Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace


Green Sand

Agree that the Express is always hyperbolic, but PC is a lot more reliable than the MO about this sort of thing. He forecast the 2010 freeze to the day, IIRC.

Jan 10, 2013 at 1:26 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp


as usual, the truth probably lies in between. there will be scumballs, and there will be decent people trying to do the best they can within their powers. And yes, it's not honourable to stand by, knowing it is happening and not speaking out. But we all do it, in our daily lives. You don't tell the boss that co-worker is lazy, you don't say that project is a waste of money, yet we expect professional scientists to do it. The truth will out, is my motto.

Jan 10, 2013 at 12:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Eschenbach at WUWT is saying that Peter Gleick is afflicted by 'noble cause corruption.' This is a common theme pushed by skeptics who spent a lot of time under the yoke of the pre-Climategate days. Assuming their opponents were honourable.

The alternate, and more plausible explanation: Maybe, it is the crappy ethics of an activist discipline that allows scummy elements to rise to the top.

Jan 10, 2013 at 12:26 PM | Registered Commentershub

A timely overview entitled 'How to destroy science: cast self-interest as public-interest' can be found at the American Thinker site:

Extract (Bruce Alberts is the editor of Science magazine)

The science of climate change is highly politicized, with one group of scientists claiming to be the authorities on the subject and another group claiming that the first group is taking liberties with the science. How does Alberts, a biochemist, know that the first group is the only one we should listen to? He knows because he is politically left, and the left embraces the scary climate change/global warming scenario. People on the left are enthusiastic about global warming, green energy, sustainability, and other real or imagined problems that cry out for strong government action. Of course, the cry is audible only to those on the left.

Organized science has become another special interest group lobbying for government favors. The temptation to present special-interest appeals as urgent public necessities has become not just irresistible, but commonplace. It is well-known that global warming skeptics are shut out of the pages of Alberts's magazine. Nothing is allowed that might derail any of the many federal gravy trains. The National Academies of Science, supposedly the government's science adviser, frequently issue lobbying appeals disguised as research plans, plans to improve national competitiveness, or plans to support economic growth. For example the Academies, in 2012, published a 241-page committee report: "A National Strategy for Advancing Climate Modeling." The committee consisted of scientists who are a part of the climate modeling establishment. They envision a vast expansion of their own industry at taxpayer expense. This they justify on the grounds that it will help farmers and insurance companies. Obviously they are interested mainly in helping themselves to a serving of federal pork. The well-connected Alberts was president of the National Academies of Science for more than a decade. Another important science organization, the American Geophysical Union, sends delegations of scientists to Washington to speak with the congressmen about the need for more money for science -- that is to say more money for scientists.

Jan 10, 2013 at 12:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Shade

Its weather showtime folks!

Piers Corbyn and the Express are stirring the pot again!


"BRITAIN is braced for weeks of heavy snow set to trigger the worst whiteout for years and cause chaos across the country.

Temperatures are expected to plunge to -15C (5F) in exposed parts from the weekend – with up to five inches of snow possible.

Forecasters said the entire country faces a crippling big freeze which could last until the middle of February as winter finally arrives with a vengeance."

I thought the showmen had been quiet for awhile...

Time will tell

Jan 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

There's only one climate story on the BBC's Science/Environment page, and that one is about the Met Office downgrading their temperature forecast!

Every time I used to say that on here, a spurious number suddenly appeared - or they used to in Black's day anyway - so let's see what happens over today.

Despite there being no alarming stories, the blog feeds of Shukman and McGrath below the real news are still trying to conflate wildfires, floods and climate change. Will they never learn?

Jan 10, 2013 at 8:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

hey, commercial plasma fusion reactors are only 25-30 years away.... still.

This project may be only research, they wave at commercial possibilities after 25 years but the statements are so vague that it's hard to think that even the proponents see any definite path toward commercial feasibility:

new Princeton Plasma Physics Lab pre-commercial project with South Korea

Jan 10, 2013 at 2:43 AM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Martin, as an Australian, I have been hearing about the great breakthrough in solar technology that is just around the corner for more decades than I care to admit.

'Never say never' is a defensible proposition, but we all have to prioritise resources. Thorium looks good on paper, but no-one has ever got it to work on a commercial scale and basis yet.

My advice to the Minister would be: yes, well worth a look and constant monitoring. Meanwhile, we need to get the gas fracking industry underway asap.

Jan 10, 2013 at 1:23 AM | Unregistered Commenterjohanna

Jan 9, 2013 at 11:38 PM diogenes

Dio: "Fusion is another 40 years away."

I think it has been 40 years away for the last 60 years. Is that likely to change?

"No more uranium reactors will ever be built."

Is that right? That's news to me. I remember reading that they were not regarded as a solution to reducing CO2 because they were not "sustainable" but I assumed that would change as reality started to bite.

I'd like to read up on thorium reactor technology. Is there a reference that covers it without the hyper-ventilating over-enthusiasm that puts me off reading about it?

Jan 10, 2013 at 12:28 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Thorium may well be the best thing since sliced bread, but I agree that there's many a slip twixt cup and lip. If the Indians are prepared to do the R&D to the point of implementation, it seems sensible to wait and see for a bit.

I doubt that such pragmatic and prudent principles are at the heart of the objections, though.

Jan 9, 2013 at 11:40 PM | Registered Commenterjohanna

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>