by Judith Curry
Some things that caught my eye this past week.
Climate insanity seems to be general theme for this past week, apparently triggered by the two dueling opinion pieces in the Wall Street Journal.
Keith Kloor follows with a piece Climate Debate Has Gone MAD, where MAD refers to mutually assured destruction.
The warring sides in the climate debate, however, are locked in a hostile embrace that threatens to destroy them both. There is one difference to this war, though, in that it is not a conventional clash of superpowers, but more an asymmetrical conflict. Think of it like the war in Afghanistan, where climate scientists and campaigners are the U.S. military presence and Marc Morano and his like-minded band of ideologues are the Taliban.
Predictably, Marc Morano just eats this up with Osama Morano? Warmist Keith Kloor compares Climate Depot to Taliban!
Well, at least Kloor and Morano score some points for injecting some humor into all of this.
And if all that wasn’t enough, Andy Revkin reports on a petition to get Michael Mann disinvited as a speaker at Penn State, his home university: A Shameful Attack on Free Speech by a Group Claiming to Speak for Coal Dependent Workers. ClimateProgress also has a post on this.
For a dose of sanity, reread this post of several months ago: Candid Comments from Global Warming Scientists.
Since wisdom seems hard to come by this week in the climate debate, lets try ground hogs. Bill Hooke has a charming and insightful post Ground Hog Day 2012. An excerpt:
Scientists in general, and climate scientists in particular, might be excused for following the Drumlin Woodchuck’s example. Lay low, have a couple of exits out of your burrow…obsess about that burrow…and you can lead a reasonably comfortable life. You can pretend that you and the world are friends. You can take occasion to think, to contemplate. And you can be there another day for your loved ones.
Or…stick your head up, particularly on a sunlit day where you can be readily noticed, or in a way that exposes you to the media glare (like all those scientists in yesterday’s post on both sides of the recent dust-up in the Wall Street Journal)…and risk having your head blown off.
The choice is yours.
The latest climate scientist to stick their head up is Tamsin Edwards, with her new climate blog All Models Are Wrong, with the subheading ” . . . but some are useful. A grown-up discussion about how to quantify uncertainties in modelling climate change and its impacts.” Gotta love the name of her blog, but apparently it received some major criticism from Peter Gleick and others, which is discussed on her first post. Given her focus on uncertainty, I will obviously be following her blog closely.
UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology
I just spotted this at BishopHill:
The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology has published a briefing paper on weather and climate. I’ve had a quick glance, and this caught my attention.
Natural forms of climate variability are likely to be the main influence on the UK’s climate over the next few decades.
Note, this is an uncommonly good analysis of the subject. Who wrote this? Not the MetOffice. Here is what it says at the end of the doc:
POST is an office of both Houses of Parliament, charged with providing independent and balanced analysis of policy issues that have a basis in science and technology. POST is grateful to Matthew Ashfold for researching this briefing, to the Natural Environment Research Council for funding his parliamentary fellowship, and to all contributors and reviewers. For further information on this subject, please contact the co-author, Dr Jonathan Wentworth.
Thank you Matthew Ashfold and Jonathan Wentworth. This is much better than what the dueling groups of experts provided to the WSJ. “Independent and balanced analysis” is what is needed, and it seems impossible to get this from the ‘experts.’