Scientists can directly measure air that has been sealed in an icy time capsule for 800,000 years. Climate Science for Everyone describes how this works.
[Update: My original post, Burt Rutan’s comments, and my responses to his comments have been copied here. That post has closed comments and will be updated with any further discussion Burt and […]
Peter H. Gleick collects the five most outrageous examples of climate BS (Bad Science) from 2011, with several runners-up. Number one? All the Republican presidential candidates.
In this installment of Climate Science for Everyone – people are adding a lot of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year. But how much is “a lot,” really?
Australian author and climate disruption denialist Ian Plimer debunks himself with self-contradictory statements in his 2009 book “Heaven and Earth.”
The illegally hacked and published CRU emails do not contain enough context to draw any firm conclusions about much of anything – real investigations, where complete records are examined and the principles are interviewed about meetings, phone conversations, and white-board conversations are required. And all such investigations have found that the so-called Climategate emails show no evidence of misconduct or conspiracy.
After two years of fermenting in the back of the fridge, the Climategate hacker pulled out a rank and moldy pile of leftover emails out just in time for the second anniversary of the original illegal CRU email release.
The Heartland Institute has a history of distorting climate science and lying about climate scientists. Their latest climate-related media advisory is no exception.
Daily Caller's editor repeats falsehoods and half-truths about EPA's illusionary 230,000 new workers
Daily Caller’s editor repeats falsehoods and half-truths about EPA’s illusionary 230,000 new workers and refuses to correct or retract the original article.
Mann's critics not appeased by NSF investigation, extend unfounded "whitewash" accusations to NSF itself
The OIG confirmed Penn State’s result that Michael Mann was not guilty of research misconduct. So where are all Mann’s critics admitting they were wrong about him?