“My heart is moved by all I cannot save:
So much has been destroyed
I have to cast my lot with those
Who age after age, perversely,
With no extraordinary power,
Reconstitute the world.”
Adrienne Rich
Rich’s poem is what it is really about, but I notice people seem to visit this page so I guess I should put something else here.
The blog began as a collection of responses to climate change Deniers (see here for discussion as to how “Deniers ” are not skeptics or doubters) which I found myself repeating over and over on forums and news sharing sites.
Instead of continuing that Sysiphean task I chose to expand what I was saying, improve the references and citations, add graphics, and then simply link the appropriate post as needed. I have chosen to share them publicly so that others may use them in the same way, ie link whenever they encounter the relevant Denier bunk.
So that would be key point # 1 – this is meant as a resource to be used over and over by anybody and everybody.
Key point #2 would be the question “what would you find useful?” Use the comments thread to let me know.
Not that I imagine the Deniers will be influenced by this. The evidence is overwhelming that the majority never even look at climate science, facts or the demonstrations as to why their arguments are nonsense. The few that do are looking for something that they imagine is grounds for dismissal.
However, I do believe that there many folks who are confused as to what the facts are and are sincerely seeking understanding. The Denier drivel may be bunk, but it is carefully crafted bunk and can seem quite credible to those who do not know the facts, so that is understandable.
As such I offer these pieces to expose the Denier frauds and to share the real science with those who actually want to know what the facts are, at least as far as we understand them to date.
In that vein I more than welcome guest posts from those who have something relevant to say and need somewhere to say it – as long as it is reality based and appropriate to addressing climate education.
Having started the site, it also became an appropriate place to share other aspects of climate science, our current predicament, and make what contributions I can to education about the reality of the crisis.
Have there been and will there be errors? you bet! I continue to be merely human. If and when I achieve perfection I will alert you to start building the temples.
Until then I put considerable effort into “getting it right” and choose to take pride in how few errors there have been. At the same time I am deeply grateful to “the regulars” who have caught the errors that have occurred and brought them to my attention.
My name is Mike Kaulbars FCD and most of my net activity is under my own name or as ‘greenfyre’, so a search engine will tell you far more than you ever wanted to know.
I trained as research biologist (entomology, systematics, ecology), for many years I directed a small NGO active on environmental and social justice issues, and currently freelance write on climate and environmental issues.
Climate Change was one of the big reasons I left research to get involved in public education and activism. We already know more than we need, it’s long past time to act. I also teach political action.
For those who care to, you can find me on Facebook, Stumble, etc
For the Deniers who like to claim I have a conflict of interest, my income is about 25% to 33% of what it would be if I had stayed with research … when I am paid, which is often not the case.
Welcome to the NGO world (most NGO folks just about pee themselves laughing when they read how they are “in it for the money”).
email greenfyre (at) ncf (dot) ca for thems that care to.
Excellent links and commentary, GF. Thanks for shining the light of truth into the eyes of the deniers.
Thanks Eric, and extra thanks for the honourable title of “Fellow Thought Criminal.” You put me in good company.
Excellent blog! I’m adding you to my blogroll, but I’m not sure whether to put you under “building a better world” or “political activism”…
Congratulations on your excellent blog, and on your clear way of telling it like it is.
Dan Johnson
Lethbridge
Hi Mike. I just read your post entitled “…But they are scientists!”, I thought it was a wonderful summary of not only climate change denial, but also of any other kind of scientific denial. For instance, creationism. I’ll see if I can get you more readers by providing a link to that post from Pharyngula. Your server better watch out! 🙂
—-
Hi Mike,
I just finished reading the article that most recently made it to Digg’s front page titled “”Global Cooling” myth get’s fried”–a fine article, and thank you. I’m writing to you here (tried and failed to find an email address so I could write you privately, but I guess you can delete me from your official feedback here) to let you know that “gets” never gets an apostrophe. Later in the article you use “let’s” correctly as a contraction of “let us”, to be distinguished from “lets”, a conjunction of the verb “to let”. Likewise, “look’s” is not a contraction of anything (correctly: “looks”). I guess this cements my status as a grammar nazi; please believe that my interest is not an exhibition of petty superiority, but a desire to see an otherwise worthy article gain the attention it deserves by not containing grammar errors in its first sentence. In context of this blog, you’re a writer, and as Lincoln said, “Whatever you are, be a good one.”
