RealClimate logo

Technical Note: Sorry for the recent unanticipated down-time, we had to perform some necessary updates. Please let us know if you have any problems.

Welcome to the fray

Filed under: — group @ 1 May 2009

As imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we’ve naturally been delighted that a number of sites have sprung up over the past few years with missions complementary to our own focussing on the science of climate change. Last year, we were introduced to “climate ethics”, whose mission it is to focus on the ethical dimensions of climate change. Now there is “RealClimateEconomics”, whose aim it is to focus on the economic considerations surrounding climate change. Neither this site nor has any formal relationship with RealClimate, despite the similarity in name. We do nonetheless welcome them to the fray. We are pleased to add them to our blogroll, which we hope has become a useful resource for those wishing to explore the broader discourse on climate change that lies beyond the science.

54 Responses to “Welcome to the fray”

  1. 51
    Mark says:

    re 43: so ask your friend why he thinks either of those things.

  2. 52
    Neil B ♪ says:

    You folks should see the pitiful logical fallacies and conspiracy-mongering going on in comments by Chu/Obama haters at No wonder it is so hard to garner support for climate change issues. These people can’t understand combined net effects, basic science, they lie or were misinformed about the current trends, don’t appreciate statistical variance etc. It isn’t just about climate: the USA can’t be competitiveness with such scientific illiteracy. Right-wing and corporate influences are mostly to blame.

    PS: If you like “relativity paradoxes” then please check out my blog!

  3. 53
    Jim Bouldin says:

    You folks should see the pitiful logical fallacies and conspiracy-mongering going on in comments by Chu/Obama haters at

    If you enjoy food fights by imbeciles during a train wreck that is.

  4. 54
    catman306 says:


    Speaking of cooked numbers, does anyone know why April’s seasonally adjusted CO2 was about .5 ppm lower than March’s? I would have thought in a perfect world, that the number would have increased when seasonal adjustments are made. I would assume that this result is a mathematical artifact that indicates the imperfection in the method of seasonal adjustment.

    Comment by Todd Bandrowsky — 11 May 2009 @ 2:38 PM

    re: 41

    Worldwide recession.

    Comment by Jeffrey Davis — 11 May 2009 @ 2:59 PM

    Does that mean that if we have a long term recession our CO2 will quickly stabilize or even decrease? Could this give us more time until global temperatures get completely out of hand?

Switch to our mobile site