Shaviv and Pielke on Climate Science in 2011

Nir Shaviv is an astrophysicist who wrote some of the more interesting studies showing the role of Gamma Ray Flux (GRF) on climate change, now belatedly being acknowledged by the climate establishment.

He gives some advice to students here: Stay away from Climate Science until you are tenured or retired!

My point is that because climate science is so dogmatic students do risk burning themselves because of the politics, if they don’t follow the party line. Since doing bad (“alarmist”) climate science is not an option either, I advise them to do things which are not directly related to global warming. (In fact, all but one of the graduate students I had, work or worked on pure astrophysical projects). I, on the other hand, have the luxury of tenure, so I can shout the truth as loud as I want without really being hurt.”

As shown by Roger Pielke Jr.’s revelation of how GRL has given up all pretense of due process, in its review of a manuscript on tropical cyclone frequency or intensity addressing the misrepresentations of increased damages due to climate change.

Cyclones were among those misrepresentations made by Chief Scientist Prof. Chubb in front of the Senate Inquiry.

UPDATE: ACM provided a transcript from Hansard.

The Cat asks How Credible is the Chief Scientist?, and Judith Sloan suggests it is a long time since he worked as one.

I cant resist this quote, directly contradicted by Pielke and other evidence.

Mr HUSIC: What would those weather events be?
Prof. Chubb: The argument at the moment is that there will be, for example, much more intense cyclones and whatever they are called in the Northern Hemisphere, and more intense rain and flooding. There will be a lot more intense and focused events of that type and that character as the climate changes. That is where the current view is.

Advertisements

0 thoughts on “Shaviv and Pielke on Climate Science in 2011

  1.  “much more intense cyclones and whatever they are called in the Northern Hemisphere”

    It is kind of funny that an “expert” is unfamiliar with the terms “Hurricane” and “Typhoon” which are the two terms other than Cyclone used to describe relatively intense tropical cyclonic storms here (I believe the Northern Indian Basin also uses Cyclone). Some problems with this statement: He makes no distinction between tropical and extra-tropical cyclonic storms. Any effects of AGW on the latter will primarily come in the form of fewer, more northward ones, probably weaker too. They effects of AGW on the former, are less certain, but “mainstream” seems to converge toward fewer overall, but greater intensity- ~marginally~ greater, as in, the change in the intensities wouldn’t even be measurable for several more decades. So “much more intense” wrong, if we interpret it to mean a much larger number of intense storms (the total decreases, even if their proportion of the total increases, this doesn’t translate to “much” greater numbers of them) or individual storms being “more intense” may be true, but not “much” more.

  2. Pingback: strona firmy

  3. Pingback: oferta

  4. Pingback: strona firmy

  5. Pingback: strona

  6. Pingback: zobacz tutaj

  7. Pingback: zobacz tutaj

  8. Pingback: wszystko o masazu

  9. Pingback: witryna www

  10. Pingback: sell your bitcoin

  11. Pingback: strona

  12. Pingback: polecam

  13. Pingback: polecam link

  14. Pingback: zobacz oferte

  15. Pingback: kliknij link

  16. Pingback: strona www

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s