Again, thanks for the article.
~john
—-
Dear Mike,
Followed your link from Care2, and I’m so glad I did. Opening with the Adreinne Rich is truly a heart-opener. So far, I’ve found your writing here insightful, intelligent, and of great value. Thank you so much for taking the time to share it with the rest of us.
I will return to read more.
-Pamylle
—-
Congrets on your blog Mike, you’re doing a great job here 😉
—-
Even the US Government is backing off the hoax that is global warming
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8
—-
Wow, and here I thought Inhofe was doing something new [1] — that’s over a year old!
Compare with the upcoming administration (note that of all the cabinet seats listed so far, only the National Security Advisor isn’t a progressive on climate, and that isn’t a big deal).
—-
Mike,
You know that I am a global warming skeptic. Most good scientists are skeptical about anything, until it is proven, as a scientific fact, by the Scientific Method, not opinion polls of scientists. You must have noted that most responsible liberals now call it “global climate change” not “Global Warming”. That is an indication that whatever they originally thought, was wrong.
The history of science is full of such changes. Our ancient learned men were wrong about what the center of the universe was. Life was once thought to “generate spontaneously” from rotting food. Atomic structure was once thought to be “turtles all they way down”. These were all very popular opinions of scientists of their day. But it did not make them scientific facts. In fact, these scientists, were wrong.
But today we have a problem, what you consider to be “scientific fact” will have “unintended consequences” for future generations. You know I hate coal plants, I hate any burning of any fossil fuel of any kind. But shutting all these plants down now will have vast economic consequences.
I want to see wind and solar develop as much as possible. I want them to become the backbone of our energy production systems. But wave energy, tide energy, and geothermal energy will have their place. But let’s say there is another Katrina and incoming rescuers need power immediately in remote locations to save lives. The electric grid will most likely be down for weeks if not months. In that case space based solar power can beam power to these locations immediately, by just erecting a portable rectenna.
What I am saying is that it is difficult to say what power system will survive some calamity of the future. Power diversity, like bio-diversity, should be our goal. Nuclear power is my least favorite option, but it should be part of the mix, because we are not imaginative enough to be prepared for all eventualities.
We need multiple layers of back ups. Look at anti-biotic drugs. They have saved many human lives, but there have devastating unintened consequences. Garlic is a cocktail of over 200 hundred biological-antibiotic compounds that no bug has been able to develop a resistance to, yet.
Here in Seattle today, we are faced with a predicted 90 mph wind and snow storm that will probably knock out power for weeks. The last time this happened over 17 people eventually died by burning coal and running diesel generators inside their homes, over the course of the month that it took to bring the electical grid back up. If we had communities up here with buried Hyperion mini-nukes running power thru buried underground powerlines these people would not have died.
Don’t get me wrong, I wish every house around here had solar roofs and pacwind windmills too. But there are times when the wind does not blow or it blows too much. There are times when the sun does not shine for months, we call that winter. When mount St. Helen’s blew, we didn’t see the sun for weeks either.
Mike I think you are well intentioned, but we must also be well prepared, for ANY eventuality. Please think about that.
—-
News flash, Tony: we are already facing an unintended consequence of our past actions, and the unintended consequence is precisely global warming. And the whole idea behind energy regulation is to, well, stop or at least slow down this unintended consequence.
(But of course in the right-wing fundamentalist mind, the term “unintended consequence” only applies to left-liberal ideas. If anything bad comes out of laissez-faire free-market policies, suddenly it’s not an “unintended consequence”, but instead is “freedom”.)
Additionally, the term ‘climate change’ has been there since the beginning, but it was the *conservatives* that did an about-face..
In fact, it’s the scientists, such as your incoming presidential science advisor, who illustrate the reasons why ‘climate change’ is, and always has been, more appropriate than global warming.
Came here after reading yet another of your comments on digg. Lemme be frank, i have no respect at all for people constantly using the word ‘deniers’ in the context of the global warming debate. It is nothing but a very cheap ad hominem attack. I find it ridiculous that so many people that like to think of themselves as intelligent let you and others get away with it.
