JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



About

Who knew thousands of unpaid scientists are rising in protest against name-calling bullies and rent-seekers?

Jo Nova is a prize-winning science grad and award winning blogger. Over 2 million people have visited her site. A long time ago she was a Green, and still wants to save the world, but with the scientific method (…a good civilization is going to waste.)


Andrew Bolt described her writing as “outstanding”, and called one piece “a magnificant polemic.” She’s been quoted by James Delingpole, Christopher Booker, and Mark Steyn. She’s been blamed for the collapse of the ETS and named in the Australian Parliament. The Oxfam report on ClimateGate news improbably listed her blog influence as being equal to NASA in the Climategate email saga. The Wheeler Centre in Melbourne listed Jo Nova as the balancing counterpoint to the combined scientific weight of The UN and government departments. She must be doing something right.


Her blog won The LifeTime Achievement Award in the 2014 Bloggies and Best Australian and New Zealand Blog in 2012. Nearly 500,000 people visited it in 2013.


Dismayed at the way science was being exploited for financial gain, status and power, in 2008 she wrote The Skeptics Handbook pro bono. The booklet took off with over 220,000 copies published worldwide. It was so popular that volunteers translated it into: French, German (twice), Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, Turkish, Japanese, Danish, Czech, Portuguese, Italian, Balkan, Spanish, Lao and Thai. Her paper Climate Money was the first to document the unprecedented rise of volunteer auditors  and independent scientists and the massive one-sided way government funding worked to distort science: supporters of the man-made climate catastrophe had been paid 3,500 times as much as skeptics (yet the skeptics were called the shills). She was also the first to spotlight the influential role of banks and financial houses who had a major stake in carbon trading.

Her articles in The Australian and The Spectator include:

She has presented speeches across Australia, in New York and Washington.

A prize-winning science graduate in molecular biology, Jo has also hosted a children’s TV series on Channel Nine, and has done over 200 radio interviews, many on the Australian ABC.  She was formerly an associate lecturer in Science Communication at the ANU and is based in Perth, Western Australia.

She is married to Dr David Evans, the Stanford PhD in fourier analysis, former leading carbon modeler for the Australian Greenhouse Office. They support their own research and writing. At the moment they are living largely off donations from readers. (Thank you!)

The Blog

Jo Nova was one of the four heretics mentioned by Matt Ridley in his summation of the global effort to separate science from pseudoscience.

“The remarkable thing about the heretics I have mentioned is that every single one is doing this in his or her spare time. They work for themselves, they earn a pittance from this work. There is no great fossil-fuel slush fund for sceptics”.

Jo Nova has been mentioned or referenced by The Australian [World wide web of doubt Hot and bothered , Let's have a debate, Aunty] , ForbesThe Spectator, Mark Steyn, Andrew Bolt [here and here], ABC (the Drum1, Drum2), The Science and Public Policy Institute, The Hawaii Reporter, James Delingpole of The Telegraph (and here and here too), Christopher Booker, and The Examiner, The West Australian. Jo did a five part debate with Dr Andrew Glikson, first through Quadrant Online, then at her own blog. The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald tried to disparage her with an ad hominem. So did Clive Hamilton. Of course, Joanne has her own DeSmog Blog page (which she is quite proud of)

Jo has been interviewed on The John Batchelor Show (NY) [1] [2], the Corbett Report and with Michael Smith on 4BC and on Global Cooling Radio.

A varied career

Jo Nova is the stage name of Joanne Codling. She took up the name in 1998 for privacy reasons when she started work with Channel Nine as the host of a childrens TV series. Professionally, everything since then was done as Joanne Nova — the book, the TV series, her speaking and radio programs, and the joannenova.com.au website, which was registered way back around the year 2000.

Joanne spent five years touring Australia with Shell Questacon Science Circus. For her first full time job, she managed the half million dollar exhibition with a team of twelve. As an associate lecturer at ANU Joanne helped to develop the Graduate Diploma in Science Communication in its earliest years. Her favourite hands-on science experiments were published as a book Serious Science Party Tricks, in 2003.

