About
Posing inconvenient and often politically incorrect questions concerning climate change, within a context of concern for the well-being of the countryside, is what Harmless Sky is about. It challenges received opinion whenever there is a firm evidential basis for doing so, but it is not concerned with conspiracy theories or detailed speculation about questionable scientific research.
The author of this blog does not pretend to know whether anthropogenic global warming is taking place or not, but three years of careful research has lead him to believe that the public is being routinely mislead about the quality of the evidence that is being used to shape their opinions. It seems that climate science has become so contaminated by politics that it is no longer possible for anyone – whether scientist or layperson – to distinguish fact from fiction.
The politicisation of climate science is a major concern of Harmless Sky. Anyone who is suspicious of the dogmatic ‘scientific evidence’ that is presented to them by the media, politicians, green NGOs and businesses should find something to interest them here. And the extent to which this evidence is being exaggerated and misrepresented is apparent to anyone who cares to look behind the alarmist headlines, sound bites and slogans that now bombard us all on a daily basis.
Fear of global warming is already having a devastating effect on our landscape, with wind farms now dominating what were formerly some of the most tranquil and unspoiled parts of the countryside. This is the result of political decisions, scientific speculation, and public complacency, not observable minor geophysical changes in the climate.
Only rational and dispassionate consideration of the issues can ward off the hysteria that is now distorting every aspect of public discussion of this subject. For more information about how Harmless Sky came into being, see How this blog got its name and The wind, the climate and the media .
Hi Tony,
I wonder if you could contact me off list please re the New Statesman article.
Regards,
David.
Note to TonyN
Many people who are interested (as rational skeptics) in the ongoing scientific debate surrounding the AGW hypothesis appreciate the Harmless Sky site for exactly what it is. I, for one, am one of these.
I am sure that those (like Peter Martin) that may not completely agree with my opinions regarding this debate, will also agree with the above statement.
Rather than simply censoring out any data or opinions that do not conform with your own personal views (as some of the pro-AGW sites do as a matter of routine), I see that you allow all opinions (as long as they are pertinent to the debate and discussion).
This provides a valuable channel of communication and information for the many non-specialists that are interested in following this debate.
Thanks.
Max
Thanks Max, and I would far rather that censorship of inconvenient comments remains the preserve of ultra-warmist blogs. I don’t remember ever coming across it on a sceptical site.
Per, Alex and Brute
I’ve moved your comments, and my replies, concerning connectivity problems to the Admin thread. You’ll find them here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=104#comment-11069
Tony,
Not sure how to pm you but hope this will do.
Walked to Pont Sethin at easter and wondered why it was such a longtime since my last visit. It is a magical part of our local heritage….agriculture,engineering, optimism endeavour, banking!
But as i drew close I was horrified by the erosion of the peat track on either approach to the bridge by what looked like motorbike tracks. I was then joined by some 3 motorbikes who met with another 2 and completed the 3 hour walk in about three minutes.
I know you know about local access and highways and i know a bit about rights of way but if the parks really want to preserve some of our heritage then what are their views.
Once this peat bog flora and fauna gets broken into like this it doesn’t take long for it to change it’s character completely and i fear the SNP will just say its more than their jobsworth and keep on spending taxpayers money on papers confirming the horrors of global warming etc!
Philip
About ten years ago, the old Gwynedd footpaths officer (Will Owen) told me that it was possible to reclassify RoW very quickly if the will to do so was there. At that time we had waited years to get our RUPP sorted out.
As an example he mentioned the track from Pont Scethin over to Bontddu. Apparently someone announced that they were going to start a business conducting long distance trail bike rides from Machynlleth to Snowdon, and the path past Pont Scethin was part of the proposed route. At that time it was still shown as an unclassified road on the Definative Map.
Within a few days, parts of the way were reclassified as a footpath to prevent through traffic, but I don’t remember which parts.
I very much hope that what you saw was a one-off Easter aberration, but it would certainly be worth an email to the SNP. There is a very good guy called Gareth Davies there who seems to deal with such matters. If you contact him, I’d be very interested to know what happens.
As the forecast is good, I might go up and have a look on Sunday.
So misguided you make me want to eat my own face!!!
Chris
Perhaps you would like to elaborate on your cryptic comment then we can debate it rationally
TonyN and Philip. I know that Pont Scethin path very well it is (was?) a very fine route although I have not walked it for perhaps 6 years or so consequently I do not know its current state. It is completely inappropriate to use such a route in the National park in the manner described.
I am not against all groups having their own space per se, but some routes should be clearly off limits to mechanised transport.
Tonyb
Yes, cant quite see why it might be considered offensive to suggest that the enjoyment of the many should not be ruined by the few who may also be destroying both a Welsh heritage and a habitat that cannot be replaced?
