Posts Tagged ‘Joanne Nova’

Nova vs Nova vs Nova

February 27, 2012

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.


McLean’s Not Showing

February 15, 2012

Joanne Nova supports anyone who wishes to claim that it’s not warming, that CO2 not to blame, or that it’s about to cool even though actual climate scientists suggest otherwise.

Apparently 2010 was the end of global warming.

Read more.

Local weather is NOT global climate

January 7, 2012

According to Joanne Nova, news about local hot weather is NOT allowed.

Sky news reported that Adelaide’s 1st Jan 2012 was the hottest since 1900.

Blackouts and fires have marked South Australia’s first heatwave of the summer with Adelaide sweltering through its hottest New Year for more than a century.


Monckton – Years later and still no wiser

December 20, 2011

When faced with scientific questions that are beyond my knowledge, I think it better to seek the answer from people with years of knowledge on the subject. Mainstream peer-reviewed science is far more reliable than “web-blogger science” performed by some guy on the internet.

This time Joanne Nova, in search of answers to Venus’ climate has turned to a couple of bloggers and the self-contradicting Monckton.


Gina the Minor

December 12, 2011

Nova suspects governments worldwide are corrupt, secretly working together in order to fool everyone into thinking the planet is warming.

So to prove the climatologists all wrong, here’s the unbiased “science” as described by Australia’s richest person, mining heiress Gina Rinehart.


Nova and Lord – Plumb and Plumber

December 8, 2011

In another befuddled post, Nova looks (I’m not sure this is the right word for what she does) at Sea Levels.

Nova’s science goes from bad to “oh shit I can’t believe she’s really that stupid!!”. Let’s take a quick look.


The Nova Travesty – Cherry Picker Ahoy!!

December 3, 2011

Joanne “I never cherry pick” Nova takes to the oceans in her quest to yet again cherry pick only the science that supports her political opinion.

This time she blatantly throws out science that has warming in it … because, er, it has warming in it.


Nova’s “senior” moment

November 28, 2011

Nova’s not new to contradicting her own views, but this one’s a classic.

Nova’s recent political rant blog post is the usual mix of information from various sources, and this time she wanted to include a recent climate sensitivity that suggests the extreme limits of climate sensitivity are very unlikely (you can read more about this study here).


Nova in Moderation

November 27, 2011

Nova’s up her old tricks again, instead of engaging in debate she’s heavily moderating her forum, continually ignoring requests for evidence and ignoring arguments that she finds too difficult to answer.


Nova on Acid

October 5, 2011

Joanne Nova relies on another website call CO2Science for some of her “science”. In her latest effort Nova uses CO2Science to portray ocean acidification as something almost to embrace instead of a dangerous environmental problem that parallels global warming.

Sadly Nova and CO2Science try to deceive you with conducting poor science and a strange kind of analysis in which they document a number of scientific papers and count the number of species affected by higher levels of acidification. They classify the data by the “Type of Organism” (Bivalves, Bryozoans, Corals, Crustacean, Echinoderms, Echinoderms, Fish, Gastropods, Macroalgae, Netamodes, Phytoplankton, Seagrass), and also by “life characteristics” (Calcification, Metabolism, Growth, Fertility, Survival).

Sounds like a good approach, but there are numerous and very obvious problems with their analysis – let’s look closer.