Des Moore

A snapshot of the NetLogo Global Climate Change model.

“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.” ~Vaclav Klaus

What State of Climate do we really have?

Over the past six months or so there has been a remarkable change at both official agencies and research institutions in attitudes of the believers in the dangerous warming thesis. Reflecting the Copenhagen flop and the Climategate exposure of uncertainties within research bodies, the previous out of hand dismissals of sceptical views have moved to an acknowledgement that those views should not be ignored and that uncertainty does exist. It has now become almost respectable to be a sceptic. Mind you the warmists are still quick to assure us either that the “basic” science remains valid or that we are now in an era of supposed Post-Normal science where the uncertainties are so great and the issues so important that conventional methods of first obtaining all relevant information before taking preventative action cannot wait but must rely on assessments by “knowledgeable” experts.

A major difficulty with either of the latter assurances is that whichever science is used is now showing marked problems in public (which many knew about but were not previously heard). The IPCC (which itself undertakes no scientific research) is now under an independent review instituted by the United Nations (for what that may be worth) and increasing numbers of individual scientists and groups of scientists are publicly revealing numerous possible explanations of the increase in temperatures other than increased greenhouse gas emissions. Evidence has also emerged suggesting that official agencies have made inappropriate additions to “raw” temperature data and have omitted to explain that some of the increase in temperatures is obviously due to natural causes. In short, claims of a scientific consensus behind the dangerous warming thesis are even less convincing than they were. Even a major supplier of analysis to the IPCC – Dr Jones, the (now suspended) head of the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit - recently acknowledged that the science is not settled.

More »

Des Moore

Climategate – IPCC’s Flawed Temperature Picture Revealed

Since Copenhagen there have been revelations overseas of important flaws in the science used in reports by the IPCC. Believers in the dangerously rising temperature thesis have brushed these aside as “unfortunate” mistakes but as not affecting the alleged scientific consensus that continually rising temperatures result from the emissions of CO2 and usage of fossil fuels. Hence, it is argued, government action is still needed to prevent dangerous increases in temperatures in the future.

Now, however, we have a major new analysis by two Australian scientists showing that the temperature data published by the IPCC and other organisations has been manipulated to give the appearance of a warming trend - but not one that has actually occurred. In essence this analysis severely, probably fatally, damages the basis on which the IPCC and its supporters rely for their call for government intervention to reduce emissions. Needless to say, this has major international implications in regard to the policies to be adopted by countries on emissions reductions.

More »

___________________________________________________________________________________

08/14/09 Richard S. Lindzen Resisting climate hysteria: A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action.
08/20/09 Des Moore The Great Climate Scam
___________________________________________________________________________________

11/17/09 Peter Smith Exploiting Guilt: The Copenhagen Treaty and Versailles
11/24/09 Judy Curry On the credibility of climate research
11/25/09 Bob Carter The science of deceit
11/26/09 John McLean Climategate: Shutting out dissent
11/26/09 Gerald Traufetter Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out
11/27/09 Marco Villa What You Should Know Before the Copenhagen Summit
11/28/09 Patrick J. Michaels The Dog Ate Global Warming
11/29/09 Judith Curry An open letter from Dr. Judith Curry on climate science
11/30/09 Doug L. Hoffman Global Warming Fatigue Spreads
___________________________________________________________________________________

12/01/09 FOS Friends of Science Society Position Statement
12/03/09 Susan Swift Climate Gate: Where Politics and Religion Unite
12/04/09 Aletho News There's more to climate fraud than just tax hikes
12/05/09 Richard S. Lindzen Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
12/07/09 Wendy McElroy "Settled"? It's not even "Science"
12/07/09 Mervyn F. Bendle The Eco-Apocalypse Craze
12/09/09 Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. The Left Fell into the Climate Morass
12/09/09 Marco Villa Copenhagen Beware
12/10/09 Friends Of Science Myths / Facts: Common Misconceptions About Global Warming
12/11/09 Steve McIntyre IPCC and the “Trick”
12/12/09 Notsilvia Night Why are the oligarchic elites trying so hard to push their climate change policies through right now?
12/13/09 Bob Carter Scam of the century
12/13/09 Lord Christopher Monckton Lord Monckton’s summary of Climategate and its issues
12/15/09 Merv Bendle Brave New Green World
12/17/09 The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley Lord Monckton reports on Pachauri’s eye opening Copenhagen presentation
12/20/09 Merv Bendle Politics of green unreality
12/20/09 Paul Driessen Cleaning out the climate science cesspool
12/21/09 Mick Greenhough Elite Politique
12/22/09 Terence Corcoran Climategate: A 2,000-page epic of science and skepticism --Part 1 & 2
12/23/09 S. Fred Singer Al Gore and Global Warming Alarmism
12/24/09 Richard Moore There is no global warming problem
12/27/09 Peter Smith Seeking untainted science
12/27/09 Bill Steigerwald G. P. Bear goes to Washington: The true story of a freedom-loving carnivore
___________________________________________________________________________________

