Scientists seek international authority on climate geoengineering
http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-seek-international-authority-climate-geoengineering-155225716.html…
Paper: Scientists must solve growing trust problem – ‘Increasingly, Americans believe that what’s called science is actually political posturing’
‘Draft UN climate agreement released — actually contains the term ‘MOTHER EARTH’
https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/567017018571100160/photo/1…
Draft UN climate treaty actually considers cutting CO2 emissions 95% by 2050
http://junkscience.com/2015/02/15/negotiating-draft-of-un-climate-agreement-released/…
Boston: ‘More snow in the past three weeks than Chicago has ever had in an entire winter’
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boston-blizzard-four-huge-blasts-of-snow-in-one-month-for-new-england/…
Winters in Boston Becoming Dryer: ‘It’s just weather, folks. Blaming everything on ‘climate change’ is just plain lazy’
Winters in Boston Becoming Dryer
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/02/winters-in-boston-becoming-dryer/
Much has been said in recent weeks about how bigger snowstorms in Boston are (supposedly) just what climate models have predicted. “Global warming” is putting more water vapor into the air, leading to more “fuel” for winter storms and more winter precipitation. While this general trend is seen in climate models for global average conditions (warming leads to more precipitation), what do the models really predict for Boston? And what has actually been observed in Boston? The following plot shows that the observed total January precipitation in Boston has actually decreased since the 1930′s, contrary to the average “projections” (in reality, hindcasts) from a total of 42 climate models: Fig. 1. January total precipitation at Boston, 1936 to 2015, in observations versus the average of 42 climate models. A small bias in the model precip is removed so the linear trends start at the same point early in the record. Note that even the forecast increase in January precipitation is so small that it probably would never be noticed if it actually occurred. During the same period, January temperatures in Boston have seen a statistically insignificant +0.1 deg. F per decade warming, in contrast to 2.5 times faster average warming produced by the 42 climate models: Fig. 2. As in Fig. 1., but for temperature. What is very evident is the huge amount of natural variability from year to year, as Bostonians are well aware. It’s just weather, folks. Blaming everything on “climate change” is just plain lazy.
— gReader Pro…
Skeptics know more about climate science than believers
Skeptics know more about climate science than believers
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/02/skeptics-know-more-about-climate-science-than-believers/
So much for the theory that skeptics are dumb or uninformed. Fox News reports that a new study shows that when people are quizzed about climate science, the skeptics outscored the believers. Dan Kahan at Yale did the study on 2,000 people, but with only nine questions, so there is limited insight here, but it fits with his previous study which found people who knew more about maths and science were more likely to be skeptical. Readers of skeptical blogs (who chose to respond to surveys and list their qualifications in comments) are likely to have hard science degrees. The world is slowly waking up to the fact that the skeptics are more knowledgeable about science. In a proper science quiz, the gap would probably be even larger. On two of the nine questions, skeptics got the science right. But believers “outscored” skeptics at repeating the propaganda (which shouldn’t be a question in a survey about scientific knowledge). I’d like to see all nine questions (can anyone find a preprint or the paper?) Skeptics get science right: One question, for instance, asked if scientists believe that warming would “increase the risk of skin cancer.” Skeptics were more likely […]Rating: 5.0/10 (1 vote cast)
— gReader Pro…