Discussion > Other climate related websites
That's an extreme site, even by our standards! I wonder what Jeremy makes of it?!!!
Mark Hodgson
Mark Hodgson, Piers Corbyn does seem to cultivate the "mad scientist" image, and completely rejects CO2 as the temperature control knob for the planet.
His forecasts of significant "weather events", months in advance, have proved more reliable than medium range weather forecasts made by those committed to faith in Climate Science.
Describing him and/or his site as "extreme" is a bit unfair, "oddball" perhaps, but he is NOT a screwball!
The two brothers have demonstrated no intention of criticising each other's views on climate or politics. Perhaps they have sympathy for each other's views. J.Corbyn has never been too vocal in his support for Climate Science, perhaps he has seen the damage done to the UK's working classes.
golf charlie
States that his forecasts are more reliable but refused to be independently tested.
Steve Richards
Steve Richards, as I understand it, he refuses to reveal his methodology, in order that it can be tested, but unlike Mann, his results are sufficient for him to earn, without taxpayer funding.
He is treated as an outsider/maverick by many, but his views and opinions are worth more to mankind than a Hockey Stick, and certainly represent better value for the taxpayer.
golf charlie
There are plenty of academic papers about solar forcing around:
And if you want more, here is a deluge of papers :) :
NoTricksZone: 100+ Papers – Sun Drives Climate
Robert Christopher
Robert Christopher, computer programmed adjustments drive Global Warming in Climate Science.
No one else has noticed anything at all that is not inconsistent with the MWP or LIA, and it seems logical that the big red thing does not produce a constant output.
golf charlie
On Wuwt, Willis sometimes receives Corbyn forecasts and, without fail, shows that they are useless.
Diogenes
golf charlie,
So what with computer programing and human creativity being the true genesis of "climate change" one can truly say that cliamte change is human caused, 100%. In the same way a movie or play is man made....
hunter
hunter on Jan 25, 2017 at 1:28 PM
It can also be put theologically:
"Within [Hinduism] ... there is a remarkably concise definition of idolatry: “confusing your own concept (or model or image) with the actual reality.”"
...
When the 10 Commandments prohibits making graven images, we immediately think of physical objects like a golden calf standing in for a god. Of course we see the folly of that, and take the warning seriously. Several faiths disapprove of any images at all, lest those inferior representations become the object of worship.
...
But now let's think about science, and examine that Hindu definition of idolatry again. For several centuries now, we have had some scientific models of nature that are exceptionally good. Newton's Classical Mechanics is perhaps the earliest shining example. It accounted for things in motion on earth, and even for the motions of the planets. When slight abnormalities were found, LaPlace introduced perturbation theory to explain them. By the late 19th century, Classical Mechanics was complete and so good that scientists believed the world was deterministic. Scientists had a very good theory, and believed it represented nature perfectly.
That was idolatry: thinking that your model truly represented the underlying reality."
The rest of the article discusses The Standard Model, Evolution, Richard Feynman's famous quote, and the "Enormously complex models of the climate of the entire globe run on supercomputers" with the output results "sold as accurate representations of what nature does and what it will do."
It's IDOLATRY!
"Idolatry has been a recurring stain across all of human history, and each time one form is eliminated, it pops our somewhere else."
Robert Christopher
RC, it would be nice to think the climate alarmists have simply been seduced by the golden calves on their sinuous models. Alas, it's not the beauty which bewitches them, it's the gilding, the gold.
===============
kim
Willis is wonderful, backed by Leif, at debunking solar effects on the climate caused by the eleven year solar cycle, but both are blind, relatively speaking, to the concept of century, millennial, or longer scale solar cycles, perhaps(probably) mediated in some other way than just plain TSI, such as through cosmic rays or ultry-violet rays or other cloud and/or albedo effecting mechanisms.
Not that both of them haven't spent a lot of time looking; I give credit to both of them, who've taught me much reliable stuff.
====================
kim
http://www.weatheraction.com
Jump down to: Why the CO2 'Theory' Fails for the facts!
It is Piers Corbyn's web site and here is a taster:
Harrabin is a Science denier and we challenge him - along with BBC- MetOffice's John Hammond to justify their case in public debate on their misleading claims which are a disgrace to the BBC, Met Office and world science.