Paul - you are being unfair to Climate Audit, whilst some of the commenters may be "deniers" the site itself and its writers are scrupulously fair in just demanding that the science that driving the huge climate change policies and business are "auditable". That data is publicly available and results reproducible. And then what it shows is what it shows. This has upset many global warming "evangelists" who prefer to to just believe the holy book of global warming which relies on unrevealed data and secret processes to come up with its findings. Given the importance of climate science in the determination of global policy and what it claims to be foretelling I think some open scrutiny of it is essential and that Climate Audit fully deserves to be voted for.
Junk Science is an interesting site but even it would admit to being an advocacy site putting forward contrarian views - no harm in that, especially in its advocacy for DDT where it provides an interesting other view to the what we hear elsewhere.
The Invasive Species Weblog is just what you'd think from its title--an excellent clearinghouse for information on invasive species (and attempts to control them) around the world gleaned from hither and yon on the 'tubes. Bootstrap Analysis is a more personal blog of an ornithologist/urban ecologist in the Detroit area. Very different from each other, but both well deserving of recognition.
Paul - you are being unfair to Climate Audit, whilst some of the commenters may be "deniers" the site itself and its writers are scrupulously fair in just demanding that the science that driving the huge climate change policies and business are auditable"...
Or, to put it another way, they will reject every jot of science that supports AGW that has not been proven beyond unreasonable doubt, whilst accepting every jot of "science" opposing the conclusion that has not been disproven beyond unreasonable doubt.
Junk Science is an interesting site but even it would admit to being an advocacy site putting forward contrarian views - no harm in that, especially in its advocacy for DDT where it provides an interesting other view to the what we hear elsewhere.
...or, to put it another way, it publishes all the pro-DDT propaganda that's unfit to print. Read its account of the regulatory process in 1972, that has been published for years without contradiction because nobody had a copy of the respective decisions, with what actually took place. It's claim is that "William Ruckelshaus - who had never attended a single day’s session in the seven months of EPA hearings, and who admittedly had not even read the transcript of the hearings - overturned Judge Sweeney’s decision"; see Jim Easter's blog for what actually happened:
5 comments :
AFAIK, Climate Audit and Junk Science are global warming denial blogs.
I'll recommend 'In the Pipeline'. Don't know about any of the others though.
Paul - you are being unfair to Climate Audit, whilst some of the commenters may be "deniers" the site itself and its writers are scrupulously fair in just demanding that the science that driving the huge climate change policies and business are "auditable". That data is publicly available and results reproducible. And then what it shows is what it shows. This has upset many global warming "evangelists" who prefer to to just believe the holy book of global warming which relies on unrevealed data and secret processes to come up with its findings.
Given the importance of climate science in the determination of global policy and what it claims to be foretelling I think some open scrutiny of it is essential and that Climate Audit fully deserves to be voted for.
Junk Science is an interesting site but even it would admit to being an advocacy site putting forward contrarian views - no harm in that, especially in its advocacy for DDT where it provides an interesting other view to the what we hear elsewhere.
The Invasive Species Weblog is just what you'd think from its title--an excellent clearinghouse for information on invasive species (and attempts to control them) around the world gleaned from hither and yon on the 'tubes. Bootstrap Analysis is a more personal blog of an ornithologist/urban ecologist in the Detroit area. Very different from each other, but both well deserving of recognition.
the englishman said:
Paul - you are being unfair to Climate Audit, whilst some of the commenters may be "deniers" the site itself and its writers are scrupulously fair in just demanding that the science that driving the huge climate change policies and business are auditable"...
Or, to put it another way, they will reject every jot of science that supports AGW that has not been proven beyond unreasonable doubt, whilst accepting every jot of "science" opposing the conclusion that has not been disproven beyond unreasonable doubt.
Junk Science is an interesting site but even it would admit to being an advocacy site putting forward contrarian views - no harm in that, especially in its advocacy for DDT where it provides an interesting other view to the what we hear elsewhere.
...or, to put it another way, it publishes all the pro-DDT propaganda that's unfit to print. Read its account of the regulatory process in 1972, that has been published for years without contradiction because nobody had a copy of the respective decisions, with what actually took place. It's claim is that "William Ruckelshaus - who had never attended a single day’s session in the seven months of EPA hearings, and who admittedly had not even read the transcript of the hearings - overturned Judge Sweeney’s decision"; see Jim Easter's blog for what actually happened:
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=62
Post a Comment