Scientific understanding and faith simultaneously on display: ‘For climatologists, the search for an irrefutable “sign” of anthropogenic warming has assumed an almost Biblical intensity.’ – Fred Pearce, New Scientist, October 1996 This being near Climategate time, it is worth reflecting upon that heady time in late November 2009 when the world of climate science saw…
Guest post by Martin Cohen When philosopher and long-standing climate sceptic Martin Cohen, and distinguished energy economist Andrew McKillop published a book on nuclear economics [2], they expected it to arouse the hackles of the nuclear establishment. But they had not anticipated that it would come in from the sort of ‘denial of service’ attacks that…
UPDATE: The error has now been completely eliminated from the article. Details below. Guest post by James Padgett As many readers are aware, the culture surrounding the climate change topic area of Wikipedia has been a microcosm of climate science for nearly a full decade. This is not a compliment. When you read the Climategate…
You’d think that after all the pain and suffering caused by Climategate to the University of East Anglia and the Climate Research Unit, these guys would have a clue. You’d think that they’d want to get the monkey off their backs, and move on to other research, other issues, instead of repeating the same behavior…
Bishop Hill writes: Fred Pearce is on the receiving end of the full fury of the warmosphere for his article about the Lisbon conference in New Scientist. Pearce, discussing who had agreed to turn up, said this: But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who said the…
