About

Add comments

Posing inconvenient and often politically incorrect questions concerning climate change, within a context of concern for the well-being of the countryside, is what Harmless Sky is about. It challenges received opinion whenever there is a firm evidential basis for doing so, but it is not concerned with conspiracy theories or detailed speculation about questionable scientific research.

The author of this blog does not pretend to know whether anthropogenic global warming is taking place or not, but three years of careful research has lead him to believe that the public is being routinely mislead about the quality of the evidence that is being used to shape their opinions. It seems that climate science has become so contaminated by politics that it is no longer possible for anyone – whether scientist or layperson – to distinguish fact from fiction.

The politicisation of climate science is a major concern of Harmless Sky. Anyone who is suspicious of the dogmatic ‘scientific evidence’ that is presented to them by the media, politicians, green NGOs and businesses should find something to interest them here. And the extent to which this evidence is being exaggerated and misrepresented is apparent to anyone who cares to look behind the alarmist headlines, sound bites and slogans that now bombard us all on a daily basis.

Fear of global warming is already having a devastating effect on our landscape, with wind farms now dominating what were formerly some of the most tranquil and unspoiled parts of the countryside. This is the result of political decisions, scientific speculation, and public complacency, not observable minor geophysical changes in the climate.

Only rational and dispassionate consideration of the issues can ward off the hysteria that is now distorting every aspect of public discussion of this subject. For more information about how Harmless Sky came into being, see How this blog got its name and The wind, the climate and the media .

33 Responses to “About”

1
David Whitehouse Says:
December 16th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Hi Tony,
I wonder if you could contact me off list please re the New Statesman article.
Regards,
David.
2
manacker Says:
December 16th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Note to TonyN

Many people who are interested (as rational skeptics) in the ongoing scientific debate surrounding the AGW hypothesis appreciate the Harmless Sky site for exactly what it is. I, for one, am one of these.

I am sure that those (like Peter Martin) that may not completely agree with my opinions regarding this debate, will also agree with the above statement.

Rather than simply censoring out any data or opinions that do not conform with your own personal views (as some of the pro-AGW sites do as a matter of routine), I see that you allow all opinions (as long as they are pertinent to the debate and discussion).

This provides a valuable channel of communication and information for the many non-specialists that are interested in following this debate.

Thanks.

Max
3
TonyN Says:
December 17th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Thanks Max, and I would far rather that censorship of inconvenient comments remains the preserve of ultra-warmist blogs. I don’t remember ever coming across it on a sceptical site.
4
TonyN Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Per, Alex and Brute

I’ve moved your comments, and my replies, concerning connectivity problems to the Admin thread. You’ll find them here:

ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=104#comment-11069
5
Philip Ferguson Says:
April 17th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Tony,
Not sure how to pm you but hope this will do.
Walked to Pont Sethin at easter and wondered why it was such a longtime since my last visit. It is a magical part of our local heritage….agriculture,engineering, optimism endeavour, banking!
But as i drew close I was horrified by the erosion of the peat track on either approach to the bridge by what looked like motorbike tracks. I was then joined by some 3 motorbikes who met with another 2 and completed the 3 hour walk in about three minutes.
I know you know about local access and highways and i know a bit about rights of way but if the parks really want to preserve some of our heritage then what are their views.
Once this peat bog flora and fauna gets broken into like this it doesn’t take long for it to change it’s character completely and i fear the SNP will just say its more than their jobsworth and keep on spending taxpayers money on papers confirming the horrors of global warming etc!
6
TonyN Says:
April 17th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Philip

About ten years ago, the old Gwynedd footpaths officer (Will Owen) told me that it was possible to reclassify RoW very quickly if the will to do so was there. At that time we had waited years to get our RUPP sorted out.

As an example he mentioned the track from Pont Scethin over to Bontddu. Apparently someone announced that they were going to start a business conducting long distance trail bike rides from Machynlleth to Snowdon, and the path past Pont Scethin was part of the proposed route. At that time it was still shown as an unclassified road on the Definative Map.

Within a few days, parts of the way were reclassified as a footpath to prevent through traffic, but I don’t remember which parts.

I very much hope that what you saw was a one-off Easter aberration, but it would certainly be worth an email to the SNP. There is a very good guy called Gareth Davies there who seems to deal with such matters. If you contact him, I’d be very interested to know what happens.

As the forecast is good, I might go up and have a look on Sunday.
7
Chris Says:
October 16th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
So misguided you make me want to eat my own face!!!
8
tonyb Says:
October 16th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Chris

Perhaps you would like to elaborate on your cryptic comment then we can debate it rationally

TonyN and Philip. I know that Pont Scethin path very well it is (was?) a very fine route although I have not walked it for perhaps 6 years or so consequently I do not know its current state. It is completely inappropriate to use such a route in the National park in the manner described.

I am not against all groups having their own space per se, but some routes should be clearly off limits to mechanised transport.

Tonyb
9
Philip Ferguson Says:
October 17th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Yes, cant quite see why it might be considered offensive to suggest that the enjoyment of the many should not be ruined by the few who may also be destroying both a Welsh heritage and a habitat that cannot be replaced?

By the way I was most excited to wake up to radio 4 informing me recently that the ice caps were indeed melting and so i waited for the expert to illuminate me as to in which location, by how much, by what percentage, by what area, at what rate, for how long, by when and based on what evidence?
During his interview he used the word “mostly” and “at an alarming rate” so i am still in the dark!
I hope these experts aren’t the same BBC climate experts that predicted the hottest summer ever to the extent that B&Q doubled their profits on outdoor garden equipment to include splashpools (water wasting), barbeques(air pollution)and gas patio heaters(energy wasting).
Or is there really is no hope for the human race?

By the way also I have just been given a large green plastic bucket on wheels by the council with “dry goods only” stamped on it. What should I do as the lid doesn’t shut properly and on the evidence of last nights light shower the design is not watertight? Should i use it to transport the children to the school bus instead of the car?
10
TonyN Says:
October 18th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Philip:

I understand that such bins can be converted into very handy compost makers.

Update:

J. tells me that when she got her (quite legitimate) free compost maker form the council it came with a warning that using it for any other purpose was an offence. On the other hand it does have a watertight lid. So if you order a free compost maker and then ……
11
Hampy Says: