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

Maybe James Delingpole won't feel as alone....

more Telegraph journalists coming out against windfarms, they'll be sceptical next about AGW.....

Telegraph: Wind farms aren't just a blight, they're a folly
It's bad enough that these turbines spoil the landscape, but they don't even work, writes Philip Johnston.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/8560346/Wind-farms-arent-just-a-blight-theyre-a-folly.html

Jun 7, 2011 at 9:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

This article is from last year but should command some current publicity as the climate talks in Bonn are under way.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/43291

It is by an American journalist who regularily writes on European themes and the connections between NGO's, Universities and the EU is clearly apparent.

Jun 7, 2011 at 8:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

Not directly climate related but interesting, computing in the form of Bayesian Chronological Modelling is being used to give more precise dates to pre-historical events.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/a-computer-dating-revolution-of-the-archaeological-kind-2293393.html

And siting in the comments some very pertinent views which are very relevant to climate science.

In general, I am much in favour of a questioning approach - see this on the front page of my site (http://historyhuntersinternati... "If you don’t pay attention to anything that might disturb your orthodoxy, you’re not doing science, you’re not even pursuing a discipline; all you’re doing is perpetuating a smug, closed-minded sect."

Long ago, when I was a graduate student learning probability theory, Bayesian methods were considered the realm of desperate researchers who could not produce publishable results by rigorous, traditional methods supported by long-standing, objective theoretical modelling.

Jun 6, 2011 at 4:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air

This looks interesting:

At its meeting on April 29, APS Council voted to establish the new Topical Group on the Physics of Climate. The group’s organizers hope to reach out to the physics community to draw in a wide swath of expertise to address climate issues. The group is now actively recruiting members, and the organizers hope to set up a website and newsletter soon and begin organizing sessions at meetings.

According to the group’s founding documents, its purview encompasses all research related to the advancement and diffusion of the physics of climate. This includes the measuring and modeling of climate processes as well as what physical effects climate change might have on the planet.

“The group is going to focus on the science of climate and climate change as opposed to the politics or policies, which its charter says specifically not to do,” said organizing committee member Brad Marston of Brown University. “It’s a very rich and complex area of science.”

Organizing committee members emphasized the need to keep the focus on unbiased science rather than politics and partisanship. Council member Robert Austin of Princeton has pushed hard to get the group established, and to keep ideology from dictating the direction of the group’s work.

“You’ll get an unbiased viewpoint,” Austin said, “where you can find clearly written articles that bring the physics out in a major way.”

Understanding climate change is rooted in understanding the physics behind it. Many of the biggest questions facing climatologists have to do with understanding the physical principles of atmospheric thermodynamics, radiant solar energy, the fluid dynamics of oceans and the like.

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201106/climategroup.cfm

Jun 6, 2011 at 1:51 PM | Unregistered Commenterwoodentop

Not sure this is a Yes vs No debate, more a Yes vs Maybe (kinda hedging my bets in case the greenies stop voting for me 100%)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8559058/Climate-change-action-Yes-lobby-versus-No-lobby.html

Jun 6, 2011 at 11:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air

Methane gas from cows – the proof is in the poo!
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/2083/methane_gas_from_cows__the_proof_is_in_the_poo

Jun 6, 2011 at 11:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterAJC

Independent on forests growing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/forests-fight-back-all-over-the-world-2293215.html

The greeny interviewed complains its the 'Wrong Trees'

Bustar Maitar, who works on Greenpeace's rainforest campaign in Indonesia, expressed concerns over the loss of biodiversity, saying: "There is a carbon capture, but it's mostly the timber plantations. Timber plantations are ecologically quite different from the forest. The solution is to stop cutting down natural forests."

No mention of the beneficial effect of increased CO2 except in the comments.

Jun 5, 2011 at 9:40 AM | Unregistered Commenterbreath of fresh air

On a whim I decided to click the Environment heading on The Independent.
Then I clicked Climate change.

Independent/Environment/Climate Change


Jun 5, 2011 at 7:19 AM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

Professor Beddington's report will let the great asbestos scam continue


An all-too-familiar trick when the establishment faces awkward questions on some controversial matter is to set up a committee packed with people who can be relied on to avoid the real points at issue and come up with the answer it wants. The Climategate inquiries were all examples of this technique. Another was the recent inquiry, headed by the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir John Beddington, into the claim that thousands of people die every year from exposure to white asbestos. This scare story, which not only defies all the best scientific evidence but also the earlier findings of the Government’s own advisers, has become the basis for rackets costing hundreds of millions of pounds a year in bogus insurance claims and fraudulent contractors’ charges for work which is unnecessary.

Predictably, Prof Beddington’s team not only tiptoed round the scientific evidence but played as a trump card the fact that white asbestos is classified by the World Health Organisation as a “Class 1 carcinogen”. What they omitted to say, of course, is that the same list includes such things as alcohol, leather, nickel and sunshine. Do we expect bans on sunbathing and the nickel coins in our pockets? Of course not, because the risks they pose depend entirely on the nature of exposure. The same applies to white asbestos encapsulated in cement – 90 per cent of all asbestos products – the risk from which even the Government itself once rightly recognised as “virtually zero”. Well done, Sir John. Let the scams continue.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8557101/Professor-Beddingtons-report-will-let-the-great-asbestos-scam-continue.html

Jun 5, 2011 at 6:47 AM | Unregistered Commentermatthu


Mr Lansley is a believer, but, by training, he is a civil servant. He has failed to charm the producers, and his way of talking in public is essentially that of the bureaucrat. His article in this paper on Thursday was couched as a threat – if we don’t make my changes everything will go smash. This is unpersuasive. It makes believers suspect that all he is really thinking about is money. The believer’s way of talking is to show how people’s treatments will actually improve. The communication of the policy has failed so completely that the Government now actively discourages its supporters from speaking up for it. Not one voter in 100 could give a coherent and favourable account of the NHS reforms. There are probably 60 who can give an unfavourable one.

This is Charles Moore talking about the NHS. (To change the NHS, you have to sound like a true believer.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/8555607/To-change-the-NHS-you-have-to-sound-like-a-true-believer.html

But it might just as well have been somebody talking about windmills. Or carbon tax.

Jun 5, 2011 at 6:40 AM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

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>