Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace

Unthreaded

I think I've figured it out ... really , with the help of Belle du Jour Dr Brooke Magnanti it appears that I've been living a dream, the last General Election didn't happen, Nasal McCavity is still PM, Miliband Minor is still in charge of windmills.

Our civil servant continue to impress with their umm... wishful thinking made real?

A case of you couldn't make it up - obviously DECC have been on the same fantastical grow your own reality courses as UKBA.

Gimme strength...

Mar 28, 2013 at 8:16 PM | Registered Commentertomo

So, who do NLP want to talk to? They want to discuss CC, apparently, but think we're spoiling for a fight!

Mar 28, 2013 at 7:20 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

Yes, Paul, our intervention at NLP seems to have got them all going:

Neil thinks the “way forward … is to separate the scientific questions from the political debate about what to do” (and focus on the latter). David says, “Alice’s suggestion to ignore what you do not find interesting, constructive or useful seems like a sensible idea to me.”, noting that NLP is a site “for an audience that broadly accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus, and is interested in understanding its implications - particularly in terms of informing activism to combat climate change.” He thinks people may want to talk about “something else - namely their “scepticism” (I personally think the term “denial” is more appropriate) - but that may well fall foul of our policies … that comments should be kept on topic.” Noting that such people can go elsewhere – after all (he says) “Denialism is, if nothing else, spectacularly well funded”, he regards attempts at moderation as a free speech issue as “derailing and off-topic in itself”. And Alice rounds it off by telling Neil that the science and politics cannot be divided: “it’s plain dangerous to live in fairy-land where that’s possible.

Wow. I'm so tempted to get back in there - but I'm holding myself back.

Mar 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM | Registered CommenterRobin Guenier

Robin, the klimazwiebel blog has joined in the zombie debate. The consternation that you and Ben and Geoff are creating among the self-righteous at NLP is good entertainment.

Mar 28, 2013 at 5:43 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

Steve Mc shreds any credibility to which John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky ever pretended:

http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/28/lewandowsky-doubles-down/

Big H/T to Geoff Chambers, Barry Woods, and all who have developed data and analysis for this lurid tale!

Mar 28, 2013 at 5:37 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

James Delingpole at it again,
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/james-delingpole/8874511/why-im-a-convert-to-ukip/

Mar 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

The upper end of climate model temperature projections is inconsistent with past warming. Peter Stott et al

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014024/article

Mar 28, 2013 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterJonathan Drake

Forgot to add hat-tip for last comment's link: http://tomnelson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/are-global-warmists-preparing-exit.html#links

Mar 28, 2013 at 3:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Shade

Here is a sensible essay, appealing for more effort to be put into gathering high quality observations of the climate system:

Understanding of climate change is a problem for multiple generations. One generation of scientists has to make provisions for the needs of successor generations, rather than focusing solely on its own immediate scientific productivity. Today’s climate models will likely prove of little interest in 100 years. But adequately sampled, carefully calibrated, quality controlled, and archived data for key elements of the climate system will be useful indefinitely.

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/12/4435.full

Satellite data is helpful, but we still need the ground-truth details and continuity. Can anyone claim we have been good at doing that over the past few decades during which there has been so much premature, and immature and irresponsible, alarms based in large part on demonstrably inadequate computer models? Alarms dramatically exploited and enlarged upon by sundry persons who see benefit and advantage in them.

Mar 28, 2013 at 3:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Shade

Mar 28, 2013 at 2:14 PM | Robin Guenier

The best thing of all, is that they are probably sneaking over here and seeing what is being said about them, but they do not have the moral fibre to speak up on BH, it being outside "the site that was set up for the (Left) community".

Trebles all round!

Mar 28, 2013 at 2:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrownedoff

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>