01/06/10 Neil Frank Climategate: You should be steamed
01/08/10 John Izzard The Pachauri affair
01/11/10 Lord Monkton Climate change: proposed personal briefing
01/15/10 Roy Spencer, PhD. A Demonstration that Global Warming Predictions are Based More On Faith than On Science
01/16/10 Patricia Adams The next big scam: carbon dioxide
01/25/10 Luboš Motl / Anthony Watts Global UAH: warmest January day on record
___________________________________________________________________________________

02/01/10 Ninad D. Sheth The Hottest Hoax in the World
02/05/10 From the University of Haifa via Eurekalert Israeli study shows variable sea level in past 2500 years
02/06/10 Des Moore The IPCC's flawed data
02/07/10 Julie Chao LBNL on Himalayas: “greenhouse gases alone are not nearly enough to be responsible for the snow melt”
02/08/10 Margaret Wente The great global warming collapse
02/10/10 Henrik Svensmark, Torsten Bondo and Jacob Svensmark Cosmic Ray Decreases Affect Atmospheric Aerosols and Clouds
02/10/10 EUReferendum White Death or How wrong can they get?
02/12/10 Henrik Svensmark Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”
02/14/10 S. Fred Singer MUST READ: The end of the IPCC
02/17/10 Marc Sheppard Evidence of Climate Fraud Grows, Media Coverage Doesn't
02/22/10 Anthony Watts The most slimy essay ever from the Guardian and Columbia University
02/27/10 Walter E. Williams Global Warming Update
___________________________________________________________________________________

03/03/10 Steven Mosher The Final Straw
03/04/10 Iain Murray & Roger Abbott Climategate: This Time It's NASA
03/08/10 Joanne Nova The money trail
03/10/10 Tom Minchin Monckton on the IPCC
03/13/10 Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD Solar and Celestial Causes of Global Warming
03/20/10 Matt Ridley The case against the hockey stick
03/22/10 Bob Carter Lysenkoism and James Hansen
03/29/10 John O’Sullivan The bubble of climate change group-think burst in a cooling world
___________________________________________________________________________________

04/01/10 E. Calvin Beisner The Illusion of "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming
04/02/10 Marco Evers, Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufetter A Superstorm for Global Warming Research
04/04/10 Des Moore Climate inquiry, now
04/09/10 S. Fred Singer End of the IPCC: one mistake too many
04/19/10 På Høyden Om forholdet mellom CO2 og global temperatur
___________________________________________________________________________________

Des Moore

Should We Believe (All) Scientists?

Some may say it ill behoves an economist to pass judgement on scientists: after all economists are obviously to blame for the current recession.

But reflecting on 28 years in Treasury (and subsequently), I conclude that many proposals by both economists and scientists do not warrant government intervention to “save” the economy and/or society. Modest expertise helped me, but my most important methodology is common sense questions – such as “how exactly will society (rather than a particular group) benefit if this proposal is implemented?”

I confess to having started with the belief that proposals by scientists should generally be accepted. After all, look at the improved living standards from the innumerable machines and medicines that scientific advances have allowed.

But when in 1972 I wrote a paper at the Royal College of Defence Studies in London on “Limits on the Supply of Resources”, I soon realised that even the best scientists need to be challenged. Worryingly, most pay little regard to either the continued upward trend in beneficial technology, or to the natural propensity for markets to encourage such developments through changes in prices. The combination of science and economics, I concluded, meant that we humans would not run out of resources even for the growing world population.

More »