Untangling the March for Science

Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

Pondering some thorny issues regarding science, its place in society and its relationship to politics.

View original post 2,564 more words

On Earth Day, shots fired at building housing leading climate skeptic scientists

Watts Up With That?

Via email from Dr. Roy Spencer:

Shots fired at Christy/Spencer building

FYI, apparently sometime after a March for Science went past our building at UAH, 7 shots were fired and hit the floor John Christy is on. (I’m in a different part of the same building). No witnesses. I’m assuming late night Saturday or Sunday.

It seems pretty obvious this was a message being sent. If fired from a pistol, all shots hitting the same floor seems to suggest deliberate aim.

I doubt any media have covered it yet. I doubt the police have even written a report yet. From what I’ve heard, it sounds like the police believe the shots were fired from a passing car, and some shell casings were recovered, as well as fragments of bullets inside the building. You can quote me.

The office of the state climatologist (Dr. John Christy) is in building 7

Image…

View original post 296 more words

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose; Hansen Used to Argue Less Greenhouse Gas Would Cause Warming

CO2 is Life

phd_in_pseudoscience_scientists_248695

Back in 1986 NASA’s climate “expert” James Hansen claimed ozone depletion would result in catastrophic warming. No mention of CO2.

A dramatic loss of ozone over the Antarctica proves the “greenhouse” effect” is real and presages a gradual warming of the earth that threatens floods, drought, human misery in a few decades and — if not checked — eventually extinction of the human species, scientists warned Tuesday… James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said global temperatures should be 2 degrees higher in 20 years. “Which is the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.”

19860611-ap-421x1024

Thank God Hanson wasn’t working in the Mercury, Saturn or Apollo projects where the real rocket scientists worked. Accuracy is critical for an organization like NASA.  Anyway, this article is wrong is so many ways. James Hansen is arguing that less ozone, a potent greenhouse gas, would result…

View original post 491 more words

Why I decided not to take Kenji to the DC ‘March for Science’

Watts Up With That?

From the refund is due to his supporters department…

Back on January 30th I posted this:

Help send Kenji to the “Scientists March on Washington” event!

From the “all’s fair in love, war, and climate science” department comes this opportunity.

On Facebook, Dr. Roy Spencer made a comment related to a post on the original website calling for scientists to “March on Washington” to…

…take a stand for science in politics. Slashing funding and restricting scientists from communicating their findings (from tax-funded research!) with the public is absurd and cannot be allowed to stand as policy.

They add (bold mine):

Who can participate:

“Anyone who believes in empirical science. That’s it. That’s the only requirement. We will both have a diversity committee and a diverse steering committee that represents people of many backgrounds and identities. Science is done by POC, women, immigrants, LGBTQ, indigenous people, people of all beliefs and…

View original post 1,605 more words

Vox: Telling Parents They’re Hurting Sick Children Maximises Climate Compliance

Watts Up With That?

Feeding people negative green messages.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to Vox, one of the most influential emotional levers available to promote compliance with the climate conservation agenda is guilt about hurting children.

Why humans are so bad at thinking about climate change

How psychology can trick us into keeping Earth habitable.

Updated by Andy Murdock, University of California Apr 19, 2017, 9:10am EDT

When Per Espen Stoknes looked at polls going back to 1989 assessing the level of public concern about climate change in 39 different countries, he found a surprising pattern in the data.

“Incredibly enough, it shows that the more certain the science becomes, the less concern we find in richer Western democracies,” he said. “How can it be that with increasing level of urgency and certainty in the science, people get less concerned?”

To Stoknes, the dissonance problem might be an even bigger deal:…

View original post 543 more words

New ‘Karl-buster’ paper confirms ‘the pause’, and climate models failure

Watts Up With That?

The “uncertainty monster” strikes again

We’ve been highly critical for some time of the paper in summer 2015 by Karl et al. that claimed “the pause” or hiatus went away once “properly adjusted” ocean surface temperature data was applied to the global surface temperature dataset. Virtually everyone in the climate skeptic community considers Karl et al. little more than a sleight of hand.

No matter, this paper published today in Nature Climate Change by Hedemann et al. not only confirms the existence of “the pause” in global temperature, but suggests a cause, saying “…the hiatus could also have been caused by internal variability in the top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance“.

That’s an important sentence, because it demonstrates that despite many claims to the contrary, CO2 induced forcing of the planetary temperature is not the control knob, and natural variability remains in force.

Also of note, see the offset as designated…

View original post 1,026 more words

Pielke on Climate #1

The Climate Fix

climate_street_art_1I’ve decided to publish an occasional newsletter on climate and energy issues. It is not part of my day-to-day research or writing, which is focused on sports governance and science policy.  I’ve written a fair bit on the topics of climate and energy, including twobooks, and I may not have anything new or interesting to say. That’s OK, it’s just a blog.

A few things to say up front:

  • If you don’t like what I write or don’t like me, then don’t read it. It’s OK, I don’t mind.
  • If you do appreciate the perspective, consider the tip jar to your right.
  • If you’d like to engage, consider a comment, a Tweet or an email. I am happy to discuss or debate.
  • If you choose to call me names or lie about me, oh so common in discussing climate, then you will be blocked or ignored.
  • We’ll…

View original post 1,304 more words