Since 2008 Joanne has focused on the science of monetary systems, financial history, the gold market, and has also become heavily involved in communicating the science of carbon’s role in “Climate Change”. Joanne attended the UNFCCC in Bali Dec 07, has spoken in New York at the International Climate Change Conference, and to Senate staffers  in Washington DC, as well as to Australian leaders of business and banking at Consilium, for the Centre for Independent Studies.

Joanne has delivered keynote speeches at conferences on the latest advances in science. Her favourite topics include discussing the medical revolution and how we may all outlive our superannuation.

Joanne has also managed programs bringing hands-on science to street kids in Melbourne and remote Aboriginal communities as well as earning money as a cartoonist, graphic designer and illustrator. She is into liberty, health, money, history, and climate science, as well as anthropology, and Austrian economics.


Joanne Nova lives in Perth, Australia. She welcomes comments (but not spam) email: joanne AT joannenova.com.au (replace the ‘AT’ with’@’ to foil nasty agents.)  She received no funding for the first Skeptics Handbook or to create this site. Donations help to cover costs, and made the second Handbook possible in late 2009. She and her husband are self employed.

Her phone number is unlisted, she does not live in Bateman or Palmyra. (Please don’t phone them!).

More details about her speaking, TV, radio work and qualifications here.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.3/10 (55 votes cast)
About, 5.3 out of 10 based on 55 ratings

48 comments to About

  • #

    [...] “Professional Speaker” turned climate expert Nova rehashes two of the more common skeptic talking points, that: the world is no longer warming and the Vostok ice core record proves that rising CO2 emissions are not… [...]


    Report this

    105

  • #

    [...] written not by a practicing researcher of course, but by a woman named Jo Nova whose past vocations included hosting of children’s program in Australia and touring Australia with a “science [...]


    Report this

    1210

  • #
  • #
  • #

    [...] berömde henne för att vara en grävande journalist som lever upp till sitt ethos som journalist. Joanne Nova kallar sig för ”vetenskapskommunikatör”, vilket kanske är ett något vidare begrepp än [...]


    Report this

    11

  • #

    Global warming is not due to greenhouse gases, its due tothe earth’s orbit around the sun destabilizing, you have been lied too. Please read my blog at: orbital-decay1.blogspot.com..


    Report this

    126

  • #
    Maggie S

    Dear JoNova,

    The Australian Government/DFAT government are looking to sell us out to the overseas corporations once and for all by signing up with this Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement – Free Trade.

    Are you able to contact all your other contacts/links because there is a deadline for Submissions mid July 2012.

    Big Business mainly overseas entities operating in Australia have put in submissions approving this agreement but its all to the detriment of Australian Sovereignty and its people. Basically it surrenders powers to large corporations and gives them more power over our land including resources etc. Please look into it because they are having a meeting in August in Sydney however there is a deadline this month for submissions. Because its so secret most people are not aware of it and my submission will have no weight.

    What can we do to contest this?

    http://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/tpp/index.html#news
    http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/leaks-indicate-tpp-may-diminish-australian-sovereignty/
    http://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/tpp/index.html#news

    Regards,
    Maggie


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Skiphil

    Hi, enjoy your site which I am just getting to know better (I’m a regular at BH and CA and WUWT).

    I know you have bigger fish to fry with the carbon tax etc. but if you know of any journalists or bloggers who might be interested, I think there seem to be some bizarre statements and behaviors associated with David Karoly, the Australian Book Review, and also of course the larger context of the dubious Gergis et al (2012) paper. For just the most recent examples:

    David Karoly still smearing Steve McIntyre


    Thanks for the tip :-) Jo


    Report this

    10

  • #

    [...] I’m an “Australian journalist” but if he’d done ten seconds of research and read the  “About” page on my site,  he’d have seen that I’m not and have never been a journalist. It’s [...]


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Roger Turner

    Hi, your statement that you would not like to see a good civilization go to waste rings true for me also. I have spent the good part of seven years researching to find out why we are in the mess we are in. Even though conditions are improving in the human world we are still in grave danger of going down the same path of many civlizations before us. I tried to find the source of our madness and ending up putting it into a book form. The Trinity Matrix 2012 (at http://www.scribd.com)is an attempt to identify ‘the brain of the beast’, i feel that if enough people see the pattern mentioned in the book then human awareness of self and our universe will be able to improve and sustain our civilization. Please have a read, it is free of cost.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Simon Conway-Smith

    Great blog Jo, and your work on debunking climate pseudo-science is amongst the best.

