The number of anti-science decisions the federal government has made in recent years is staggering: axing the...
In referring to the “blockbuster” study, Roy Cordato, a “resident scholar” at the John Locke Society wrote:
Clearly this study from the latest issue of Journal of Geoclimatic Studies by four climate scientists–two from the Dept. of Climatology at the University of Arizona and two from the Department of Atmospheric Physics, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, should be the lead story on the eveing news tonight. But it is more than likely that it won’t even be mentioned. the paper abstract speaks for itself.”
Hat tip as well to the fine work being done by Adam at Energy Smart blog.
There is now “no doubt” that some of the effects of human-induced climate change could be offset with engineering fixes, according to David Keith, an expert on climate and energy at the University of Calgary. But what action should be taken, based on this knowledge? That was one of the knotty questions he and other experts wrestled with at a two-day conference that ended in Cambridge, Mass.
Here's the dripping apology sent to Limbaugh by Spencer after realizing he was the cause of Limbaugh getting duped.
Even the most preliminary research by someone even slightly knowledgeable in climate science could figure out this hoax. Maybe Rush's “truth detector” was on the fritz.
H/T to the Great Beyond for this one.
A new paper (attached) by Oxford Research Fellow Max Boykoff shows that phony media balance has almost disappeared in U.S. climate change coverage.
But Boykoff's paper also shows an embarrassing difference in the extent and quality of climate change coverage in the United States, compared to coverage in the United Kingdom. For example, he found that between 2003 and 2006, UK papers covered the story three times as often as U.S. papers and were significantly more likely to present it accurately.