Quote from top of page:
“Climate Change was one of the big reasons I left research to get involved in public education and activism.”
Public education, that’s great. I just happen to think that this kind of ‘education’ is actually a bigger problem than climate change itself. Makes me a denier I guess, heh.
—-
Tony Rusi (20th Dec 2008) has made comments about energy in a future world where there is a higher dependency on electricity.
Well i think you are being a bit negative Tony about what systems will be developed.
The first mistake you have made is that you assume that we have always had the system of energy we have now. That is obviously untrue, because as a problem was encountered, engineers and technologists developed/invented the systems you see around you now.
Logically then, the same thing will happen with any future use of renewables and the electricity grid. The energy system will be developed and altered to solve the problems you raise.
I suggest you look at the technology being developed.
Here in the UK some hundreds of ‘smart grid’ fridges will be tested in 2009, these can handle grid fluctuations that might be an issue wind energy and other renewables.
Potentially such simple changes to appliances can remove a number of coal fired power stations form our UK grid system.
There are many other technologies being developed to smooth the grid system, electricity production and for energy storage. So I think you are being negative about the future. There were people like you that would have said similar things about todays systems some 50 or 100 years ago.
The other point of course is that if the system was a problem in a storm, then it would make sense to store the energy for such an event in another form, such as hydrogen or other fuel/energy carrier, then use it for the emergency.
That is what government is for, eg. to put into place a backup for such an event.
Paul,
I have a new question for you and Mike. Do any of the climate computer models that you know about account for the drop in mean sea levels due to human population increases? Human bodies are about three quarters water, so if we have large population increases, that has to lower sea levels to some degree. I have googled around and so far, I have found nothing that mentions this. [1]
Smart grids are great. Energy Conservation should be first. I like the Better Place plan too. I can’t wait to get an affordable electric car. China is supposed to be selling the first mass market plug-ins in the USA in 2010. I bought a $400 dollar electric bike off of craigslist last year, because I could afford to do that. I can’t afford the Tesla roadster or the EV-1 at $100K. Supposedly Tesla is coming out with a sedan for $50K after gov rebates in a few years.
But since I wrote that last thing over two weeks ago, more than 29 people have died just in the State of Washington alone due to these snow storms. Most were in traffic accidents that involved snow. But I am sure we have had some asphixiations due to people trying to heat their homes with coal burners or diesel generators inside air-tight spaces. [2]
I just didn’t go out at all. Bicycles of any kind suck in snow. In the last three months we have probably had 5 days of sun in Seattle. There is a guy from Toronto named Marcelo that built his own solar electric car stuck up here right now, due to lack of sun.
http://www.xof1.com/projectnewsupdate.html
He spent a half a million dollars on it. I would like one, but it had better be less than five thousand total. I know this because I have ten “solar jars” that collect light in every one of my windows. I can tell you that they have lasted less than ten minutes a night this winter. Solar is just not a good option during Seattle winters. We have had some wind. But most of the time in the winter up here, it will blow too hard, like over 28 mph, when most windmills have to shut down.
The greens up here have been fighting any increase in Hydropower in the northwest. And I still think we get around 30% of our power from a coal plant in Montanna. Personally I would love to have us go 100% capacity solar and wind anyway with solar/wind farms in Eastern Washington.
There are some very interesting concepts for underground solar thermal energy storage and underground compressed air energy storage for windmills that have been proposed. But right now up here, if there is any surplus electrical power, they use it to pump water back up over the dams.
But we have greens up here that want to get rid of all the hyroelectric dams and not build any more. I guess they don’t realize that the dams were actually built for flood control and irrigation, not for power. Geothermal should be vastly increased too, even in places like Yosemite, if they can help keep that supervolcano from blowing. How would you like the entire planet to not see the sun for two or three years?
If you have read any of the stuff that I have written you know that I think every coal and oil energy plant should get algae CO2 sequestering systems ASAP. As far as power systems go, something like the 30% coal portion of our grid is going to take multiple decades to replace. And if and when we are lucky enough to get a quarter million electric cars up here someday, that electric energy is going to have to come from somewhere, hopefully massive new solar and wind installations.
