So if the models are so hopelessly riddled with errors and uncertainty that an anthropogenic radiative forcing signal cannot be distinguished from noise, or if the total magnitude of the warming attributed to humans is one-tenth to one-hundredth of the error or uncertainty ranges, why are those who dare question the degree to which humans affect the Earth’s climate branded as “deniers” of science?

Kenneth Richard,

Saturday, 6 April 2013

Climate Teachers: can you find any of this junk science in your curricula?

Spotting climate materials that deserve to be binned is going to be a task for years to come given the amount of junk that can be found so easily.  

Here are three recent headlines from the JunkScience blog, along with some suggestions to help clear them up if you find them in your curricula.

For getting started on a less emotive view of ocean pH see this piece and the links within it:

For teachers looking for materials to restore some semblance of scientific sense, here is a lead relating to species extinctions - it has a fairly large set of links for further study:

The article notes The IPCC has abandoned Mann’s. Marcott has debunked his own. Why is NOAA teaching this junk?

The shoddy analyses that led to the Mann and the Marcott hockey-stick plots have been well publicised now.  It is heartening that whereas it took years to expose the former thanks to obfuscation and obstruction, the latter was undone in a matter of weeks.  

The three examples are from recent posts on Junk Science, written by Steve Milloy.  He is described there as ‘a recognized leader in the fight against junk science with more than 20 years of experience. He is the founder and publisher of, and an environmental and public health consultant. Mr. Milloy is a biostatistician and securities lawyer who has also been a registered securities principal, investment fund manager, non-profit executive, and a print/web columnist on science and business issues.

Well done, Steve Milloy.