    Here’s one for you to explore then, I’m calling it “minushalfgate:)

    This must yet be the simplest and easiest debunk of the greenhouse gas / back-radiation effect hypothesis there is…

    I use arbitrary units and scales for illustrative purposes.

    The greenhouse gas / back radiation effect, which is at the core of the global warming scam, says that upwelling heat energy from the surface is absorbed and some re-radiated back to the surface, further warming it.

    This hypothesis is the greatest and simplest maths error the world has ever known.

    This is it…

    - When 1 unit of energy is lost from the surface, its temperature drops by 1 unit.
    - CO2 absorbs and retransmits a portion back to the surface, the ‘back radiation’.
    - As the re-radiated energy is in random, i.e. all directions, a maximum of 0.5 units can be downward, i.e. back radiated. Let’s call that 0.x.
    - The hypothesis sums these two, 1 + 0.x = 1.x, i.e. >1 and therefore warming.

    This is completely WRONG!

    The calculation should be -1 + 0.x = <1, i.e. cooling. The lost unit MUST be counted as -1 (minus 1) and not +1 (plus 1).

    This corrected calculation also does not make any assumption about the atmospheric composition, and doesn’t need to. Even if the atmosphere were 100% CO2, the back radiation could not be >0.5, so even 100% CO2 could not heat the surface!

    The maths error is to assume the surface still has that unit of energy, where it has lost it. The maths error creates this unit of energy out of nothing, which is impossible.

    This means that the hypothesis debunks itself, so other correct hypothesis needed.

    This is why I called it:- minushalfgate

    [Did you forget where that original 1 unit comes from and continues to come from during daylight hours? mod oggi]


    Report this

    12

  • #
    Simon Conway-Smith

    [Apologies: penultimate paragraph should read "This means that the hypothesis debunks itself, so NO other correct hypothesis is needed"]


    Report this

    12

  • #

    Could you indicate the exact link of Prof Parncutts statement (death penalty for deniers)

    Kind regards
    erner


    Report this

    20

  • #
    jim2

    Did Oz change its brush cutting policy? I didn’t know you guys were having fires again.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-04/wildfires-hit-australia-amid-worst-heatwave-in-decade.html


    Report this

    01

  • #
    steve bunn

    I read in ACIM that to totaly understand something you must understand the totality.
    Many influences affect the earths surface temperature and much of the disagreement on the subject is because there are so many influences and it is all too easy to overlook one or more of them.
    I have a question for a scientist who can answer me this; If the weight of the atmosphere increased by 0.15% how much would the avg temp at the surface increase? I haven’t heard this discussed but if man is increasing the weight of the atmosphere then AGW is real even if the green house effect is totally illusionary.
    steve bunn, perth WA 26/1/2013


    Report this

    11

  • #

    [...] JoNova runs the hugely popular award winning Skeptical Science blog JoNova in Australia, with a World wide readership. She is the author of The Skeptics Handbook, now translated into 16 languages. [...]


    Report this

    13

  • #
    David West

    I have been skeptical about the proposition that there is dangerous anthropogenic global warming pretty much since it was first raised in the 80s. I have always been a “weather nerd” and I soon realised that many of the statements made about dangerous warming were either not true or being made by people unqualified to comment. However, I am a person of the moderate political left. I vote for the Australian Labor Party. It is kind of disturbing that the global warming debate has become a highly charged rhetorical debate between the left and the right – it should be a scientific debate. When politicians bring in emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes they are doing it on the advice of their senior scientists. What they are doing might be pointless, but it is in a way quite honorable. I guess the polarisation between left and right over this issue is inevitable, but it doesn’t produce a well-reasoned debate. The green movement has a lot to offer in helping to protect the natural environment but i fear it will be held up to ridicule if the promised dangerous global warming fails to materialise. Any way I just thought I’d offer an alternative perspective from a sceptic on the left.


    Report this

    02

    • #

      David you are most welcome here.