I hope you guys google Hyperion mini-nukes. These things are basically nuclear batteries that can power up to twenty thousand homes at a time. And these mini-nukes are 28 times cheaper than windmill power and have no moving parts. I would like to couple them with a new underground electrical distribution system up here so we have some hope of backup power during our frequent winter windstorms. The Boy Scout motto is Be Prepared.
—-
dear Tony Rusi
It’s cold in the northern hemisphere sure.
But when it’s cold up here, it’s hot down south.
Australia is have a blazing hot summer.
Coral bleaching etc.
After all the issue is Global Warming, eg the mean temperature or energy gain of the system (Earth). It’s not really about seasonal weather at a specific latitude.
Re Hyperion reactors.
Yes they are interesting. Just wonder what would happen if the casing was breached and material inside leaked out?
Might contaminate water supplies? But i guess a lot of things can do that.
But as nuclear goes, it looks better than the big stuff!
The arrogance to think that humans changed a planet and the double-arrogance to think they can turn around what they claim is “broken”. The only floods that will happen are the floods of blood from your bleeding hearts. [1]
Who is causing so-called global warming on Mars? US? Give us a break.
What if einteins go too far? Then what?
Please. This stuff wreaks of hoax. Fix crime, pollution and trash, illegal immigration, outsourcing of jobs, drunk driving and a host of other tangible, REAL problems that we all face right in our back yards.
The planet will take care of itself – it doesnt need us. It doesnt care if we’re here or not.
http://www. discussglobalwarming.com/blog
Well, that settles the question doesn’t it?
Question: Is global warming real?
Answer: It’s arrogant, therefore it’s not real! The end.
Of course, the amusing part is that the proposed solutions for dealing with CO2 emissions, most notably efficiency projects and renewable energies, directly address pollution and outsourcing of jobs, while indirectly addressing trash and illegal immigration (of the environmental refugee kind).
The “warming on Mars” story is notoriously silly, not only because it ignores Mars’ albedo-altering planetary dust storms, but also because it implies it’s the sun — yet we don’t see a temperature increase on Venus or Mercury.
[…] Mika Kaulbars ist Autor von Greenfyre’s, einem seit 2008 betriebenen, mehr als vielversprechenden Blog im großen Klimazirkus. Aus seiner Selbstbeschreibung: […]
Dear Mike,
I have been following this site for some time now…like you I am amused by the often-repeated statement that scientists are just in this game “for the money”.
As an active, publishing scientist (my field is wildlife population ecology) I can assure you that science is indeed a very competitive human endeavor highlighted by occasions of great interpersonal differences and debate. But nobody in my experience ever embarked on a science career path based on ambitions of personal financial gain. In the in end, the firmest, most repeatable data and hypotheses win.
Largely because people who are drawn to science are more likely to prefer “a new way of testing a hypotheses” than those who “critique the numbers”.
I hope you will continue your excellent work.
—-
Don’t worry. I haven’t forgotten either and I am still interested in your reply, at least to simply hear your thoughts. In fact I did come looking for you a few months ago when I probably could have used your input for an argument I had stumbled into — although it wouldn’t have necessarily been your primary field of expertise. I couldn’t find a private email through which to contact you and avoided it completely so as not to diverge from the subject of this blog or any other discussion going on here.
Truth be told, that ghastly written post I directed at you has opened my mind to other ideas that in time will appear on my new blog — when time permits me to write it. So I look forward to your thoughts on that, and fingers crossed I can make it more coherent than my last attempt!
I apologise for writing this here, as I don’t have an email to contact you privately with.
Oh, and if you need it, my new blog:
http://urbandissent.wordpress.com
My man, I love your quote and appreciate the hell out of what you are doing. Anybody who thinks scientists are in it for the money simply has no clue about what motivates most scientists. I’ll be checking here frequently
—-
Discuss Global Warming said:
“Who is causing so-called global warming on Mars? US? Give us a break.”
Given the limited instrumentation monitoring Mars compared to Earth, how sure are you about what is happening on Mars?
Surely you are contradicting yourself if are relying on limited information about Mars but at the same time rejecting the greater amount of data available about earth.
If you agree that there is a discrepancy in the quantity of data available about each planet, then i assume that you are actively campaigning against those ‘deniers’ that say there isn’t enough data about the earth!
