1 November 2016, Independent, Climate sceptics widen their net to claim all science – from medicine to physics to computing – is ‘in deep trouble’. Climate change deniers have long tried to cast doubt on the science behind warnings about global warming, but now Lord Lawson’s sceptic think tank has taken things a step further. For, if the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is to be believed, not only are climatologists exaggerating the risks of burning fossil fuels, but all science is “in deep trouble” with “fraudulent research” finding its way into the most eminent, peer-reviewed journals. Medicine, physics, economics, chemistry, computer science and psychology are just a few of the subjects were this is a problem, according to a new GWPF report. Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, a leading research centre based in London, suggested the report showed the sceptics’ frustration that their flawed theories were not being taken seriously. “This attack on the practice of peer review is another example of propaganda from the Global Warming Policy Foundation aimed at illegitimately undermining confidence in climate research,” he told The Independent. “The ideology-driven claims made by the Foundation simply would not stand up to the rigours of peer review by independent experts, which is why their inaccurate and misleading claims about the causes and potential consequences of global warming appear in pamphlets and newspapers columns instead of academic journals.” Read More here
Tag Archives: Denial
21 September 2016, Climate News Network, Solar cycle not to blame for warming. New research confirms that increased greenhouse gas levels − rather than solar radiation impacts − are the key factor in global climate change. European scientists have dug deep to dismiss once again the old argument that climate change might be a consequence of solar radiation rather than atmospheric chemistry. The world is warming, they confirm, because more greenhouse gases are getting into the atmosphere, and the changes in the solar cycle are not a significant factor. This is not the first such reassurance. Teams of researchers have in the last few years eliminated cosmic radiation as a factor in climate change and confirmed that sunspots, too, can be declared innocent. But in 2011, with backing from the European Co-operation in Science and Technology (COST), scientists set up their own project. They wanted to better understand the relationship between the cyclically changing patterns of sunlight and variations in climate, against a background of global warming. Solar variability The TOSCA project – which stands for “towards a more complete assessment of the impact of solar variability on the Earth’s climate”− is a co-operation involving solar physics, geomagnetism, climate modelling and atmospheric chemistry. The scientists went for a global approach, with 61 researchers from many disciplines working together to examine as many aspects as possible that might link variations in the sun’s behaviour with variations in climate. And they have summarised the story-so-far in a new report. What they identified is solar mechanisms that could alter regional climate, but none that could trigger global warming. Read More here
16 August 2016, The Conversation, Our planet is heating – the empirical evidence. In an entertaining and somewhat chaotic episode of ABC’s Q&A (Monday 15th August) pitting science superstar Brian Cox against climate contrarian and global conspiracy theorist and now senator Malcolm Roberts, the question of cause and effect and empirical data was raised repeatedly in regard to climate change. Watching I pondered the question – what would I need to change my mind?After all, I should dearly love to be convinced that climate was not changing, or if it were, it were not due to human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. That would make things just so much easier, all round. So what would make me change my mind? There are two elements to this question. The first is the observational basis, and the question of empirical data. The second relates to cause and effect, and the question of the greenhouse effect. On the second, I will only add that the history of our planet is not easily reconciled without recourse to a strong greenhouse effect. If you have any doubt then you simply need to read my former colleague Ian Plimer. As I have pointed out before, in his 2001 award-winning book “A Short History of Planet Earth”, Ian has numerous references to the greenhouse effect especially in relation to what all young geologists learn as the faint young sun paradox: Read More here
5 August 2016, The Conversation, One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change. The notion that climate science denial is no longer a part of Australian politics was swept away yesterday by One Nation Senator-Elect Malcolm Roberts. In his inaugural press conference, Roberts claimed that “[t]here’s not one piece of empirical evidence anywhere, anywhere, showing that humans cause, through CO₂ production, climate change”. He also promoted conspiracy theories that the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology are corrupt accomplices in climate conspiracy driven by the United Nations. His claims conflict with many independent lines of evidence for human-caused global warming. Coincidentally, the University of Queensland is releasing a free online course this month examining the psychology and techniques of climate science denial. The very first video lecture addresses Roberts’ central claim, summarising the empirical evidence that humans are causing climate change. Read More here