      Part of the reason things are so horribly politicized is that left leaning journalists have failed us badly. By not reporting both sides of the story, and doing their best to supress skeptical voices they have let down the left-leaning politicians they think they are helping. Politicians of the left and right have funded unskeptical scientists to advise them of unskeptical things. Politicans could have avoided the mess by being skeptical of the media and seeking out opposing views themselves (“know thine enemy” is always good advice). But they didn’t.

      Hence an error cascade of horrible proportions means vested interests creamed money while well intentioned but lazy politicians and journalists assumed someone else had done the rigorous honest questioning. Many people mistook “denier” for a scientific term, and scandalous amounts of money have been wasted trying to change the weather.

      If you have questions about the science, we’re only to happy to answer them. Sadly, due to anonymous trolls who toss names and refuse honest answers, many commenters here may assume you don’t have good intentions, but I will do my best to keep discussions polite and friendly. They are the most valuable discussions of all. Indeed, I’d host a special thread if you are keen, and ask everyone to tone down the language.


      Report this

      22

  • #
    steve bunn

    I see a lot of similarities between the complicated science of climate and the complicated science of weight loss. After hundreds of millions of dollars being spent studying hundreds of thousands of people over the last 100 yrs we still have an obesity epidemic that has only got worse since the 1980s when scientific consensus told us that low fat diets are good for us. Since then smoking has decreased but heart disease has increased. When a subject is as complicated as climate or weight loss it is all too easy to study a small part of the puzzle and come to any conclusion you want to. From what I have read a low CO2 diet is not going to improve the health of the planet. It’s so frustrating hearing politicians like Oblama spout lines like “We haven’t got time to discuss the science with the flat-earthers.” Frustrating because too many will believe him. steve bunn, perth


    Report this

    25

  • #

    Jo,

    Were there any allegations of academic misconduct lodged with UWA re Lewandowsky? I live near Bristol where he has pitched up and am trying (but failing) to point out to them that they have employed a charlatan.


    Report this

    42

  • #
    krunel

    What I’d like to see from Jo is an engagement with climate scientists. What I see on this site is lots of commentary, speculation, opinion, and attempts to influence opinion …most of it in disagreement with the science being published. What I don’t see here is any meaningful attempt to engage with the science. In its place is cherry-picking and misinterpretation. There is a huge question mark about the credibility of this site.


    Report this

    45

    • #

      1. Read my link The Evidence. I’m not in disagreement with most published papers. I’m in disagreement with a government committee that reviews the ones it wants and ignores the ones it doesn’t.

      2. Engagement with climate scientists? I’ve done a 5 part debate with Dr Glickson, who is welcome to send part 6, but hasn’t. I’ve emailed Prof Andy Pitman, before I even started blogging, but when I asked, he refused to let me publish the emails. The people running scared from a debate are not the skeptics.


      Report this

      72

  • #
    krunel

    @Jo

    Look, I don’t know what to say. I followed the link to The Evidence – thanks.

    I politely suggest you check your refs. I realise you’re not submitting to peer review, but it would be good to understand why some of the papers you cite next to a claim say nothing in support, or contradict the claim.

    “…reviews the ones [papers] it wants and ignores the ones it doesn’t” is cognitive dissonance.

    Similar dissonance when giving an example of engaging with climate scientists in a debate where you make a call-to-action, “It’s time for universities to be called to order, and shamed for their pathetic standards of logic and reason.”


    Report this

    21

  • #
    Gentle Tramp

    Did you know this alarming and important documentary film?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5igyXyJKL_0

    I like your brave and well done blog!

    Best regards,

    Gentle Tramp
    [Thank you for the reference. I think Jo already knows about this movie, but I will check] -Fly

    [Thanks. No I didn't know of this. Interesting. Always best if you post a long video to give us a short description about it. More people will watch and it's easier for mods to release it. It is a good documentary. Cheers! - Jo]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bonjour from France,
    The best websites about climate are yours (English) and http://www.pensee-unique.fr (French).
    Thanks Mrs Joanne Nova for your pertinent information on IPCC theories.
    Yves Barois (Dordogne, France)


    Report this

    13

  • #
    Murray

    Just wondering if the BOM ever released the method for calculating the hottest ever data?