You would be morally obliged to do so.
Discuss Global Warming said:
“The planet will take care of itself – it doesnt need us.”
Nicely put and if it doesn’t need us then it will happily eliminate us in the process of adjusting to the inputs we do to it.
a couple points … first with the NGOs comment, I think that financial status of someone working for a grassroots NGO is much different than the position of larger NGOs that receive a wealth of funding from foundations. ‘The Revolution Will Not Be Funded’ is a good look at how foundations direct NGO work to suit their own goals and discourage other work that is not within their aims
second, is the club of rome thing. they came out with a book ‘The First Global Revolution’ (from what i can tell, 4th edition was 93, 3rd edition 91, not sure when originally published) and in it they talk of how they want to unite the world, and how they have come up with environmentalism (global warming etc) as the crisis that will do it, and how they think that we need to go ‘beyond’ democracy…. this is oft cited by conspiracy theorists to give credence to the story that global warming is being used to found a new world order (which seems straightforward enough given that they are actually saying as much in a book they published) … and note that the Club of Rome is a central NGO with many many links to others, and that it is made up of many of the ruling elite of the world… i’ll give the actual quotes from the book and then perhaps you can offer your thoughts? (note i found these quotes and more info at http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
“This is the way we are setting the scene for mankind’s encounter with the planet. … It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose. … The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself. … Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead.”
—-
1) i gave you a whole book of ‘facts’: [1] one example is George Soros’ Open Society Fund, of which he states “…and I defined its objectives as opening up closed societies, making open societies more viable, and promoting a critical mode of thinking” … Dylan Rodriguez comments on this: “Soros’s conception of the “Open Society,” … privileges political dissent that works firmly within the constraints of bourgeois liberal democracy. The imperative to protect – and in Soros’s case, to selectively enable with funding – dissenting political projects emerges from the presumption that existing social, cultural, political, and economic institutions are in some way perfectible, and that such dissenting projects must not deviate from the unnamed “values” which serve as the ideological glue of civil society.” — so this is just one example where millions of dollars are going to selective NGOs to serve the values of the foundation that is giving out the money (and for other examples with lots of money being selectively directed, just look to Bill Gates or the Rockefeller Foundation)
anyways i think this shows there is a lot of money for NGOs that are willing to work in line with what the ‘big boys’ want to fund
2) i am dissapointed that you can’t respond to what the quote was saying. it wasn’t that they identified global warming as an issue, it was that they identified it as a rallying point that they would get all of humanity to unite around in a transformation to a unspecified non-democratic society … this is an organization that includes Al Gore as a member. [2]
i don’t think you are doing a good job of ‘debunking’ stuff if you fail to see that this stance is rife for potential cooptation of the environmental movement that is so stirred up around global warming … note the type of solutions that are currently being implemented, carbon cap-and-trade schemes that will make financial institutions tons of money and that have been proven (in Europe) to be ineffective at actually reducing carbon
if all you want to do is ‘prove’ global warming is a problem, then so be it. but if you care to have an intelligent discussion about what is to be done, and the forces at play, you aren’t doing yourself any favours (or giving yourself any credibility) by dismissing this as ‘drivel’ [3]
—-
Thank you for an outstanding blog: thoughtful, articulate, researched and insightful. A wonderful addition!
Excellent blog! I found you through Kate over at Climatesight.org.
How can I email you about a specific topic? Can I just ask here? My friend (skeptic – not yet a denier!) is skeptical about accuracy of past measurements from years back. He likes to quote this site, specifically this page…
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm
I am not a math guy so I cannot argue with him very well on some of this stuff. What do you think of John Daly? More importantly what do you think of the science on the link above?
Thanks!
David
—-
[…] Few Links to Start the Day Firstly, a blogroll, I found a good blog dedicated to challenging global warming […]
The Australian PM has never seemed to me to be very proactive on climate change but last week he took the pace up a notch and even repeatedly used the word ‘Deniers’ in a speech: http://www.pm.gov.au/node/6305
Actually worth a read for once!
—-
Certainly was – given that neither trolls (unless we speak of the species that inhabits blog comments) and witches (in the ‘old school’ sense are merely creative colour to human stories then I think always demonising them is folly.
