Category: Climategate

Closing the Climategate

(November 18, 2010) The official inquiry might have exonerated scientists, but attitude changes are needed for science to ensure it holds the public’s trust.

Global warming gave us chocolate, says new study touting benefits to tropical forests of a much hotter climate

(November 14, 2010) If the planet heats up dramatically, as Al Gore and others fear, the planet’s tropical forests could be a big winner, according to a just-published study in Science magazine that looked at a previous warming period in Earth’s history.

CO2 blesses China and Tibet

(November 2, 2010) A team of scholars from China and Canada provides more evidence of the benefits that CO2 provides to ecologically stressed regions, in a new study entitled Evaluating the effects of future climate change and elevated CO2 on the water use efficiency in terrestrial ecosystems of China.

New Zealand’s Climategate –Act II

(October 9, 2010) Last November, I reported on accusations from New Zealand that a government agency called NIWA — New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research – had cooked the books on global warming. According to global warming skeptics at the Climate Conversation Group and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, the country’s temperatures had not climbed over the last century, as graphs produced by the agency claimed.

UK Becomes a Denier Nation

(September 30, 2010) The UK today has made it official. With the release of its revised guide to climate change by the Royal Society, the nation’s preeminent scientific organization, the UK now formally joins the ranks of the denier nations. The science on climate change is no longer certain, the Society now says.

UEA “Welcomes” Untrue Muir Russell Finding

(September 11, 2010) Shortly after the release of the Muir Russell report, I criticized their wrongheaded and untrue finding that there had not been an outstanding FOI request at the time of the notorious Jones’ request to delete all emails seeking information on IPCC correspondence that, in Fred Pearce’s words, was a ‘subversion” of IPCC policy on openness and transparency.