Monthly Archives: March 2018


The Climate Chronicles

Australia misses out on global warming

Click here for more discussion by David Archibald.

Is the Greenland ice sheet disappearing?

A very worthwhile presentation about the geology of the Greenland ice sheet here.

Sea level rise overstated, exaggerated

“In mid February a frightening report made the rounds through the mainstream media, and also the German evening news Tagesschau warned: Sea level is not rising linearly, but rather exponentially and thus we should expect a sea level rise of 65 cm by the end of the century! At linear sea level rise rate at today’s 3 mm/year, 25 cm would be only manageable.  So what’s behind the story? “ click here

Climate policies must be based on science-based reality or they will fail

Regardless of politics or religion, climate policies and decisions that are based on beliefs that do not correspond to reality – the way the world really is – will ultimately fail. As knowledge of the underlying science advances climate policies must also advance. Being stuck in a dogmatic “science is settled” attitude is counterproductive.  Yes, scientists have differences of judgement and opinion but this is normal. It’s why meaningful discussion, transparency (including making data available), disclosing underlying assumptions, and mutual respect is so important. Avoidance and activism (e.g. here) only serves to fuel ill-will and hostility rather than constructive dialog.

Google funding to determine what is science “misinformation”?

This is unfortunate. Committees of the Academies typically work behind closed doors and are not transparent. Regardless of the funding source this authoritarian effort (click here) to define scientific misinformation will likely have a bad ending. Concerns have already been raised about abuse of power (e.g. here) as a result of such effort.

As an observer of this I have to ask, who is the motivation coming from for this effort to turn NAS, NAE, and NAM into an information filtering agency.

The best way to counter misinformation is to make data publicly available so that analysis of such data and the claims being made can be confirmed or disputed by others. Two equally qualified scientists can look at exactly the same information and draw different or even opposite interpretations. What is misinformation to one scientist may a valid argument to another. 

Just because an interpretation or statement may not be generally accepted does not mean it is “misinformation.” All new ideas in science begin as “misinformation” to those scientists entrenched in the “status quo”.

It seems to me that the abuse of science mostly occurs in the media and news articles that promote unsupported or exaggerated claims.

NOAA data fabrication is real; NOAA manipulation of science is settled, unequivocal.

“There are many problems with what NOAA is doing. The first is that they are turning an 80 year cooling trend into a warming trend, which has massive implications for both climate scientists, journalists, voters and policy makers who depend on the accuracy of their work. “ click here