“The scientific community has known — and been saying for decades — that the earth is warming up. Except for a small cadre of highly vocal, ideologically stuck, but increasingly marginalized people, there is no dispute about this among scientists. The data are extensive – covering the globe – and they have been vetted, reanalyzed, corrected for error, compared with satellite data, and subjected to every known criticism. And independent group after independent group has found the same thing: the earth is warming.” So begins an article in Forbes magazine by Peter Gleick prompted by the latest confirming evidence for global warming. Continue reading “Breaking News: The Earth Still Goes Around the Sun, and It’s Still Warming Up”
Right Wing politicians are fighting for a referendum on our membership of the EU. The annual Net cost of the EU to the UK is roughly the same as the annual amount paid by UK banks in banker’s bonuses. I wonder why those Right Wing politicians don’t fight for a referendum on banker’s bonuses?? Continue reading “Referendum on EU but not bankers bonuses”
Here is a review of a new book that I have not read but the review itself acts as a good (brief) summary of the manufacture of doubt concerning climate science. Only takes a few minutes to read: http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-inquisition-of-climate-science/
The US may be about to self destruct and take the rest of us with it. If you are surprised about this you have not been paying attention.
There is nothing new in this observation but we are witnessing the climax of a process where religious and political fundamentalists with virtually no grounding in reality or rational thought have managed, with the self serving support of corporate sponsors, to take a strangle hold on government. These forces are preventing any attempt to overcome the serious problems faced by the US and its population and are prepared to bring the US government and the world economy to its knees in pursuit of their ideological beliefs. Continue reading “The US may be about to self destruct.”
In her testimony to the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee (20th July 2011), Rebekah Brooks mentioned that the Guardian was near the top of the list of newspapers using private investigators to illegally gain personal information as published in “What price privacy now?”, a report by the Information Commissioner. Tabloid editors have a habit of making up their own facts and this was no exception. The Guardian is not on the list at all. See below (from the report): Continue reading “The illegal trade in confidential personal information”
A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….
Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities. (US National Academy of Science) Continue reading ““The earth is warming””
Below are links to criticism of the Guardian’s coverage of the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia and the response to the criticism from James Randerson at the Guardian .
I must add that the Guardian’s reporting of science issues is normally excellent and they have an experienced team of science writers, who also produce excellent science podcasts. The problem only arose due to a series of articles by Fred Pearce who seems to have been less than thorough in his research with the result that a number of serious factual inaccuracies appeared in his articles. The issues are so important that any mistakes will be exploited by other papers and commentators who are only interested in furthering their own politcal agenda.
Here are three emails that I sent to Dr Beth Taylor (Director of Communications and External Relations) at the institute of Physics (IoP) following the submission of a memorandum to the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into the disclosure of climate data. (To be compliant with Dr Taylor’s desire for openness and transparency I have taken the liberty of posting her replies).
Subject: IOP and the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into the disclosure of climate data
Dear Dr Taylor,
As a member of the IoP I am very concerned at the way the Institute has handled the recent memorandum submitted by the IoP to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. I will not go over the serious failings of this document or its factual errors – these have been extensively discussed elsewhere. However I must emphasise that the criticism of the memorandum is not connected with the IoP’s commendable desire for greater transparency and openness but is directed at the memorandum’s unfounded pre-judging of independent inquiries, based on apparently no more than what the writers of the memorandum had read in the media. Continue reading “Institute of Physics and the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into the disclosure of climate data”
Here is a copy of an email I sent to the Guardian ( copies to the letters page, the editor and the science team). I did not get a reply from the editor but James Randerson of the science team did send a lengthy and positive but not entirely satisfactory reply. I have not shown his reply out of respect for his privacy.
Dear Letters Page,
I am a Physics teacher and long time Guardian reader. I have been disappointed with the Guardian’s coverage of the “Climate Change Debate” over the past few months. I do not wish to defend errors by the IPCC or any professional misconduct by scientists. Even the issue of whether the science is correct or not is secondary to whether the science should be tested by weighing evidence against theories, or by a campaign of disinformation, deceit and out right lies. Superficial investigation shows that a significant, possibly a majority, of the criticism of the science has come from commentators intent only on destroying the credibility of the science by whatever means is to hand – they do not seem have any interest in finding out the truth. There is a once in a lifetime chance for the Guardian to make a real difference by doing some thorough research into what is going on, and where the truth lies. If we allow the forces of unreason, political fundamentalism and shoddy journalism to take a hold in the way they have in the US then we have no hope of surviving this century – climate change will be the least of our worries.