Global Warming

From John Cook, climate communications guy at the University of Queensland at The Conversation: Ironically, the practice of throwing more science at science denial ignores the social science research into denial. You can’t adequately address this issue without considering the root cause: personal beliefs and ideology driving the rejection of scientific evidence. Attempts at science communication that ignore the potent influence effect of worldview can be futile or even counterproductive. Actually, the first thing one should do is look at the personal beliefs and ideology of those presenting the evidence. Then compare them with those who reject the evidence. About fifty years ago, I was in a hospital, on the bookshelf of whose coffee room was an encyclopedia from about Read More ›

I recommend the entire article from the Heartland organization (www.heartland.org), but the below is very powerful stuff: Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it. Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and Read More ›

I believe this is already the 2nd time that Nick has graced the pages of the world’s leading science journal. See: Predicting a state shift in the biosphere, and communicating it. Looks like it is the cover story too! Nick and I have been opponents in the ID / Evolution debate for years. I’m glad that scientists of his caliber visit UD and debate with us. Congrats Nick. PS The other time I congratulated Nick was here: Congrats Nick Matzke for Publishing ID Sympathetic Paper

JonathanM, one of our authors (recent subject of Darwin TV), also notes that Darwin lobbyist Eugenie Scott (National Centr for Science Education) was speaking recently at a Glasgow Skeptics meeting in Glasgow that he attended: The topic of the lecture (which you can watch for yourself) was “Evolution and Global Warming Denial: How the Public is Misled.” There was little scientific substance in the presentation, particularly on the subject of evolution. Instead, Dr. Scott attempted to draw parallels between the political strategies employed by Darwin skeptics (whom she seems to think are all creationists) and Climate Change skeptics (whom she pejoratively labeled “deniers”). She linked “evolution denial” and “global warming denial” to the American religious and political Right. But she Read More ›

Here.

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models. (Has NASA decided to stop co-operating with the US government because the data cannot fit the “you gotta give up light bulbs,but we don’t” narrative? File to watch.) Read More ›

Lots of people, including us folk at Uncommon Descent are accused of  “undermining science.”

Dennis Prager, reflecting on last weekend’s “Prepare to Meet Thy Doom“-fest observes that secular apocalypses (that never really happen) have done our work for us:

There is one major difference between leftist and religious doomsday scenarios. The religious readily acknowledge that their doomsday scenario is built entirely on faith. The left, on the other hand, claims that its doomsday scenarios are entirely built on science. Read More ›