Climate links
Feminism is destroying the planet (a very funny post on how correlation is not causation).
Expecting a new Ice Age - in about 10,000 years time.
Study suggests that carbon emissions from soil have been significantly over-estimated.
Various bits of the world have been subsiding since forever. Now all such subsidence is caused by climate change. Via splodgenoodles.
About fear-based science funding and sensation-based journal publishing.
The fun over satellite versus ground-based satellite measurement. A bit of an oops with temperature measurement.
Some spots having coldest days for quite a long time. Various glaciers are growing again.
David Bellamy discovered that being sceptical about anthropogenic global warming meant the end of his television career.
A modern etiquette question: I sometimes find myself in social gatherings where people are discussing some social or political issue with a single point of view clearly preferred by most or all other members of the group, when it is a point of view I cannot bring myself to share.
I am aware that sometimes (as in the case of climate change), this occurs because of my scientific background and my thus having certain knowledge that most people do not, while it sometimes has more to do with my inclination toward contrariness, a character trait that has horrified my wife and which I am working (with limited success) to reduce.
My personality traits aside, is it rude to respectfully share a fact that flies in the face of the apparent group consensus?
A former Howard government staffer recently told a meeting I attended that quite a few Labor Right staffers are privately CAGW sceptics: such views may be spreading: One of Australia's leading enviro-sceptics, the geologist and University of Adelaide professor Ian Plimer, 62, says he has noticed audiences becoming more receptive to his message that climate change has always occurred and there is nothing we can do to stop it. … Plimer said there is a division between those scientists who sit in front of super computers and push piles of data into the mathematical models that drive the theory of climate change, and those who take measurements in the field. … He likens the debate to the famous 1990s battle he had in the Federal Court, where he accused an elder of The Hills Bible Church in Baulkham Hills of breaching Australia's Trade Practices Act by claiming to have found scientific evidence of Noah's Ark in Turkey.
Plimer says creationists and climate alarmists are quite similar in that "we're dealing with dogma and people who, when challenged, become quite vicious and irrational".
Expecting a new Ice Age - in about 10,000 years time.
Study suggests that carbon emissions from soil have been significantly over-estimated.
Various bits of the world have been subsiding since forever. Now all such subsidence is caused by climate change. Via splodgenoodles.
About fear-based science funding and sensation-based journal publishing.
The fun over satellite versus ground-based satellite measurement. A bit of an oops with temperature measurement.
Some spots having coldest days for quite a long time. Various glaciers are growing again.
David Bellamy discovered that being sceptical about anthropogenic global warming meant the end of his television career.
A modern etiquette question: I sometimes find myself in social gatherings where people are discussing some social or political issue with a single point of view clearly preferred by most or all other members of the group, when it is a point of view I cannot bring myself to share.
I am aware that sometimes (as in the case of climate change), this occurs because of my scientific background and my thus having certain knowledge that most people do not, while it sometimes has more to do with my inclination toward contrariness, a character trait that has horrified my wife and which I am working (with limited success) to reduce.
My personality traits aside, is it rude to respectfully share a fact that flies in the face of the apparent group consensus?
A former Howard government staffer recently told a meeting I attended that quite a few Labor Right staffers are privately CAGW sceptics: such views may be spreading: One of Australia's leading enviro-sceptics, the geologist and University of Adelaide professor Ian Plimer, 62, says he has noticed audiences becoming more receptive to his message that climate change has always occurred and there is nothing we can do to stop it. … Plimer said there is a division between those scientists who sit in front of super computers and push piles of data into the mathematical models that drive the theory of climate change, and those who take measurements in the field. … He likens the debate to the famous 1990s battle he had in the Federal Court, where he accused an elder of The Hills Bible Church in Baulkham Hills of breaching Australia's Trade Practices Act by claiming to have found scientific evidence of Noah's Ark in Turkey.
Plimer says creationists and climate alarmists are quite similar in that "we're dealing with dogma and people who, when challenged, become quite vicious and irrational".