Advertisements

New paper shows Medieval Warm Period was global in scope

Watts Up With That?

Andrew Revkin writes:

Michael Mann can’t be happy about this work.

Here’s a chat with two authors of an important new Science paper examining 10,000 years of layered fossil plankton in the western Pacific Ocean. The paper finds that several significant past climate ups and downs — including the medieval warm period and little ice age — were global in scope, challenging some previous conclusions that these were fairly limited Northern Hemisphere phenomena.

(video follows, an interview with authors)

View original post 223 more words

Advertisements

EPA : Purpose Of Science And Technology Is To “Meet Obama’s Needs”

Climatism comment : The rise of the ‘scientific technological elite’. Extremely concerning.

Real Science

“science and technology improvements will allow us to take action moving forward that meets the needs of this president as he has charged EPA” …. McCarthy said.

EPA Administrator to Scientists: ‘Speak the Truth’ on Climate Change to Meet Obama’s ‘Needs’ | CNS News

ScreenHunter_513 Jan. 31 09.44

Twitter / JunkScience: Science’s new mission: EPA …

View original post


The Science Of Climate Change Politics

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

•••

Ben Pile identifies the all too simplistic view of the climate debate by Government science advisors. Where the use of scientific ‘authority’ to influence policy, results in the failure of advisors to shed any light on the debate.

…twenty-first-century science is not recruited to find solutions to material problems. It is appointed to lend its authority to politics. The preferred solutions to the problem of climate change have been top-down target-driven policies, rather than technological or economic ones. Scientists have consequently been forced to frame their own contributions to the debate in the preferred, urgent terms that underpin radical policy interventions.

Screen Shot 2014-02-01 at , February 1, 12.42.48 am

Sir Mark Walport’s demand that climate-change sceptics ‘grow up’ only reveals his ignorance about the climate debate.

BEN PILE
WRITER AND RESEARCHER

According to an article in The Times (London) earlier this week, the government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Mark Walport, is about to start a lecture tour, which ‘will put climate change back on the political agenda’. With the global effort to reduce CO2 emissions in tatters, with the EU doing a volte-face on its own green energy targets, with the UK examining its own commitment to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and to green legislation, and with scientists scratching their heads about the absence of warming over the past 17 years, Walport’s words seem incautious, possibly foolish.

Environmentalists have a tendency to do their own negative PR. Too much was invested by too many in the notion that, by now, we would be seeing the natural world fall apart, taking human civilisation with it. It didn’t happen. Environmentalists’ prophecies about the climate have gone the way of their prophecies about population, resource depletion, and toxic chemicals. The IPCC – the embodiment of the consensus itself – recently reported that there is no climate change signal in extreme weather events, except a slight tendency toward warmer days and increased precipitation. Nature, it seems, abhors vacuous alarmists.

Worse, environmentalists have failed to reflect on their own failures, and to find some other way of accounting for them. Accordingly, Walport’s opening salvo in this new climate offensive were ‘There are some people who don’t like the policy implications of climate change and think that the best way to duck the discussion is to deny the science’. The government’s soothsayer points his expert finger.

Walport is wrong. There have been countless criticisms of UK, EU, and UN climate and energy policies, quite apart from the criticisms of mainstream climate science, from climate sceptics. Climate sceptics have long been critical of the UK government’s hastily-constructed attempts to save the planet. And sceptics have observed that green-energy policies are expensive, don’t provide adequate or reliable supply, and have created deep distortions in the energy market – problems which are now being felt across Europe. Furthermore, sceptics have argued that emission-reduction targets were never tested for feasibility, much less for costs and benefits, and even less for their effectiveness at saving the planet.

There is even a think-tank established precisely to interrogate climate policy – the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The clue is in the name. The GWPF has published reports on EU policyshale gasalarmism in policymakinggreen jobsproblems with the IPCCthe Stern Review, and many other topics. If Walport had read just one of them, he would surely address them.

Walport joins his predecessors, such as David King and John Beddington, and past and present presidents of the Royal Society in taking a simplistic view of the climate debate. But the problem with such naked attempts to use scientific authority to influence policy is that these men soon reveal their lack of expertise and understanding. They are forced by their own ignorance to reinvent the debate, and in the process miss its substance, arguing instead with the cartoonish image of sceptics that exists only in their heads. The result is that these advisers fail to shed any light on the debate they are appointed to inform.

‘Climate change is the most severe problem we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism’, said David King in 2004. The job of the chief scientist is not as much to inform the debate as to supply it with banal soundbytes. ‘The evidence that climate change is happening is completely unequivocal’, claimed John Beddington as he left the chair now occupied by Walport last year. But note what is absent from these claims: any sense of proportion. Walport, like his predecessors, fails to add any perspective, claiming: ‘Whether life is going to get very difficult in the UK in 50 years or 100 years at some level is not the point. It is going to get very difficult for us over a relatively short timescale.’

Continue Reading »

Scientific adviser or court jester? | Environment | spiked

•••

(Scary) UPDATE

via Real Science :

EPA : Purpose Of Science And Technology Is To “Meet Obama’s Needs”

Posted on January 31, 2014

“science and technology improvements will allow us to take action moving forward that meets the needs of this president as he has charged EPA” …. McCarthy said.

EPA Administrator to Scientists: ‘Speak the Truth’ on Climate Change to Meet Obama’s ‘Needs’ | CNS News

ScreenHunter_513 Jan. 31 09.44

Twitter / JunkScience: Science’s new mission: EPA …

•••

President Eisenhower warned America about Barack Obama and his EPA in 1960:

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present  and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.”

– President Eisenhower 1960

•••

Related :