Seen elsewhere



Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace


Brownedoff - See
Sorry, couldn't resist a quick re-edit:
We (the consensus manufacturing ) members of the UK science community, are casting a vote of confidence in the models that are now evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to capitalism. The models and the projections are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous simulation, by a few modellers across the world who adhere to the highest levels of fortran. That research has been been subjected to pal review and publication, but not providing traceability, code or methodology of the evidence and support for the post normal scientific method.

The science of climate change draws on a political narrative from an increasing number of NGO's, many of which are disguised here. As professional scientists, from student activists to senior professors and communications experts, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the fact that we can't yet find any other explanation".

Jul 24, 2011 at 10:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustin Ert


Unfortunately you're right, you do get called those names - but hopefully not by most of the people on the list posted by Brownedoff. Climate scientists tend to use the term "sceptics" which I understand to be more acceptable (correct me if I'm wrong), and even laudible - scientists themselves should of course be sceptical in the more general sense of the term.

In my experience, the more derogatory and inflammatory terms such as "denier" tend to be used more by activists than by working scientists (although of course there are a few who are both). For example, the first time I heard a sceptic called a "flat earther" it was by someone from an environmental NGO - I didn't understand what they meant at first, it was such a strange thing to say! I don't think such name-calling is helpful, and indeed possibly reveals an insecurity from the name-caller - they are probably not confident enough in their ability to present a rational argument, so resort to other tactics instead.

The same goes for name-calling from the "other side" by the way, such as the indiscriminate use of "alarmist" and, worse, things like "eco-fascist" - however my impression is that many sceptics are as embarrassed by such things as I am by the use of "denier" etc.

Maybe we can all agree to discourage fundamentalism in our respective "camps", then we can get on with a more sensible conversation.... :-)

Jul 24, 2011 at 9:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Betts

@Richard Betts

The trouble is, Richard, if we challenge opinions we rapidly become called deniers, right wing lunatics, flat earthers, selfish people who don't want to change their way of life and never think of their grandchildren and probably ignoramuses and liars into the bargain. I find it rather depressing.

Jul 24, 2011 at 7:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

Hi Brownedoff

Presumably you think it's not OK :-)

Personally I think this is OK, I don't see a problem with us stating our opinions on the scientific evidence. We are free to change our minds if alternative evidence is strong enough. You are free to challenge our opinions if you think the evidence is strong enough (will you sign up as a reviewer - I would encourage you to do so).

You will also note that the 2009 statement only refers to evidence for warming and its probably causes, not anything on whether this warming is "catastrophic" or indeed anything at all on impacts. Uncertainty is far larger there.

Do you think there's a problem here?

Jul 24, 2011 at 6:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Betts

IPCC AR5 - Working Group 1 (WG1) - The Physical Science Basis

The final list of the CLAs, LAs and REs for IPCC AR5, WG1 has been issued, dated 24 June 2011.


The UK is showing 28 persons and it appears that 19 of them signed on to the "Statement from the UK science community" which was published in December 2009.

This statement said:

We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities.

blah, blah ...

As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and that "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".

Appended to the statement is a list of hundreds of names from the UK science community (if you look under "Met Office" you will find 204 signatures + 2 "retired").


Three persons who have "the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming" are CLAs, 13 persons are LAs and 3 persons are REs.

There are 14 chapters and only Chapters 2, 3, 5 and 14 are free from UK persons who have openly declared having the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming,

Is this OK?

Jul 24, 2011 at 4:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterBrownedoff

Interesting article on Met's procurement of Neil Wallis. Are there any parallels to be found with UEA 's procurement of OO for the emails. How much did they pay for the assistance? Did it go out to tender?

Just speculating....

Jul 23, 2011 at 4:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

Chris Huhne "orders" investigation into Tory MEPs following failure of ambitious climate target vote:

Amusingly the article repeatedly talks of Guardian/Greenpeace investigations into the "fossil fuel lobby" without recognising the irony of their own position.

Jul 23, 2011 at 3:06 AM | Unregistered Commenterwoodentop

This new report from the BBC about 'skeptics receive too much media balance'......... when I first saw bits out of it, the wording reminded my of the 15-year old identical talking point originating out of an enviro-activist group that was merged with Greenpeace USA in 2000. See:

Is somebody over on your side of the pond able to tell me if the reasoning behind this BBC report is completely coincidental, with no relations to Al Gore, or the central figure I write about in my narratives on the '96-to-present smear of skeptic scientists, the anti-skeptic US book author Ross Gelbspan?

Considering all I've heard about BBC reporting on AGW, I don't see how they've actually given all that much 'fair balance' to skeptic scientists.

One of the disturbingly unbalanced BBC global warming oddities I found is a 2004-ish Canadian Quirks & Quarks radio program at, of all places, the Abu Dhabi Men's College, which is a learn-to-speak English site that apparently got their material from "BBC English: Listen and Read". Go a bit more than halfway down the web page to the "Global Warming Listening Activities" in the yellow highlighted box and its #4 "Global warming listening" to hear the MP3 file for the Canadian radio show - you'll hear no less than an interview of Ross Gelbspan, telling how skeptic scientists are corrupted by fossil fuel industry money!

Jul 22, 2011 at 8:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterRussell C

Chris Huhne has said that opponents to global agreements to tackle climate change are akin to those who appeased Hitler.

Jul 22, 2011 at 4:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

PostCreate a New Post

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