further confirm how poorly models are at projecting/predicting the future.

If anything it is time to scrap the models until we have a better grasp on the fundamentals and until we have better quality input data (satellite data and ARGO data of sufficient timescale to be useful - the land based thermometer data set having become too horribly bastardised to now be useful). Work on good quality data and then and only then may we have some idea of what is actually going on and why.

At the very minimum all the models that are way off target should be culled, and we should be working only with those models that are broadly in line with the pause and trying to refine the better models (although I suspect that the better models are only so fortuitously, ie., per chance and not because they better model the dynamics of Earth's climate system.

Oct 20, 2015 at 9:18 AM | Unregistered Commenterrichard verney

It would like me to post using my Wordpess account but since that uses a pseudonym I don't wish to.
I give it name and email and it then demands a website address and then refuses to post the comment whether I give it my blog address or not.

Oct 20, 2015 at 9:58 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Oct 19, 2015 at 9:38 PM | geoffchambers

The Bish's list of blogs has you listed as Climate Sceptics , rather than Climate Scepticism.

Oct 20, 2015 at 10:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterBloke down the pub

If bloated self-publicist Drake is on it, I'll give it a bye.

Oct 20, 2015 at 11:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

... If anything it is time to scrap the models ...
Oct 20, 2015 at 9:18 AM richard verney

Climate models are of immense complexity ("a million lines of Fortran"), but nevertheless represent gross approximations of a system of which many aspects are poorly understood. They are inherently incapable of being validated because the data needed for validation are nonexistent. Furthermore, they have been constructed by programmers who are motived by the desire for results to predict a certain type of outcome, and who are convinced of the correctness of their assumptions.

The fact that the use of such models is taken seriously is one of the key indicators that marks "climate science" as a pseudoscience.

Oct 20, 2015 at 12:22 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Sorry to hear that some people have problems with Wordpress (Mike, Johanna).
One way round this is to set up a new Wordpress account, for which you will need to use a different email address.

Or if you just want to change the username or display name, you can do that as explained here.

TBYJ, far from self-publicising, Richard has said that in fact he won't be commenting or posting much if at all there, but he did help on the technical set-up side.

Oct 20, 2015 at 1:40 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

Tip: shows TODAY's headlines from various SKEPTIC blogs
i.e. it aggregates skeptic headlines from Real Climate, JoNova etc.

For me I really appreciate how BH acts similarly as the first stop for today's climate news, because of it's good commenting system, with people regularly adding tips of what stories they have recently seen..And the Bish's "seen elsewhere" links on the top right of the page.
Well done to Bish and the moderators for the smooth running , by facilitating 99.5% uncensored discussion apart from weeding out the malicious posts from persistent trolls who disrupt by asking questions we already answered.

I can create wordpress accounts for people if they need them.
I just made one for you @Johanna click on my name to send me a private message
Likewise @Mike Jackson it just takes me 2 mins..if you need one.
The account is almost 100% yours once you change the password except the wordpress admin emails come into an email account I control..but I can set it to autoforward to your email.

Oct 24, 2015 at 5:31 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>