Archer and Rahmstorf: The Climate Crisis - An introductory guide to climate change
Sat, Mar 6 2010 01:04
| Book Review, IPCC
| Permalink
“I feel that it is important to not let bad, politically motivated science stand unchallenged.“ This is a quote we could all agree with and is part of the motivation behind our site. Only too often both ‘deniers’ and ‘warmists’ select a sub-set of the available science and then push it beyond reasonable limits to further their cause. Our mission is to sort out the justifiable from the
Comments
Sceptics Now Welcome
Over the last few months there has been a remarkable change of tone among the climate science community. Until recently sceptics were treated as barely worth the consideration of ‘real’ climate scientists. The CRU emails showed clearly how attempts were made to prevent the publication of any paper questioning climate orthodoxy or, should such a paper have been published, to prevent it appearing
Nicholas Stern - "'A Blueprint for a Safer Planet"
Mon, Feb 8 2010 04:28
| Book Review
| Permalink
This book could have equally have been called “A Blueprint for Copenhagen 2010”. Now, it might seem a bit unfair to comment on a book written before December 2010 in relation to what happened in that month. In Nicholas Stern’s case it is fully justified. As a former Chief Economist of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and of the World Bank and as the author of the UK government’s,
Book review: Bjorn Lomborg - Cool it: : The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming
Sun, Jan 10 2010 03:00
| Book Review
| Permalink
“There is no plan B” was the mantra of the climate activists and politicians who gathered in Copenhagen in December 2009 to hammer out a new agreement to limit carbon emissions. They were wrong. There is a plan B and this book describes it.Although often called a ‘sceptic’ the appellation does not really apply to Bjorn Lomborg. He doesn’t dispute that global warming is real and is caused
Comments (1)
Book Review: Christopher Booker - The Global Warming Disaster
Sat, Jan 9 2010 05:30
| Book Review
| Permalink
Christopher Booker is a columnist for the Telegraph (right of centre, highbrow). If there is a thread to his columns it is railing against abuses of authority and the resulting impact on individuals or (mostly small) businesses. If the authority stems from the EU then his invective steps up a gear. He is also the co-author of “Scared to Death” which looks at exaggerated scares, mainly but not
Book Review: Ian Plimer, "Heaven and Earth – global warming: the missing science"
Sat, Jan 9 2010 09:47
| Book Review
| Permalink
I wish I could recommend this book, I really do. After all a book which gives an overview of climate change from the creation of the Earth up to the present, which cites 2311 (mainly peer reviewed) references and runs to over 500 pages can’t be all bad. Can it? Ian Plimer is both a distinguished geology professor and practicing geologist. As such he takes a long-term view of climate (billions of
Book Review: Fred Pearce, "The Last Generation: how nature will take her revenge for climate change"
Sat, Jan 9 2010 09:45
| Book Review
| Permalink
Right from the start I had mixed feelings about this book. Fred Pearce is a science writer who I respect. Recently he published an article pointing out that there are reasons other than the risk of climate change for cutting back on the use of fossil fuels, citing their use for the production of artificial fertilisers. This corresponds to my own view which is that fossil fuels are a finite resource,
Book Review: Mike Hulme, "Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity".
Sat, Jan 9 2010 09:37
| Book Review
| Permalink
Whether you believe that tackling climate change is the biggest threat to our planet, or whether you think it is all a con to squeeze more taxes out of a gullible public, the reasons you put forward for holding your views are not the real ones. You hold to your views because it suits you. That, in a nutshell, is the thesis of Mike Hulme. He would probably (in fact, more than probably) be horrified
Peer Review
Peer review is the process publishers of scientific journals use to ensure that the papers they publish are of an acceptable standard. Basically when they receive a paper for publication they send it off to a small group of people who have already published papers in the same field, the ‘peers’ of the author, for an opinion. If it is favourable they publish it; if not they reject it.Much of the
Comments (1)
Opinions?
We have been planning to add an opinion page to our site for some time but little did we think we would have anything as exciting as the CRU emails and files to discuss. (If you have found this page you probably know what we’re talking about. In case you don’t, CRU stands for the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK. It produces one of world’s main climate data sets