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
« US suspends funding of CRU | Main | Our best people »
Sunday
Jul182010

New Scientist on Russell

I hadn't seen this editorial by New Scientist, which is rather critical of the Russell Report.

Without candour, public trust in climate science cannot be restored, nor should it be.

Yup.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (24)

There might be hope for NS after all.

Jul 18, 2010 at 12:11 PM | Unregistered Commenterpax

But I bet New Scientist will continue to post every alarmist AGW article it can find.

Jul 18, 2010 at 12:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Perhaps we need an inquiry into how incompetent people like Russell are appointed to undertake inquiries.

Jul 18, 2010 at 12:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve

On reflection this is a rather more worthy editorial than the usual PC offerings that persuaded me to cancel my subscription to NS.

Jul 18, 2010 at 12:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve

Looks like New Scientist is following a herd of Warmist publications (and journalists) into the 'negotiating' phase of the AGW meltdown i.e. trying to get as far away from this train wreck as they feasibly can.

Jul 18, 2010 at 12:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

Anyone got hold of the May issue of New Scientist? The 'denier' special...

Jul 18, 2010 at 12:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

I've got it (the deniar special), that is....

Jul 18, 2010 at 1:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

You fellows are easily pacified. Just a bit of candor, that’s all it takes eh? You so easily forget that there is no experimental proof that CO2 causes global warming, there is no proof that there is global warming, global average temperature has no meaning in fact.

But like children, all you need is some cookies to make you happy.

Jul 18, 2010 at 3:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterGeorge Steiner

Rick Bradford

Looks like New Scientist is following a herd of Warmist publications (and journalists) into the 'negotiating' phase of the AGW meltdown i.e. trying to get as far away from this train wreck as they feasibly can.

That's my take too.

Has anybody noticed that the "Decisive" Global Warming Conference to be held in Mexico City this summer -- err -- this November -- err -- this December --ahhh -- sometime, is a moving target? I did a google on it and found very little on it beyond the above dates in articles posted in January and Febrary 2010. Does anyone have better information, or is Rick right, they are running away?

Jul 18, 2010 at 3:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Mexico City Update

I found this on the second page of Google results. Dated April 10, 2010. Interesting reading:

here

Translation: CIRCLE THE WAGONS! CLOSE THE WINDOWS! BAR THE DOORS!

Jul 18, 2010 at 3:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Rick, Don,

I strongly felt Bob Watson was running away from the scene when I spoke to him after Wednesday's Guardian debate. He seemed to be saying privately quite different things than he just had publicly - the baying green mob had to be pacified after all. But there was now another crowd, a much more informed and intelligent one, that he'd not only been made aware of (in fact he must have known full well what prominent sceptics had been saying for years) but could now see was winning the argument, even at Guardian central.

It was all a bit reminiscent to that moment in the French revolution when one notable, seeing the mob stampeding out to enact another atrocity, said:

I must follow them, for I am their leader.

It's a much better class of mob on this side, of course. And we don't take kindly to those who change sides without something pretty compelling about how they came to get it so wrong for so long - all at taxpayers' expense, in the worst possible sense.


Oh, and welcome back, Bishop. Your contribution has been noted frequently over the last week. We owe you much.

Jul 18, 2010 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

Here's Ross McKitrick's take on the Climategate inquiries:

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Global+warming+skepticism+well+justified/3289035/story.html

Jul 18, 2010 at 5:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterPolitical Junkie

Steve
"Perhaps we need an inquiry into how incompetent people like Russell are appointed to undertake inquiries."

Deliberately and with malice aforethought?

Jul 18, 2010 at 6:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin Brumby

Given the above, it should be interesting to see what Nature has to say.

Any bets that the UN Global Conference on Global Warming in Mexico City quietly disappears?

Jul 18, 2010 at 6:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

I saw only one appended comment. It said

'If you want honest science, stop requiring scientists to come to pre-determined conclusions. More importantly, the mass media and governments should stop lying about science for propaganda purposes.'

And they hadn't moderated it out. Strange days indeed.

Jul 18, 2010 at 9:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

Richard Drake

Are you able to tell us any more of what Bob Watson showed you was under his kimono?

You've been dropping knowing hints for days now, but eventually you have to walk the walk as well as talk the talk..........

Look forward to hearing your views :-)

Jul 18, 2010 at 10:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

Perhaps we need an inquiry into how incompetent people like Russell are appointed to undertake inquiries.

The smart money must be on Russell being a nomination by Boulton.

Jul 18, 2010 at 11:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterDr Slop

Latimer, thanks for the interest. I'm looking for a number of things to settle down after Steve's visit, including some follow-up meetings which won't be until well into August. In one way it doesn't matter what anyone says privately - it's public pronouncements that count. Andrew's summary of the inquiries for GWPF is another thing that shouldn't be rushed. There are some open goals to score. I'll return to Watson but my commentary is likely to be reduced for a while, due to other commitments.

Jul 19, 2010 at 9:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Drake

My post was also allowed in - please any bloggers who still subscribe (I had a 2 year subscription), give them some positive feedback to nurture this trend.

The irony is that we should probably let deserting warmists off the hook to encourage them because it is worth it to stop the greater evil of global climate fraud. So, after rent seeking for years and wasting billions, they may get off scott free. Such is life.

Jul 19, 2010 at 1:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterMichael Cejnar

OK Richard - I'm sure you know your strategy better than I do.

I'd just observe that open goals only count in the scorebook once the ball is actually in the net. And it seems to me that this is an increasingly fast-moving game. Carpe diem...before the goal posts get moved.

Jul 19, 2010 at 2:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

Michael Cejnar

I was going to recommend your comment on the NS article. Both of those now posted seem pretty damning - it will be interesting to see if/when the AGW cavalry arrive!

Jul 19, 2010 at 2:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

JamesP

it will be interesting to see if/when the AGW cavalry arrive!

Yes, it will. It will be very interesting to see the reaction and how large or small it is.

Jul 19, 2010 at 2:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Cavalary, Front page of the times TODAY.......

Oil Giant gave £1million to fund climate sceptics....

WHERE is My CHEQUE!!!!!! exxon mobil.... ;)

Jul 19, 2010 at 3:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

'Nature' is softening too...

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/sun-rediscovered-by-nature/

Jul 19, 2010 at 7:39 PM | Unregistered Commentertallbloke

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):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>