Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace
« The baby bishops on ecoschools... | Main | Foreign office cuts its green spending »

Fred on Foster and deFreitas

Fred Pearce in New Scientist looks at some recent developments in the ongoing battle between Tamino and the Hockey Team on the one side and sceptics deFreitas and McLean on the other. Judy Curry gets quoted.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (7)

We can conclude that between 15% and 67% of the recent warming was due to a natural event, El Ninos.

That in itself undermines the 'consensus' that ALL the recent warming was due to an increase in man-made CO2 emissions.

Considering the planet has recently cooled over the past 10 years, a hiatus, and is now expected to continue to cool for the next 20 or so years, we can be a lot more confident that the 67% figure is more likely to be closer to what is happening to our planet's climate - i.e. natural warming (and cooling) greatly over-riding any contribution from man.

Abandoning a natural theory of climate in which man plays a small part for a faith, based on the inherent evil of mankind, was probably the most stupidest thing science has ever done.

It is time to reinstate reason over superstition.

Jun 30, 2010 at 9:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Joe Bastardi is predicting another very cold winter, and possibly winters to come.

Would it be smart to invest some money in long johns?

Jun 30, 2010 at 11:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

"stolen e-mails" -- the moment I read that the journalist's credibility vanishes.

Jun 30, 2010 at 11:59 AM | Unregistered Commenterstan

It would be interesting to get Judith Curry's take on both the content and the non-publication of the McClean response to Foster et al. My cursory reading suggests that Foster et al's critique did not address the issue raised by McClean. More importantly, the second editior at AGU Atmoshperes has some explaining to do.

Jun 30, 2010 at 1:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterBernie

Tamino et al complain - "...especially as the analysis method itself eliminates the influence of trends on the purported correlations."

They really have no understanding of the concept of irony, do they.

Jun 30, 2010 at 1:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterGrantB

Ref - June 30, 2010 | Mac

Long Johns? As long as they're wool and/or heavy cotton - oil based fabrics will soon be too expensive, besides they're not that warm anyway. And, it would probably be a good idea to put a little into Coal Mining stock; Towers of Babel tend to collapse under their own weight when the climate in the Northern Hemisphere turns cooler.

Jun 30, 2010 at 2:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterPascvaks

As Mac has pointed out, if just one source of natural warming accounts for 15%, 30% or 67% of the warming generally said to be due to CO2 increases, there is a big hole in the science and the AGW models are all wrong.

I could never understand how a few years back the warmistas suddenly decided that maybe half the warming was due to atmospheric soot particles rather than CO2, but they still insisted that the existing models and earlier predictions based on CO2 levels were correct.

Jun 30, 2010 at 7:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterLiam

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>