By the way I was most excited to wake up to radio 4 informing me recently that the ice caps were indeed melting and so i waited for the expert to illuminate me as to in which location, by how much, by what percentage, by what area, at what rate, for how long, by when and based on what evidence?
During his interview he used the word “mostly” and “at an alarming rate” so i am still in the dark!
I hope these experts aren’t the same BBC climate experts that predicted the hottest summer ever to the extent that B&Q doubled their profits on outdoor garden equipment to include splashpools (water wasting), barbeques(air pollution)and gas patio heaters(energy wasting).
Or is there really is no hope for the human race?
By the way also I have just been given a large green plastic bucket on wheels by the council with “dry goods only” stamped on it. What should I do as the lid doesn’t shut properly and on the evidence of last nights light shower the design is not watertight? Should i use it to transport the children to the school bus instead of the car?
Philip:
I understand that such bins can be converted into very handy compost makers.
Update:
J. tells me that when she got her (quite legitimate) free compost maker form the council it came with a warning that using it for any other purpose was an offence. On the other hand it does have a watertight lid. So if you order a free compost maker and then ……
Only rational and dispassionate consideration of the issues can ward off the hysteria that is now distorting every aspect of public discussion of this subject.
Not sure how on earth anyone is supposed to see this site as being rational, when it has more bias than the BBC!
The author of this blog does not pretend to know whether anthropogenic global warming is taking place or not
Erm yes, that is obvious from this statement:
…And the extent to which this evidence is being exaggerated and misrepresented is apparent to anyone who cares to look behind the alarmist headlines…
Shorter Tony… “Hey, I’ll pretend I’m neutral, but really I’m not”.
Hampy
Wow!
We have a new post in this long-slumbering thread.
It’s true that Tony has his own views on the “climate change hysteria” (especially as it applies to the situation in the UK).
Who doesn’t?
But what I truly appreciate from this site, as opposed to many of those that espouse a more “mainstream” (i.e. “hysterical”) view in the ongoing climate change debate, is that this site allows all viewpoints to be aired without censoring out the “inconvenient” ones.
Joe Romm, Gavin Schmidt and some of the other strident dangerous AGW-believers could learn a thing or two from “Harmless Sky” on how to run a site that allows an open debate. But this is not their intent.
Instead, it is to make sure that only their own personal beliefs are allowed to be posted and all others are either attacked with snide “comments” or (if they are too difficult to counter) simply censored out.
Max
Max,
I hadn’t noticed this thread previously.
Tony says that he is suspicious of the dogmatic ‘scientific evidence’ that is presented to them by the media, politicians, green NGOs and businesses…”
Yes he is right to be suspicious. Don’t listen to organisations like Greenpeace or politicians like Al Gore!
To know the state of scientific opinion on the subject you need to by-pass anyone who may have a vested interest or may be offering an unqualified opinion. There are many reputable scientific organisations worldwide but the UK’s Royal Society and the USA’s National Academy of Sciences are two of the most authoritative and are as good a place as any to start.
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change/
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12784
What does the National Academy of Sciences say?
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses
significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and
natural systems.”
[This blog only exists because of what organisations like the Royal Society, NAS, Greenpeace, and political campaigners like Al Gore, say about climate change. Your comment does not make sense. TonyN]
Max, PeterM and all
This has not been the only long slumbering post on an open and free blogg that has been hit with this type of opinionated post. Could it be concerted effort by certain elements to have the last say on discussion bloggs that don’t share their point of view over “climate change hysteria”.
Hampy’s post is completely out of context and just an opinion with no purpose other than to get someone to bite. That it needs to be answered goes without saying but is indicative of the fact that those that do subscribe to “climate change hysteria” have very little of relevance to add to the scientific debate or the political debate.
PeterM
Sure, you have a different “opinion” on whether or not AGW is a serious potential threat than I do, so your comments on this topic will, by definition, be different than mine. Not necessarily any more correct, just different.
Some climate scientists might well support your viewpoint, while others would support mine.
And the fact that TonyN allows all opinions (even some of the more screwy ones, in my opinion, like those recently expressed out of the blue by Hampy) without censoring them out is a differentiator between this site and some of the more strident “pro-AGW hysteria” sites out there.
That was my whole point to Hampy.
Max
TonyN,
You seem to have a comprehension problem regarding my #13 saying
“This blog only exists because of what organisations like the Royal Society, NAS, Greenpeace, and political campaigners like Al Gore, say about climate change. Your comment does not make sense”
Let me put it another way. I was essentially commenting on your statement on how “scientific evidence” is presented to the public.
You may be right in that “the media, politicians, green NGOs and businesses” often get it wrong. Certainly magazines like the WSJ and the Spectator get it spectacularly wrong. The politicians in UKIP and BNP and businesses like Exxonmobil too are also off the mark. Not sure about NGOs. Green or not. But essentially I’m not disagreeing.
