• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

  • Start here
  • Model-Observation Comparisons
  • Miscellaneous Climate Graphics
  • Surface temperature graphics
You are here: Home / Climate Science / Welcome to the fray

Welcome to the fray

1 May 2009 by group

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 climateethics.org 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.

Filed Under: Climate Science

Reader Interactions

54 Responses to "Welcome to the fray"

Comments pagination

« Previous 1 2
  1. Mark says

    12 May 2009 at 2:25 AM

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

  2. Neil B ♪ says

    27 May 2009 at 11:56 AM

    You folks should see the pitiful logical fallacies and conspiracy-mongering going on in comments by Chu/Obama haters at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5389278/Obamas-green-guru-calls-for-white-roofs.html. 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. Jim Bouldin says

    27 May 2009 at 1:43 PM

    “You folks should see the pitiful logical fallacies and conspiracy-mongering going on in comments by Chu/Obama haters at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5389278/Obamas-green-guru-calls-for-white-roofs.html.

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

  4. catman306 says

    5 Jun 2009 at 3:08 PM

    #41

    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
    #42

    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?

« Older Comments

Primary Sidebar

Search

Search for:

Email Notification

get new posts sent to you automatically (free)
Loading

Recent Posts

  • Lil’ NAS Express
  • DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Climate Scientists response to DOE report
  • Critique of Chapter 6 “Extreme Weather” in the DOE review
  • Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Critiques of the ‘Critical Review’

Our Books

Book covers
This list of books since 2005 (in reverse chronological order) that we have been involved in, accompanied by the publisher’s official description, and some comments of independent reviewers of the work.
All Books >>

Recent Comments

  • Ted Moffett on Lil’ NAS Express
  • Mo Yunus on Climate Scientists response to DOE report
  • Piotr on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Russell Seitz on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Mal Adapted on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Steven Emmerson on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Piotr on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Steven Emmerson on Climate Scientists response to DOE report
  • Mal Adapted on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • b fagan on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Barton Paul Levenson on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Kevin McKinney on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Atomsk’s Sanakan on Climate Scientists response to DOE report
  • Kevin McKinney on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • David on Climate Scientists response to DOE report
  • Kevin McKinney on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • David on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Russell Seitz on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Mo Yunus on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Mo Yunus on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Russell Seitz on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • David on Climate Scientists response to DOE report
  • Ray Ladbury on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Susan Anderson on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • b fagan on Climate Scientists response to DOE report
  • patrick o twentyseven on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Atomsk's Sanakan on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • nigelj on DOE CWG Report “Moot”?
  • Tomáš Kalisz on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025
  • Tomáš Kalisz on Unforced Variations: Sep 2025

Footer

ABOUT

  • About
  • Translations
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Page
  • Login

DATA AND GRAPHICS

  • Data Sources
  • Model-Observation Comparisons
  • Surface temperature graphics
  • Miscellaneous Climate Graphics

INDEX

  • Acronym index
  • Index
  • Archives
  • Contributors

Realclimate Stats

1,380 posts

11 pages

246,759 comments

Copyright © 2025 · RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.