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/mystery-black-box-method-used-to-make-all-new-australian-hottest-ever-records/

    Cheers

    Murray


    Report this

    00

  • #

    BBC run a piece blaming flooding in Somerset, UK on Global Warming. Only intended as a poop n scoot limited visibility propaganda item (disappears after 24hrs on BBC iPlayer) – ripped and YouTubed for posterity 18m30s in is the “good bit” here :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrwLj5BV6zA&feature=youtu.be


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Les Ashbourne

    Hi Jo,

    Global Warming to cause more rapes.

    Just wait until Tim Flannery hears about this prediction. This will be his new scare!

    http://conservativebyte.com/2014/02/global-warming-cause-rapes/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gerry Van Hees

    As there presumably are thousands of scientists who are 97% agreed that AGW is an issue, would it be a worthwhile project to gather the names and qualifications in relevant fields of your respondents. I have been an ardent follower of your blog for some years. I have noticed that most of your commenters appear to have a good grasp of the issues raised and appear to be scientists in a variety of fields.
    To have such a list would further enhance the status and authority of your blog.
    Just a thought!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Mal Rosher

    Hi Jo! Did you hear that Jennifer got a good rap from Senator MacDonald (?) in the Senate today?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tony Gibson

    Hi Jo,

    Go girl! I only just chanced your blog page this evening. I’ve been a long standing in principle supporter of David Evans and now find that he’s your hubby. How wonderful!
    Keep on giving it to the deceivers of the left who don’t value the truth, only the fulfilment of their pre-supposed ideas on how life should be and their struggle (jihad) to twist and turn the facts to their own ends. Don’t let them off hook.
    Unfortunately, there’s very few honest people in the public domain, and so when I see you, Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine, Piers Ackerman, Mike Smith and others of like mind, then I’m always interested in what you have to say, and to support as much as I am able.
    To bring this country around we have to make sure that our children are not brainwashed with the politically correct garbage that is disseminated by the left in school curricula-especially in the history/humanities. Too many young minds are being deceived and corrupted by the agendas that are being set in place by the socialist left. It’s wicked. Parents who take the time and make the effort to understand what is happening to our world must remain the primary educators of their children.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Petra Vooth

    Dear Mrs Joanne Nova,

    you have been writing about Mr. Murry Salby recently. Do you know, where he lives now or how I can contact him ? I listened to his speech in Hamburg april 2013. As I read on his problems after the journey to Europe I would like to find out, whether he is fine again.
    best regards Petra Vooth Germany

    [I have forwarded your comment to Murry, and hope to get news myself soon. - Jo]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anon

    As an ex BOM Observer of over three decades, l agree, these climate fools have trashed the BOM’s reputation. It makes me cry to see the observations that have been performed by competent, well trained dedicated career weather observers over many decades have been altered by the desk bound climate despots who have never worked at a weather station all their lives and who cant even recognise cloud types or even perform a weather observation.
    [Please resubmit this to the current thread, where it would be more appropriate.] Fly

    We are keen to hear from weather observers. And it’s fine if you need to be anonymous. I understand. We would very much like to hear more from you, and so will other commenters on the newer threads. The comment will disappear in this thread, which would be a shame. – Jo


    Report this

    10

  • #

    “She’s been quoted by James Delingpole”

    Say no more! Quoted by someone with a Bachelor’s in English lit! Because people who haven’t published on climate science are the best possible resources for information on climate science. Click through for a whole day’s worth of howlers.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/james-delingpole

    [Daniel, read the guide to commenting at this site. This comment is an ad hominem, that is, a personal attack. (How unscientific). If you care what qualifications high profile commentators on climate science have, you should at least start with the Chairman of the IPCC, or Al Gore, or Tim Flannery, or Clive Hamilton. - Mod]


    Report this

    20

  • #

    [...] globally by a recent study, along with with Watt’s Up With That and Climate Audit. On her About page she says “A long time ago she was a Green, and still wants to save the world, but with the [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve

    Just another denialist pretending to be a critical thinker. Yawn. Next…

    [Just another University of GA (USA) student failing to provide an example of what is denied. Your accusation is in fact a classic projection. Yawn indeed. Next. ]ED


