The science is far from settled. In reality, some of the data is ‘problematic’, the underlying physical mechanisms are complex and poorly understood, the literature voluminous, and new alternative techniques (such as our method using ANNs) can give very different answers to those derived from General Circulation Models and remodelled proxy-temperature series. Jennifer Marohasy, 21 August 2017
Our new technical paper in GeoResJ (vol. 14, pages 36-46) will likely be ignored. Because after applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution. Our results show up to 1°C of warming. The average divergence between the proxy temperature record and our ANN projection is just 0.09 degree Celsius. This suggests that even if there had been no industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels, there would have still been warming through the twentieth century – to at least 1980, and of almost 1°C. —Jennifer Marohasy, The Spectator, 22 August 2017
Twenty-eight percent (28%) of Americans think that climate scientists understand the causes of global climate change “very well.” A Pew Research study found that only 19% believe that the climate scientists have a very good understanding of the best ways to address the issue. The Pew study found that people believe there are differences of opinion among the climate scientists. Only 27% believe that there is a consensus on the issue and that just about all climate scientists believe human behavior is mostly responsible for global climate change. Another 35% think more than half hold this view. —Scott Rasmussen, 21 August 2017
If we started farming fish in all the suitable offshore habitat available globally, we could technically produce 100 times our current seafood needs, a new study reveals. Writing in Nature Ecology and Evolution, a group of researchers makes the case that this form of food production has the potential to solve some of our most pressing food security challenges and to take the pressure off wild fisheries, too. —Emma Bryce, Anthropocene, 18 August 2017
Hearing these spectacularly wrong predictions for decades, a large segment of the population has lost confidence in environmental research, regardless of its potential merits. Climate and natural resource scientists have only themselves to blame. The failure to enforce rigorous scientific standards and publicly denounce alarmists and charlatans has left many Americans feeling hoodwinked, disregarding all environmental research, which is a shame. But truth and accuracy don’t seem to matter to many environmentalists. –Lawrence J McQuillan, Investor’s Business Daily, 22 August 2017
Abiding by rigorous scientific standards is not a shortcut to fame and fortune.