Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Other climate related websites

Jump down to: Why the CO2 'Theory' Fails for the facts!

It is Piers Corbyn's web site and here is a taster:
Harrabin is a Science denier and we challenge him - along with BBC- MetOffice's John Hammond to justify their case in public debate on their misleading claims which are a disgrace to the BBC, Met Office and world science.

Jan 20, 2017 at 11:41 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

That's an extreme site, even by our standards! I wonder what Jeremy makes of it?!!!

Jan 21, 2017 at 9:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Mark Hodgson, Piers Corbyn does seem to cultivate the "mad scientist" image, and completely rejects CO2 as the temperature control knob for the planet.

His forecasts of significant "weather events", months in advance, have proved more reliable than medium range weather forecasts made by those committed to faith in Climate Science.

Describing him and/or his site as "extreme" is a bit unfair, "oddball" perhaps, but he is NOT a screwball!

The two brothers have demonstrated no intention of criticising each other's views on climate or politics. Perhaps they have sympathy for each other's views. J.Corbyn has never been too vocal in his support for Climate Science, perhaps he has seen the damage done to the UK's working classes.

Jan 21, 2017 at 2:50 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

States that his forecasts are more reliable but refused to be independently tested.

Jan 21, 2017 at 4:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Richards

Steve Richards, as I understand it, he refuses to reveal his methodology, in order that it can be tested, but unlike Mann, his results are sufficient for him to earn, without taxpayer funding.

He is treated as an outsider/maverick by many, but his views and opinions are worth more to mankind than a Hockey Stick, and certainly represent better value for the taxpayer.

Jan 22, 2017 at 1:32 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Robert Christopher, computer programmed adjustments drive Global Warming in Climate Science.

No one else has noticed anything at all that is not inconsistent with the MWP or LIA, and it seems logical that the big red thing does not produce a constant output.

Jan 24, 2017 at 6:51 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

On Wuwt, Willis sometimes receives Corbyn forecasts and, without fail, shows that they are useless.

Jan 25, 2017 at 12:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterDiogenes

golf charlie,
So what with computer programing and human creativity being the true genesis of "climate change" one can truly say that cliamte change is human caused, 100%. In the same way a movie or play is man made....

Jan 25, 2017 at 1:28 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

hunter on Jan 25, 2017 at 1:28 PM

It can also be put theologically:
"Within [Hinduism] ... there is a remarkably concise definition of idolatry: “confusing your own concept (or model or image) with the actual reality.”"
When the 10 Commandments prohibits making graven images, we immediately think of physical objects like a golden calf standing in for a god. Of course we see the folly of that, and take the warning seriously. Several faiths disapprove of any images at all, lest those inferior representations become the object of worship.
But now let's think about science, and examine that Hindu definition of idolatry again. For several centuries now, we have had some scientific models of nature that are exceptionally good. Newton's Classical Mechanics is perhaps the earliest shining example. It accounted for things in motion on earth, and even for the motions of the planets. When slight abnormalities were found, LaPlace introduced perturbation theory to explain them. By the late 19th century, Classical Mechanics was complete and so good that scientists believed the world was deterministic. Scientists had a very good theory, and believed it represented nature perfectly.

That was idolatry: thinking that your model truly represented the underlying reality."

The rest of the article discusses The Standard Model, Evolution, Richard Feynman's famous quote, and the "Enormously complex models of the climate of the entire globe run on supercomputers" with the output results "sold as accurate representations of what nature does and what it will do."


"Idolatry has been a recurring stain across all of human history, and each time one form is eliminated, it pops our somewhere else."

AmericanThinker: Idolatry in Science

Jan 26, 2017 at 11:40 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

RC, it would be nice to think the climate alarmists have simply been seduced by the golden calves on their sinuous models. Alas, it's not the beauty which bewitches them, it's the gilding, the gold.

Jan 27, 2017 at 2:30 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Willis is wonderful, backed by Leif, at debunking solar effects on the climate caused by the eleven year solar cycle, but both are blind, relatively speaking, to the concept of century, millennial, or longer scale solar cycles, perhaps(probably) mediated in some other way than just plain TSI, such as through cosmic rays or ultry-violet rays or other cloud and/or albedo effecting mechanisms.

Not that both of them haven't spent a lot of time looking; I give credit to both of them, who've taught me much reliable stuff.

Jan 27, 2017 at 2:35 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim