Joanne Nova wants this man to teach your children.
That’s should make any parent uncomfortable since not only are there dozens of errors in the “science” he writes, he also shows a clear lack of integrity and honesty.
The IPCC reports present science that shows the climate is warming and that amongst the numerous forces that affect climate, man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been a major contributor in recent times.
By contrast, Joanne Nova offers confusion. In her “merchant of doubt” role, she has no qualm about presenting contradicting theories. Her posts blame anything but CO2 for the warming.
On topics of warming, feedbacks & attribution, Nova flips back and forth. Sometimes Nova agrees that it is warming, other times she casts doubt on the thermometer record, occasionally declaring the warming has stopped. Most times Nova disputes the water vapor feedback mechanism, sometimes she unwittingly supports science that says it accounts for half of the observed warming.
On occasions when Nova does conceded that it’s warming, she flip the blame back and forth between the popular, already debunked myths of solar, natural cycles, oceans and cosmic rays. It’s difficult to have any confidence in Nova when she changes her mind on such a regular basis.
Nova’s “science” posts discussing whether or not it’s warming and the cause, are summarised below.
About $1,667 per month according to the budget of the Heartland Institute, an anti-climate science organisation willing to fund non-climate scientists to speak as if with authority on the topic of climate change. As exposed on the desmog blog there’s quite a few million up for grabs with most of it coming from organisations with a vested interest in preventing action on climate change, or by “anonymous” donors.
Joanne Nova’s up in arms claiming the documents were stolen, though Heartland have admitted they simply and stupidly emailed them to the wrong person.
Nova makes a comparison between the budget of Heartland and the budgets of many international institutions, suggesting that Heartland’s campaign is more successful. In terms of spreading misinformation, they are much perhaps much more successful, but that’s not something to be proud of. When it comes to producing climate science, they fail completely.
Don’t judge Bob Carter by the $1,667 per month he gets, judge him from the crap “science” he promotes. Then question his motives and integrity!
Don’t judge Craig Idso from the $11,600 per month he receives, judge him by the poor “science” and by his deliberate attempt to mislead readers. Then question his motives and integrity!