My suggestion was to ignore the lot of them and go to authoritative scientific sources. And, no, not wattsupwiththat!
Does that make more sense?
[No. TonyN]
PeterM
There are a lot of data out there – some more valid than others, perhaps.
But even the “outliers” tell us something.
Often they tell us more than the data points that lie within the “mainstream paradigm” (Kuhn).
I have personally learned a lot about the current scientific and political debate on AGW through this blog site – both directly and indirectly (including our exchanges).
I have learned less from sites like RealClimate, because they simply parrot the “party line”, with some non-constructive “groupies” simply dishing out personal insults to anyone who dares question it.
Max.
PeterM
You wrote in 13:
Wow! We are in agreement!
This certainly includes the IPCC, whose very existence depends on a potential threat from anthropogenic global warming (no potential threat from AGW = no need for IPCC to continue to exist).
Self-preservation is about as strong a “vested interest” as I have ever seen.
So this disqualifies IPCC as a source of unbiased input on AGW, by definition.
As far as “offering an unqualified opinion” goes, I’d say we have seen several examples of this in the IPCC reports (“bad science” “exaggerations”, “fabrications”, “misleading chartmanship”, “citing articles by activist groups as ‘scientific studies'”, etc.) but, what the hell, you have already disqualified IPCC as a reliable source for obtaining an unbiased version of the “state of scientific opinion on the subject” based on the first criterium, so there is no point going into all these reasons.
Glad we agree, Peter.
Max
Max,
There is a slight problem , if you think about it, with your idea of what is a vested interest. It means that no-one can ever engage any group of scientists to report on AGW because , by definition, they would be disqualified due to a “vested interest”.
In the same way no-one could ever seek the paid opinion of a doctor. Or even a car mechanic.
Is that the sort of barrier you want to raise? Will any smear do, to discredit anyone and everyone who dares give you an answer which you don’t like?
Hampy,
Its nice to have someone else like yourself who can be relied upon to make a reasoned argument.
You might have noticed that when I suggested to TonyN that he should take his scientific information from the Royal Society rather than the Spectator, Daily Mail or even the BBC, and naturally encourage others to do the same, he replied that it made no sense. He didn’t seem to understand what I was saying!
So you shouldn’t expect the highest standard of debate. If you’ve got better things to do I think I can manage perfectly OK on my own!
[I’m afraid that your sneers, unwarranted assumptions and silly questions are becoming tedious not only for me but for other users of this bog. The time has probably come when you should find somewhere else to comment. TonyN]
PeterM
You missed the point entirely on “vested interests”.
We all have them.
You do. I do.
But the IPCC has a very strong “vested interest”. It is “survival by ensuring that the AGW hysteria (which it helped create) continues” , i.e. no AGW hysteria = no need for AGW to continue to exist. (Bye-bye Cancun.) Pretty basic.
What is yours?
Max
P.S. PeterM. Re: “vested interests”: You tell me yours and I’ll tell you mine.
Max
Looks like I’m being kicked off this blog! So its time to say goodbye!
PS Max, I’d still be interested to know how you think it may be possible to set up any organisation to look at the the science of the AGW issue. How would your ideal IPCC look? And why wouldn’t they have the same vested interest that you are are complaining about with the present one.
[See NS thread here. TonyN]
Hi there,
Just following up from my recent comment about your RSS feed being published to Before It’s News.
I’m the Environment editor at Before It’s News. Our site is a People Powered news platform with over 1,000,000 visits a month and growing fast.
We would be honored if we could republish your blog RSS feed in our Environment category. Our readers need to read Harmless Sky what has to say.
Syndicating to Before It’s News is a terrific way spread the word and grow your audience. Many other organizations are using Before It’s News to do just that. We can have your feed up and running in 24 hours. I just need you to reply with your permission to do so. Please include the full name and email of the person who will be attached to the account, and let me know the name you want on the account (most people have their name or their blog name).
You can also have any text and/or links you wish appended to the end or prepended to the beginning of each of your posts on Before It’s News. Just email me the text and links that you want at the beginning and/or ending of each post. If you know html you can send me that. If not, just send me the text and a link to your site. It should be around 200 characters or less (not including links).
You can, if you like, create a custom feed for Before It’s News that includes multiple links back to your blog or web site. We only require that RSS feeds include full stories, not partial stories. We don’t censor or edit work.
All the best,
Chris Holehouse
Editor, Before It’s News
http://www.beforeitsnews.com
chris.h@beforeitsnews.com
sorry for the double post, i forgot to tick the “notify me of follow up comments box”, so here goes again… please feel free to delete the previous one, and also to move the question to a suitable thread if it´s in the wrong place…
[TonyN says: I’ve moved your original comment here, where you are more likely get a response]