Category Archives: Skeptics

by Judith Curry

UPDATE: Email from Joe Bast

“You can not simultaneously say that you want to promote a debate while equating the other side to terrorists and mass murderers.” — Ross McKitrick

Continue reading →

by Judith Curry

Lindzen has responded to Hoskins et al.

Continue reading →

by Judith Curry

In recent weeks, we are seeing two very interesting debates, both of which involve Richard Lindzen.  The first debate involves the recent WSJ op-ed No Need to Panic About Global Warming.  The second involves Lindzen’s seminar at the House of Commons.

Lets take a look at the latest response and parries in these ongoing debates.

Continue reading →

by Judith Curry

Multiple choice test: Republicans are more skeptical than Democrats about climate change because:

a)  A defensive ideology is hardwired into their brain

b)  A growing distrust of scientific institutions because of the politicization of science

Continue reading →

by Judith Curry

The comment thread is getting unwieldly on the original post Lindzen’s seminar at the House of Commons, so here is a new thread.

Continue reading →

by Judith Curry

Lindzen’s seminar last week that was presented at the House of Commons may be the most effective seminar he has given on Global Warming.

Continue reading →

by Judith Curry

What a week.

Continue reading →

Update:  Email from Joseph Bast, President of Heartland Institute, appended at the end of the post.

So, imagine you are a climate scientist and climate change ideologue, and want to “take down” the single organization (or individual) that is doing the most damage to the movement (i.e. with the end result of thwarting CO2 emissions/stabilization policy).  Who would you target?

Continue reading →

by Judith Curry

I am starting to get requests from journalists to comment on the documents leaked from Heartland.

Continue reading →

by Judith Curry

The opinion pieces published in the WSJ continue to be discussed, and perhaps finally they are stimulating some useful insights.

Continue reading →

by Judith Curry

When unanimity of opinion is forged among the most learned men across various bodies of knowledge, such agreement must be protected against the threat of violent upheaval by one careless agent with only the most meager qualifications. A broad base of common agreement is necessary for the progress of scientific knowledge which alone carries the hope of civilization, thus it is no exaggeration to say that our very survival is at stake. It is imperative that we voice our united opposition to this threat to the common good posed by the irresponsible propagation of that one man’s abominable theories.

Pop Quiz time! Don’t worry, it will be a multiple choice. What is the source of the above?

Continue reading →

by Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, Rainer Link, and Friedrich-Karl Ewert

In his comments R. L. Tol argues that our paper LU and LL should be ignored. We will respond following the order of R. Tol’s objections. We refer to the same shortcuts and references as in our guest post – LU resp. LL, and [1]-[5].

Continue reading →

by Richard Tol

There has been some brouhaha over a guest post by Lüdecke, Link, and Ewert. I think the quality of work is so bad that Judith should never have spotlighted these papers. Publicly berating Judith, I of course drew more attention to their work, and her response added to that.

Continue reading →

by Judith Curry

Nature Climate Change published a review of the James Lawrence Powell’s book “The Inquisition of Climate Science.”  The review, written by Fred Pearce, is titled “Sceptical about Sceptics.”

Continue reading →

by Pete Bonk

Now that it’s over it’s time to hear the rest of the story about the recent ACS symposium.

Continue reading →

by Judith Curry

The Interim Report of the Nongovermental Panel on Climate Change has been released:  Climate Change Reconsidered.

Continue reading →

by Judith Curry

So, who are the “cool dudes”?   Well, if you are reading this post, odds are that you are a “cool dude”.

Continue reading →

by Judith Curry

Nature has just published an editorial on the Heartland Conference entitled “Heart of the Matter” with subtitle “The Heartland Institute’s climate conference reveals the motives of global warming skeptics.”

Continue reading →

by Judith Curry

In the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the EPA (discussed previously here) included this footnote:

“For views opposing EPA’s, see, e.g., Dawidoff, The Civil Heretic, N. Y. Times Magazine 32 (March 29, 2009). The Court, we caution, endorses no particular view of the complicated issues related to carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.”

Continue reading →

by Judith Curry

The events of the past week have provided some potential insights into the conflict over the climate debate among the climate establishment, McIntyre & McKitrick, skeptical scientists, the extended peer community of the climate blogosphere, and a public that is trying to to make sense of it all.

Continue reading →

by Judith Curry

Many skeptics have attempted to lay out their arguments in a broad sense for the broader public, presumably hoping to convince the uninformed or the weakly convinced.  There are books, booklets, ppt presentations, youtube videos.  While these may inform people that are already skeptical, and maybe catch the attention of the uninformed, I suspect that the do not make much if any headway in convincing to be skeptical those that are already convinced.

Continue reading →

by Judith Curry

This post draws heavily from Bishop Hill’s post with (almost) the same title, related to the Cambridge Workshop discussed on the previous thread. Specifically, this addresses the attempt by Dr. Eric Wolff to find a measure of agreement between the two sides in the climate debate.  I attempted something similar on a previous Climate Etc. thread titled What we know with confidence.

Continue reading →

by Judith Curry

A must read article in the Guardian by Jules Boykoff entitled “U.S. Military Goes to War With Climate Skeptics.”

Continue reading →