Climate Science and Global Warming

(The) scandal...is, in my opinion, considerably greater than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe. This is the grossest of "bait and switch" scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge ... Full Story »

Posted by Walter Cox - via Google News (Climate Change)
Tags Help
Subjects: World, Politics, Sci/Tech
Topics: Climate Change
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Walter Cox - Dec 1, 2009 - 8:54 AM PST
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Dwight Rousu - Dec 2, 2009 - 6:18 AM PST
Walter Cox
4.5
by Walter Cox - Dec. 1, 2009

This finely crafted piece by an eminent professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology draws careful lines, niether overplaying the significance of leaked e-mails between prominent advocates of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, nor dismissing the importance of this event. More importantly, the author draws on his extensive knowledge of climate change science, and he provides valuable perspective to lay readers who often find it difficult to judge the facts that underpin the current debate.

It is seldom I read something that brings fresh air to a topic that has become overburdened with charged rhetoric. This editorial accomplishes that task with grace and elegance.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Dwight Rousu
2.0
by Dwight Rousu - Dec. 2, 2009

The Wall Street Journal is hardly a scientific journal, and has a conflict of interest via their relation to big business financial concerns. Here, peer review and critique of Lindzen's contrary evaluations are not present. Lindzen's credentials are not fully described.

See Full Review » (12 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

2.9

Average
from 3 reviews (31% confidence)
Quality
3.0
Information
2.3
Insight
2.7
Style
3.3
Context
2.3
Expertise
2.7
Originality
3.0
Relevance
2.7
Responsibility
2.3
Popularity
2.6
Recommendation
2.3
Credibility
2.3
# Reviews
1.5
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

  • Déjà vu All Over Again

    This is how it begins: Proponents of a fringe or non-mainstream scientific viewpoint seek added credibility. They're sick of being taunted for having few (if any) peer ...
    Posted by Dwight Rousu
  • Climatologist Michael Mann responds to CRU hack

    The reference to "hide the decline" is referring to work that I am not directly associated with, but instead work by Keith Briffa and colleagues. The “decline” refers to a ...
    Posted by Dwight Rousu