    Report this

    10

  • #

    To the mod who responded to my comment:

    Pointing out the absence of relevant qualifications within a discipline that demands expertise is not ad hominem. You have appealed to James Delingpole of all people, and we have a right to point out how misguided that is. He has no formal qualifications in climate science and it is self-evident in his writings. One could go seriatim and debunk each of his claims, but I suspect you would just call this ad hominem as well…

    Best,

    Daniel

    ————–
    Daniel, if I’m barking mad and all wrong, it’ll be easy to explain why. That would be a scientific debate. Do join us and give it your best shot. But if you can’t, perhaps you don’t know what you are talking about? (Like with rhetoric eh? Attacking quals is absolutely the pure ad hominem argument). Any time you want to talk science, you’re welcome. – Jo


    Report this

    20

  • #

    “Daniel, if I’m barking mad and all wrong, it’ll be easy to explain why…Any time you want to talk science, you’re welcome.”

    That’s interesting, because in my first comment here I dropped a link to my post on this topic and it was clipped out of the comment. I will try once more:

    http://www.waivingentropy.com/2012/03/24/a-climate-of-change/

    The fact that you moderate your comments and clip out those which you deem inconvenient to your cherished narrative says it all really. The only other places on the internet you find such draconian comment moderation (or no commenting system at all) are creationist websites.

    Daniel, I’ve been away from the desk a lot in Jan. I don’t recall ever seeing or snipping your entropy link, though I’m the one who approved your last comment even though the mods were correct that it was ad hom and in the wrong place. I note that we’re so scared of waivingentropy that we’ve published your site link in your signature twice, and let through the link to desmog as well. The mods are trying to get you to comment on a thread where others will see it and respond (isn’t that what you want?). You’ve ignored them, and persistently misunderstand ad hominem (which you keep making). All that breaches site rules, yet still we published you. If you’d responded as the mdos requested they would have approved it – Jo.

    You also continue to miss my point about qualifications. No, they are not all that matters. But if you have no formal quals *AND* what you put out there is so egregiously mistaken in said science for which you have no quals, then we should steer a wide course around those people. They are not reliable sources. Enter James Delingpole. His background is in literature, as far from the regime of relevance to climate science as you could possibly get. Moreover, this is borne out repeatedly in his posts, which lob elementary error after elementary error and which distort the details in obvious ways.

    As usual you have an empty hand when it comes to evidence of “elementary errors”. This is all logical fallacy, bluster and no fact. You are not making a scientific case. – Jo

    So the fact that you thump Delingpole in support of your view tells us everything we need to know about your reliability. This is not ad hominem to point this out. We would make the same conclusion about an evolution-denier who cited Kent Hovind.

    Best,

    - Daniel

    1. Presume “thump” in your lingo means “like”.
    2. It is ad hom, and you do it via argument from authority and then also by association. A triple fallacy. If man A has no “authority” and makes alleged but undescribed mistakes, then man B may never refer to Man A for any argument (you say) because all things Man A ever said are now “proved” wrong. If Man B supports Man A on any point, then Man B is then also “proved” wrong. By this method only people approved by the government and licensed as “experts” may discuss ideas in public.
    3. I’m sorry this took a couple of days to approve, but on a 6 year old inactive thread, that hardly matters. Given that you break site rules in at least two ways, I guess you’ll be grateful. ;-) – Jo


    Report this

    10

    • #

      Here is the mod comment for Daniel, which the mod took the time to add inside his held comment so he could read it. I’m posting it to show how much effort the mods took to try to help him. – Jo

      [Hi Daniel - this comment wont be posted for two reasons. Firstly, the 'About' section of Jo Nova's blog is meant to be 'About Jo Nova', there is ample opportunity to discuss specific issues about climate science either as the topics come up, or when we have an 'Open Thread' weekend. Secondly, we prefer posters who add a link to describe what is at the link and how it is relevant to the argument. Not to just give our readers a referral to some off sight reading. What you have done is basically linked to your manifesto. This isn't appropriate, though if in a particular topic you want to quote something relevant from your web site you are free to do so, and then add the link for anyone who wants to pursue the source. I hope that clarifies matter for you.