Mike, please email me as soon as you can at [removed to protect from spam] . It’s important and a teeny urgent.
I hope you’re doing well as can be expected…
Nina
Hello Adrienne Rich ,
Firstly, this is not a press release!
I came across your site and wanted to know if you might be interested in writing a blog about our newly launched green site, http://www.ecobold.com which is a video reviews of green products (they’re also cheaper than list price).
If not, do you know someone who might be interested in writing about us?
Feel free to call us if you wish, 408-476-0938
Thank you for making a difference in our world!
Steffany
Nice charts showing GW, too bad that they are not based on real data, why not make up some to show sea level rise as well
What an excellent website and source of information, please keep up the good work.
Thank You.
I’ve notice a significant rise in climate denier comments and posts on community and science websites . Which has really become very annoying (I’m being very polite)
I’ve been saying to my friends that there is a coordinated campaign out there and this website really highlights how extensive it is.
My feeling is all deniers of global warming are people with a vested interest in keeping our community dependant on a carbon economy either for personal wealth, political gain or just expect a divine intervention.
They try to evade revealing their real agenda by calling it a “debate”, when really it is only tactic designed to create delay by spreading conspiracy theories, confusion and mistrust of the real science and those who are concerned.
Climate deniers are no more trust worthy than the tobacco and asbestos industries where.
—-
Unfortunately there are a few climate denier Astronomers in the Astronomical Society of South Australia (ASSA).
I recently had the unpleasant experience of sitting through a presentation at a ASSA meeting by Ian Plimer, not knowing who he was?
I was so surprise by the loose, misleading information being presented as facts I made the mistake of commenting about it on the ASSA mail list. Only to discover many hostile and unpleasant climate denier replies.
But then I realised you don’t require any education or any qualifications to join the ASSA. It would seem all you need is to buy a telescope to call yourself an Astronomer, and that apparently empowers a denier with special knowledge.
Fortunately I do know Astronomer with an education in some form of science or engineering who are not climate deniers.
Robert
Brilliant blog content! Thanks for the efforts.
Michael
Mike – you’re one of the good guys. You’re on my blogroll!
Pre-Climategate….
Now that the fraud and lying and data manipulation have been revealed, it may be time to consider that there are other possibilities.
http://www.4shared.com/file/162164376/fd749004/Critique_of_October_2009_NCAR_.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/141144109/280381bc/US_Extreme_Temperatures_-_Excel_2003_Version.html
The fact is that earth has been warming from a particularly cold period of the late 1800s. That fact is that the earth really has not had a warming trend with a base of the 1930s. Picking your starting point has a significant bearing on the outcome of trend analysis… and trend analysis is wholly unsatisfactory when dealing with cyclical processes.
Good reading: Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. site: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/
He examines man’s impact on climate [which is considerable] without trying to convince an undereducated public that the simpleton’s equation of an increase of CO2 = an increase in temperatures.
‘No malpractice’ by climate unit
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8618024.stm
🙂
I’ve been waiting for updates. Am I missing them, or is the site rarely updated?
I am not a ‘denier or a skeptic,’ [1]
[deleted]
Jim Davidson
—-
Hi Mike (and … S2). I see that you are getting what you deserve here – spam [DELETED]
Best regards, Pete Ridley
—-
This comment has been moved to “Dunces Corner: This is what Denialism looks like” for violating this sites comments policy and meeting the criteria stated on that page.
Can I send you an important denier document that is unavailable on the web but read by many leaders for your comment?
—-
Please reply offline and I will explain. It’s a little sensitive.
—-
Hey Greenfyre and Ben,
How did it go?
— frank
See
jcmooreonline.com
—-
G.F.,
As of today, I link to your website. I have a little something I ran into a couple of days ago, that I think you should take a look at.
I have the link on my blog jeffcrafter.blogspot.com
I have been kind of tracking some really backyard NSF and EPA websites to see if anything interesting turns up.
I ran into one about a return study from Leeds that indicated the drought in the Amazon basin last year(5 years after the last 100 year event) and they say it was a bit worse than advertised. If you think it adds up to something to get nervous about, let me know.
Jeff Darling Jeffcrafter@live.com
P.S. I live in the 3rd most Republican district in the U.S. I know about deniers
I just came across your website by following up a link from the Sun magazine. Great work you are doing here. Sanity is refreshing.
