1.INTRODUCTION
There are seven prominent establishment scientists who have played an
important role in promoting the flawed scientific basis for Britains
truly irrational and economically disastrous climate and energy
policies.Their views on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming have
been trumpeted by the Ecoleft press,the BBC and Britains chattering
classes and largely unthinkingly, adopted by Blair ,Cameron ,Clegg,
Miliband and a large majority of MPs as the basis for policy without any
serious independent self consideration of their likely validity.
The seven are Sir John Houghton,Sir Bob Watson, Sir David King, Sir
John Beddington,Sir Robert May,Lord Rees and Sir Paul Nurse. Their
titles indicate that they have been good reliable chaps and played the
British Political Establishment's Honours game with some skill.It is
increasingly clear, as the earth obstinately refuses to warm up,that
they have got it all wrong .They and the Politicians need to start again
from square one and rethink the whole thing.Here are some helpful
suggestions.
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.ca/2013/05/climate-forecasting-basics-for-britains.html
There are seven prominent establishment scientists who have played an
important role in promoting the flawed scientific basis for Britains
truly irrational and economically disastrous climate and energy
policies.Their views on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming have
been trumpeted by the Ecoleft press,the BBC and Britains chattering
classes and largely unthinkingly, adopted by Blair ,Cameron ,Clegg,
Miliband and a large majority of MPs as the basis for policy without any
serious independent self consideration of their likely validity.
The seven are Sir John Houghton,Sir Bob Watson, Sir David King, Sir
John Beddington,Sir Robert May,Lord Rees and Sir Paul Nurse. Their
titles indicate that they have been good reliable chaps and played the
British Political Establishment's Honours game with some skill.It is
increasingly clear, as the earth obstinately refuses to warm up,that
they have got it all wrong .They and the Politicians need to start again
from square one and rethink the whole thing.Here are some helpful
suggestions.
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.ca/2013/05/climate-forecasting-basics-for-britains.html
English major Chris Mooney's defense of the laughable hockey
stick gets called out specifically in Reason.com's "The Myth of the
Scientific Liberal"
For two decades, progressives have castigated those
questioning global warming as "deniers."
But the Economist, once firmly in the alarmist camp,
recently acknowledged that global temperatures have remained stagnant for 15
years even as greenhouse-gas emissions have soared.
This may be because existing models have overestimated the
planet's sensitivity. Or because the heat generated is sinking to the ocean
bottom. Or because of something else completely.
How should a scientifically inclined liberal react to this
trend? By inhaling deeply and backing off on economy-busting mitigation
measures till science offers clearer answers.
And how have liberals reacted? By sticking their fingers in
their ears and chanting la-la-la.
...Most priceless, however, was Chris Mooney, author of The
Republican War on Science.
He spilled serious ink in Mother Jones defending the highly
questionable "hockey stick" graph -- the core evidence of global
warmists -- which allegedly showed a sudden warming spike in the last century
after a millennium of steady temperatures.
http://tomnelson.blogspot.ca/2013/05/english-major-chris-mooney-defense-of.html
The
Myth of the Scientific Liberal
Those who deny that germs cause disease shouldn't call their
opponents anti-science. But that's exactly what HBO comedian and
germ-theory-denier Bill Maher routinely calls Republicans to hearty applause.
The core trait of a scientific mind is that when its
commitments clash with evidence, evidence rules. On that count, what grade do
liberals deserve? Fail, given their reaction to the latest evidence on
universal health care, global warming, and universal preschool.
http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/14/the-myth-of-the-scientific-liberal/print
stick gets called out specifically in Reason.com's "The Myth of the
Scientific Liberal"
For two decades, progressives have castigated those
questioning global warming as "deniers."
But the Economist, once firmly in the alarmist camp,
recently acknowledged that global temperatures have remained stagnant for 15
years even as greenhouse-gas emissions have soared.
This may be because existing models have overestimated the
planet's sensitivity. Or because the heat generated is sinking to the ocean
bottom. Or because of something else completely.
How should a scientifically inclined liberal react to this
trend? By inhaling deeply and backing off on economy-busting mitigation
measures till science offers clearer answers.
And how have liberals reacted? By sticking their fingers in
their ears and chanting la-la-la.
...Most priceless, however, was Chris Mooney, author of The
Republican War on Science.
He spilled serious ink in Mother Jones defending the highly
questionable "hockey stick" graph -- the core evidence of global
warmists -- which allegedly showed a sudden warming spike in the last century
after a millennium of steady temperatures.
http://tomnelson.blogspot.ca/2013/05/english-major-chris-mooney-defense-of.html
The
Myth of the Scientific Liberal
Those who deny that germs cause disease shouldn't call their
opponents anti-science. But that's exactly what HBO comedian and
germ-theory-denier Bill Maher routinely calls Republicans to hearty applause.
The core trait of a scientific mind is that when its
commitments clash with evidence, evidence rules. On that count, what grade do
liberals deserve? Fail, given their reaction to the latest evidence on
universal health care, global warming, and universal preschool.
http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/14/the-myth-of-the-scientific-liberal/print
Posts