      On a couple of other matters:
      1. Moderators are voluntary and are simply here to keep the blog respectable and on topic. We use a little discretion for new users, and regular commentators, but if you haven't read the rules about posting you should. We certainly do not snip any views which meet the posting guidelines, we prefer to allow readers to have debates. I doubt you would find a more open blog site in climate science anywhere with the 'alarmist' cites commonly blocking and snipping inconvenient material. You are welcome to post you comments in support of the so called consensus when appropriate matters come up for discussion.

      2. If you attack a persons qualifications rather than their argument, then that most certainly is an ad hominem - an attack on the man. Coincidentally James Delingpole in the chapter titled 'Experts as Ideologues'. He writes that whenever someone wants to prove he has nothing useful to add to the climate science debate, they ask what qualifications he has. He happily admits he achieved a 'B' in Physics 'O' Level and has an MA in English Language and Literature from Oxford. He writes that in his experience you are right to be concerned because there is a terrifying correlation between English Literature Degrees and off-the-scale-ignorance about the environment.

      For example he points out BBC environmental commentator and gatekeeper against any skeptical viewpoints getting through to the BBC read English Literature at Cambridge. Caroline Lucas, Britain's first Greens MP, "who once claimed in all seriousness that flying on a holiday is as bad as knifing someone in the street...." Guess what qualification she has? Tasmin Omond "the Westminster educated Baronets grand-daughter turned hardcore activist once dumped a truckload of horse poo on Jeremy Clarckson's doorstep in protest at his environmental correctness also has English Lit qualifications. So too does Baroness Worthington from Friends of the Earth and architect of the 2008 British Climate Change Act also excelled in English and English Lit. Our own Tim Flannery has an undergraduate degree in English Literature before doing his doctorate in small animal palaeontology and he was our Climate Commissioner. In fact the climate activist side of the debate is full of non climate science qualified people from the IPCC Chairman to the Nobel Prize winning Al Gore, so I am sure James Delingpole would be happy to shut up on the subject if only those on the other side would. But he points out that he doesn't have to have a science degree to work out that what the peer reviewed reports say and what the synthesised IPCC reports and press releases say are two different things. He doesn't have to have a science degree to work out when a climate alarmist is avoiding or obfuscating a hard question. And his English skills probably better qualify him to pick up contradictory information coming from the so called climate experts.

      3. When you find a way to equate a skeptic with an evolution denier in a twisted analogy, that too would be considered an ad hominem.

      Cheers
      Mod]


      Report this

      02

  • #

    “this comment wont be posted for two reasons.”

    Everything after that is bullshit. You don’t get to tout your own horn as one of the more “open blogs” on the internet and in the next breath delete my comment while snipping out the links in my previous comments. This is unfettered hypocrisy.

    Nope, if the shoe fits, wear it. The only other place I have seen these tactics is on creationist websites. I will be sharing my experiences here with colleagues and with anyone who ever references “JoNova” going forward.

    Best,

    - Daniel

    [would you please also share with your colleagues that you are too thick to realize that you are posting in the wrong place and that is why it isn't going to be published? jeezzzsh! Rant and wail all you want but do it in a CURRENT THREAD! dumb dumb dumb dumb] ED


    Report this

    20

    • #

      Daniel, we note you failed to provide a single scientific argument as requested and went for the “threat” instead. (Good luck with that ;-) ).

      We were trying to help you make sensible arguments and post your links in places where they would be seen and discussed. The mods didn’t think your uninformed rants were worth posting, but I thank you. You help show how aggressive and unscientific this debate is.


      Report this

      02

  • #

    Ice age now 2015. Do you know why solar Irradiance drops? Send me your email addy!


    Report this

    01

  • #
    gator69

    FYI – David Appell is attacking you…

    # David Appell 2015-04-10 21:21
    It’s not my fault Joanne Nova can’t read a figure correctly. (The hotter regions are dark red, not red or light red.)

    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/scientists-debunk-climate-models.html#comment-48928

    I appreciate you, and your work, and hate to see a cowardly attack from such a piece of work.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gator69

    And again…

    # David Appell 2015-04-10 21:52
    It’s not Sherwood’s fault if you and Nova can’t read the scale on a graph.


    Report this

    00

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>