Just a shout-out: my blog Decoding SwiftHack is back up.
— frank
Uh-oh. No posts since November. You okay? Greenfyre still blazing?
[…] a trackback to Whatever Works, I discovered Greenfrye‘s blog (here). It’s a frackin’ good resource for climate information with lots of handy […]
hi, this is most likely in the wrong place but is anyone able to give me some feedback on this paper please.
http://www.kednos.com/physics/climatology/iceage.html
I was delighted to find your website in my search for climate change resources on the web.
I am a long time educator and award winning documentary filmmaker working on a climate change educaiton project for elementary and middle school children.
We are launching the first of a series climate change solution apps for young people on April 22nd (Earth Day) 2015.
Solutionaries is a real world quest to change the world by introducing awe inspiring solutions that can solve climate change.
The program was developed by a small award winning team of web-creatives and environmental educators who are committed to mobilizing millions of people around climate change solutions.
The first interactive app includes celebrated artists from around the world who have created one of a kind
“treasures” as part of the interactive game play. Margaret Atwood, Lily Yeh, Mia Tavonatti, Fran Forman, Mac Adams,
Giulio Menossi and other acclaimed artists have contributed works of art – each dedicated to one mystery Solutionary.
The goal of the project is to shed light on climate change heroes “Solutioanries” whose are implementing powerful
climate change solutions.
You can learn more at our website: http://www.solutionaries.org
Warm cheers,
Carolyn M. Scott
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am a student at the Institute of Mass Communication and Media Research (IPMZ) University of Zurich. As part of my Master’s thesis, I am conducting a survey on how climate change bloggers’ perceive themselves and their role in the climate change debate.
If you blog about climate change, I would like to ask you to participate in my survey. Your contribution will help us to gain valuable insights into the field of climate change blogging.
Link to the survey: http://ww2.unipark.de/uc/landolt_Universit__t_Z__rich/64cf/
The questionnaire will take about 7 minutes to fill out.
There are no right or wrong answers. I am interested in your personal opinion.
The study does not serve any commercial purpose. The data provided is solely for the purpose of scientific analysis and is evaluated anonymously.
The questionnaire can be filled out in English and German.
Please feel free to contact me if there are further questions or comments.
Angela Landolt B.A.
I found your post defaming (truthtelling?) Dr. Richard Keen wearisome and over-the-top. I can’t imagine you looking down on anyone more than you do Dr. Keen. You say he lies, when you seem to say that it’s only by implication, that he lies. Well, by that measure, virtually everyone lies all the time since “implication” is often/usually the creation of the listener, not the speaker.
I can understand your point about Dr. Keen ‘cherry-picking data’ that he uses in his presentations. You say that he uses old — which is to say, 1990 — IPCC projections of temperature compared to actual temperature readings, when he should have used 2007 or even 2013 graphs. I think that’s an extremely weak – though not invalid — point since NONE of the 100-plus models presented in later IPCC report graphs come anywhere near actual (especially satellite) data.
And talk about cherry-picking!….. That’s exactly what IPCC is extremely well known for throughout the world because of the way it cherry-picks the scientists and papers it uses to support its executive outlines which are pre-scribed by non-scientists before the reports are written, and disregards (not refutes) contrary science. Even the IPCC’s own website says it’s not a science research organization. And, as I’m sure you know, the IPCC’s own charter specifically says it’s mission is not about discovering the cause of climate change, but merely to identify any science that might confirm — however weakly or strongly — that AGW is valid. I believe you already know that 99.99 percent of scientists — not just so-called ‘climate scientists’ — will agree that humans output CO2 that is a part of overall CO2 in the atmosphere that may be causing climate change (and even climate warming). Of course, the issue is not whether or not human activity produces CO2, but to what degree. To respond to that I suggest you may want to review the analysis in the recent presentation by Dr. Fred Goldberg in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEcnJFTxQcU If you can get past the fact that he was invited to speak by the Breitbart Freedom Center, I think you’ll appreciate — possibly even enjoy — remarks by this distinguished and credentialed scientist. (As he himself says, he is not without his own dissenters; so, I don’t hold him up to be a god in this debate, but a good, working scientist.)