“It is now widely agreed Oreskes did not distinguish between articles that acknowledged or assumed some human impact on climate, however small, and articles that supported IPCC’s more specific claim that human emissions are responsible for more than 50 percent of the global warming observed during the past 50 years.”
“Her definition of consensus also is silent on whether man-made climate change is dangerous or benign, a rather important point in the debate.”
” Oreskes’ literature review inexplicably overlooked hundreds of articles by prominent global warming skeptics…. More than 1,350 such articles (including articles published after Oreskes’ study was completed) are now identified in an online bibliography.”
The second edition of Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus. (Heartland Institute: 2015), edited by Craig Idso, (the late) Robert Carter, and S.…
Continue Reading“Climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased. Origins of bias include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and confirmation bias.”
“[General Circulation Models] systematically over-estimate the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide (CO2), many known forcings and feedbacks are poorly modeled, and modelers exclude forcings and feedbacks that run counter to their mission to find a human influence on climate.”
In 2015, the Heartland Institute published the second edition of Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus. Edited by Craig Idso, (the late) Robert Carter, and S. Fred Singer, this 100-page primer usefully rebuts the (political) notion of settled climate science–and climate alarmism in particular.
This post reproduces the Key Findings of the book (for full citations behind each point, see the online document). Tomorrow’s post reprints this book’s refutation of the “97 percent consensus” study that has become a sound bite for climate alarmists.…
Continue Reading“If it were only so simple to pass a law and increase income and wealth. ‘One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than by their results,’ as the late free -market economist/educator Milton Friedman once said.”
The Houston Chronicle, as yesterday’s post documented, has gone from bad to worse in the hydrocarbon capital of the United States and world. The New York Times of Houston (the proper name for our supposedly hometown paper) seems to be at war with not only Donald Trump but also skeptics of climate alarmism and the free market more generally.
Along with climate-alarmist unsigned editorials, guest editorials, (selected) letters-to-the-editor, and cartoons, the Chronicle is all-in with Progressive notions. Consider the lead editorial on Labor Day, September 4, 2017.…
Continue Reading