Climate Science is important to us all:

The politicisation and hype of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) over the last 30 years that created the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming  (CAGW) delusion and panic, could result in a  backlash from the public, politicians and media that damages the reputation of all sciences.

“When ‘the chickens come home to roost’ the politicians and the media won’t say, “It was all our fault”. They will say, “It was the scientists’ fault”

Perhaps it is time for all scientists to look more closely at AGW theory in the interest of science.

5 Responses to About

  1. Bob A Brown says:

    I read your ABOUT section and I agree with it. But I was looking for some information as to who you are? What are your credentials for understanding and intelligently commenting on this most complex of sciences?

    As a climate modeling & satellite global data expert (refs at http://blog.seattlepi.com/robertbrown/index.asp ) I felt obliged to enter the dialog just because it is a fascinating question/science problem. As a content Emeritus professor, I hopefully have no bias or incentives. So where does an objective reading of the dichotomy lead me?
    It kind of appears to me at this point that the scientists are in danger of being blamed. For just being wrong or too cautious, so that consequently in the US they have utterly failed to get any concern about GW across. The US is doing almost nothing to mitigate any warming effects, and consequently hampering work all over the globe. That’s the status, the GW Deniers have won the day.
    So you may have to add: They will say, “It was the Deniers fault”.
    It’s still up for grabs, but if I had to bet, I’d put my money on warming in our future — caused by fossil fuel burning.

    • BWoods says:

      Thank you for your interest.
      I am a member of the public in the UK, with a BSc AppliedChemistry, and MSc Informations Systems(Cybernetics), and a career in IT.. (telco mainly)
      I only became interested, when I downloaded the contents of the climategate leak for myself.
      At the time the emails had no context for me, but the Harry_Read_Me.txt file showed It practices by a small group of elite ‘climate scientists’ to be shall we say wanting.

      May I ask if you have had a look at the emails yourself.

      I might suggest 2 books to you to put things into context..

      ‘Fred Pearce’ The Climate Files
      and ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ A W Montford

      If you are interested in a breakdown of the climate emails themselves, may I suggest ‘Climategate – the Crutape Letters’ Mosher/Fuller
      These authors would describe themselves as ‘lukewarm’ on AGW, and actually get a fair bit of criticism from both extreme sides of the debate.

      Fred Pearce is a well respected environmental reporter for the Guardian and New Scientist (very Pro AGW), and he does cover many of the issues well. Whilst I might think he has a warmist view on things, it is an introduction.

      I would recommend ‘The Hockey stick Illusion’ as a background to the history between Steve Mcintyre (Climate Audit) and RealClimate..(Michael Mann and the rest of the ‘team’)
      Please do not depend on reviews of either book from either side of the debate. Have a read for yourself..

      Not least because the respected Professor Judith Curry, actually challenged ‘climate scientists’ to read ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion and was met with many and varied reason not to.. scientists coming up with excuses not to read a book on an issue recommended by a fellow scientist, this is bizarre behaviour to me.

      Her blog, is probably more neutral perhaps in your eyes than my blog. I comment there, as do many people that are pro AGW.


      her cv


      I hope my articles stand on their content and merit alone, rather than who I am. I try to provide verifiable links to back up my stories (reputable websites, including the Guardain, Telegraph respectable MSM media.) Follow the links and use your own judgement to see if my interpretations have any merit..

  2. LabMunkey says:

    Bob i’d be very interested in your take on the climate models, their in-process validation and their accuracy.

    for example- what procedures are in-place during the writing of a model to actively test and validate the component parts (i.e. the inputted variables) to ensure the robustness of said model?

    Also, you may be finally able to answer one of my long-standing queries over the models- have any been able to accuratley hind-cast AND predict global temps (simultaneously- i.e. one set of variables to do both) given the current knowledge?

  3. Pete Ridley says:

    Hi Barry, have you had enough time to think about it? – see http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/28/light-blogging.html?currentPage=4#comments at Apr 1, 2011 at 12:34 AM).

    Best regards, Pete

  4. Diogenes says:

    Keep up the good work! I’ve very much enjoyed and have benefited from your various thoughts and comments.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s