.png)
Seminar reminder and Discussion Thread. Friday 10 October: Will it cost the earth to avoid climate change? “Mitigating carbon emissions will ruin the economy!” A host of wait-and-see stalling techniques have arisen out of fear that taking decisive action now to reduce emissions will throw us into an economic depression or back to the stone […]
Filed under: ccqa, Climate change Q&A, Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) | Leave a Comment »
Dr Glenn Albrecht, an environmental philosopher from the University of Newcastle, has started a new blog on ethics and climate change, which according to its byline is: “A Blog devoted to critical evaluation and analysis of the ‘values’ that are implicit in global warming and climate change articles in the media”. Of particular interest to […]
Filed under: Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) | 7 Comments »
Seminar reminder and Discussion Thread. Friday 19 September: What future climate change scenarios are possible? “Global warming is good, agriculture will flourish!” Such statements represent the tip of an iceberg of arguments suggesting that global warming isn’t going to have catastrophic impacts. Some of these are based on pseudo science regarding the effects of global […]
Filed under: ccqa, Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) | 3 Comments »
In this series, I aim to teach you to recognise the recycled denialism that is rife in the public arena these days. I don’t refute this nonsense by constructing a new argument each time which, point-by-point, shows why their claims are not supported by the evidence. This is pointless, since the majority of non-greenhouse theorists […]
Filed under: Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) | 30 Comments »
In this series, I aim to teach you to recognise the recycled denialism that is rife in the public arena these days. I don’t refute this nonsense by constructing a new argument each time which, point-by-point, shows why their claims are not supported by the evidence. This is pointless, since the majority of non-greenhouse theorists […]
Filed under: Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) | 45 Comments »
As Tim Lambert recently remarked at Deltoid, global warming denial and political greenwashing is sometimes just so silly that even if you tried really, really hard, you just wouldn’t be able to make this stuff up. But plenty of talented cartoonists nevertheless give it their best shot. Here is a selection of some choice samples […]
Filed under: Humour, Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) | 5 Comments »
The psuedo-documentary by Martin Durkin, called “The Great Global Warming Swindle“, continues to get attention. Following a swag of complaints to the British broadcasting regulator, the Office of Communications (OfCom), it was found to have breached the broadcasting code regarding impartiality and treated interviewees unfairly. Yet the ruling was a fizzler, because of a bizzare loophole. George […]
Filed under: Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) | 34 Comments »
Time for a book recommendation. To little fanfare, an important and highly revealing book was published in mid-2007 by an Australian climate scientist, Professor Ian Enting. Ian now works for the University of Melbourne, but for many years he was with CSIRO Atmospheric Research, where he worked primarily on modelling the global carbon cycle. He […]
Filed under: Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) | 43 Comments »
Update: Review of Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth” is here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/ ——————————————- In this series, I aim to teach you to recognise the recycled denialism that is rife in the public arena these days. I don’t refute this nonsense by constructing a new argument each time which, point-by-point, shows why their claims are not supported […]
Filed under: Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) | 42 Comments »
Once someone begins to comment on climate change in the media (television, radio, newspapers, etc.) and establishes a public profile, it is only a matter of time before questions are asked about whether they are qualified to express an informed opinion. So, who is? A very readable and detailed exposition on the nature of scientific […]
Filed under: Climate change Q&A, Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) | 63 Comments »
… then head over to this thread on Jennifer Marohasy’s blog and read the comments, starting from #1 [warning, not suitable for the kiddies, and be prepared to sip a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster after the experience]. Me – I’m barracking for Luke, SJT and PeterW. You’ll find similar stuff in the comments at half […]
Filed under: Humour, Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) | 18 Comments »
In this series, I aim to teach you to recognise the recycled denialism that is rife in the public arena these days. I don’t refute this nonsense by constructing a new argument each time which, point-by-point, shows why their claims are not supported by the evidence. This is pointless, since the majority of non-greenhouse theorists […]
Filed under: Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) | 65 Comments »
Seminar reminder and Discussion Thread. Friday 22 August: Can we distinguish between natural and human- induced climate change? It’s true there are lots of factors that can contribute to a warming planet, and it’s also true that the earth’s climates have been all over the map (literally!) during its 4.6 billion year existence. We hear […]
Filed under: Climate change Q&A, Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) | 1 Comment »
The next part in the Denial vs Good Science story comes from an exchange between Andrew Bolt and me in the Melbourne Herald Sun. Both articles appeared originally in the print version of the paper, but are now available online. This is what Mr Bolt said: Evidence doesn’t bare out alarmist claims of global warming […]
Filed under: Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) | 48 Comments »
UPDATE: Detailed response from Dr Andrew Glikson (PDF) can be downloaded here: gliksondetailedresponsewjcollins Each week, seemingly without fail, a new Opinion piece appears in some Australian media outlet which is sceptical about aspects of mainstream climate science. Sometimes they are in the form of Editorials or Viewpoints, sometimes as Letters to the Editor. Some are […]
Filed under: Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) | 57 Comments »
Originally posted on Skeptical Science… A related post can be found here. Human are transforming the global environmental. Great swathes of temperate forest in Europe, Asia and North America have been cleared over the past few centuries for agriculture, timber and urban development. Tropical forests are now on the front line. Human-assisted species invasions of […]
Filed under: Ecological impacts, Future shock, Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) | 50 Comments »
Earlier this year I was asked to write a ConScience opinion piece for Australasian Science magazine (one of the two popular science mags in Oz, along with COSMOS). It was entitled “Make a stand for good science”. Here is the first part: “Don’t feed the troll!” This is a common admonition in the expanding science […]
Filed under: Climate change Q&A, Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) | 31 Comments »
A few weeks ago, self-proclaimed “rocket scientist”, Dr David Evans, wrote an Opinion Editorial in The Australian, which was widely circulated across various email distribution lists (I got send the link a couple of times, asking whether what he was saying was valid. I passed them on to these two pieces from Deltoid). But it […]
Filed under: Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) | 105 Comments »
This is the blog of Professor Barry Brook, Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide. We are working to promote interdisciplinary research into climate change mitigation and adaption, but we’re also engaged in reaching out to our community to educate and raise awareness about these important issues. […]
Filed under: Climate change Q&A, Non-greenhouse theorists (‘sceptics’) | 14 Comments »
 | Brian H on How realistic is The Economist… |
| Brian H on How realistic is The Economist… |
 | Cyril R. on How realistic is The Economist… |
 | David B. Benson on How realistic is The Economist… |
 | Ms.Perps on Environmentalism in the mud: r… |
 | Tom Blees on How realistic is The Economist… |
 | Marion Brook on Environmentalism in the mud: r… |
 | John Newlands on Open Thread 21 |
 | grlcowan on Open Thread 21 |
 | harrywr2 on The Fukushima Question: How cl… |
| John Newlands on Open Thread 21 |
 | Eclipse Now on Open Thread 21 |
| Cyril R on IFR FaD 10 – metal fuel and… |
| Cyril R on Environmentalism in the mud: r… |
 | Roger Clifton on IFR FaD 10 – metal fuel and… |
