Quote of the day

If we are to make sound decisions, there is little room for anecdotal evidence or knee-jerk responses guided by personal philosophy. - Ed Yong

In defence of DeSmogBlog

Many progressive types have been attacking DeSmogBlog for its stance in the BC election. The folks over at DeSmogBlog have come out strongly against the proposed BC NDP GHG reduction plan (as have I and many others). But is this really a shock to anyone? But if carbon taxes are popular among economists, they are... Continue Reading →

On small cars, safety and externalities

News that small cars are more dangerous has been everywhere since the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety issued a report that said: That crash dummies in all three models tested — the Honda Fit, the Toyota Yaris and the Smart Fortwo — fared poorly in the collisions. By contrast, the midsize models into which they... Continue Reading →

Arctic sitting on thin ice… literally

Usually stories about arctic sea ice don’t pop up until the end of the summer melt season, but thanks to a relatively warm winter (at least in the arctic) this year we are already inundated with stories about the sorry state of the arctic sea ice. Arctic sea ice younger, thinner as melt season begins... Continue Reading →

On geo-engineering

Sparked by John Holdren’s comments in regards to geo-engineering: There is a lot of skepticism- much of it well-founded, some of it hysterical and unreasoned- surrounding geo-engineering. Many view it along with CCS as nothing more than a more sophisticated attempt to move the goal posts on emissions reductions further still into the future even... Continue Reading →

How to assassinate the truth

The Gravityloss blog has an excellent post on how deniers can, and do, effectively assassinate the truth. The First Phase: Get a media channel. This is usually a columnist in a large newspaper. Might also be a web news site reporter. Or a celebrity. Call this person X. X writes or says something completely false,... Continue Reading →

It’s OK, if you are a climate change denier

Remember the outcry when Micheal Tobis merely asked the question ‘is unfairly criticizing those pushing for action on climate change and thus delaying action morally equivalent to killing people’? And then answered only by saying “It's not all that obvious to me that it isn't.” Deniers like Marc Morano instantly claimed that: “Scientists claim that... Continue Reading →

Canada’s creationism problem

Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology (who was already on shaky grounds with scientists), recently caused quite a stir when he refused to say whether or not he accepted evolution. “I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about... Continue Reading →

An illustration of the climate change debate

Is it any wonder why a disconnect exists between the public and the scientific positions in regards to climate change? Graph created by Michael Tobis The horizontal axis above refers to an unconstrained emissions ("business as usual") scenario. The vertical axis is roughly proportional to the probability of finding that an expert's opinion is matched... Continue Reading →

Monckton’s silly graph: Part 3

Monckton just can’t help himself. Monckton has updated his silly graph, and now the Cuffey and Clow graph (correctly cited this time around!), has been adapted from the original which represented temperatures in Greenland, to represent Antarctic temperatures. How exactly did he accomplish this impressive feat? The same way he took the original and made... Continue Reading →

Al Gore vs George Will

Two recent events have provided us clear view of the difference between those who wish to communicate clearly the science of climate change and those wish to deny it. The first instance come to us courtesy of Al Gore. Now as pretty much everyone is aware Al Gore gets a lot of flack, some of... Continue Reading →

Deniers aren’t skeptical, they are gullible

I’ve written about the difference between skeptics and deniers before, but I think I missed the most obvious reason why deniers are not, and cannot be called skeptics.  Deniers simply aren’t skeptical; in fact they are completely gullible.  This can be seen over and over again as deniers willingly accept ‘theories’ that fall apart under... Continue Reading →

Back from the Oregon Coast

I am back from a wonderful week on the Oregon coast. I promise to post some pictures as soon as I can go through the hundreds of pictures we took. On another note I realized something as I was driving home yesterday. Our trip to the Oregon coast may have included driving for almost 2000... Continue Reading →

The 1998 cherry pick

One of the common threads of most denier rants on recent temperature change is cherry picking 1998 as the start of their analysis.  This is a dead giveaway that they either are clueless about basic statistics or are being dishonest.  The fact is that 1998 was a highly anomalous year. A strong el Niño effect... Continue Reading →

Antarctic warming derangement syndrome

Recently an article was published in Nature which came to the conclusion that despite an earlier belief Antarctica has not been cooling, but rather warming. Given that deniers use the possibility that Antarctica may have been cooling as ‘proof’ of that climate change is a farce, many now predictably refuse to accept the results of... Continue Reading →

Monckton’s silly graph: Part 2

It seems one silly graph isn’t enough for the great Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.  Behold his latest folly: At first brush this may appear to be an entirely sensible graph, but take a closer look.  What do the vertical numbers in the middle of the graph represent?  Are they just a misplaced... Continue Reading →

Monckton’s silly graph

This is the crux of Monckton’s latest anti-science, climate change denier rant. Bellow the graph was this text: Figure 3 shows two things very clearly. First, carbon dioxide concentration is rising, and will continue to rise, in a more or less straight line; secondly, there is no correlation, and hence necessarily no causative connection, between... Continue Reading →

Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Baskerville 2 by Anders Noren.

Up ↑