I was driving in the middle of Nevada when all this happened, and was offline the entire time. So I can’t claim any credit here. But, it sure is nice to see that the collection of people who visit and post here have had an impact. I offer my particular thanks to WUWT contributor John Goetz. It seems Gavin agrees. I’m up early this morning on my trip back home, and I was quite surprised to find this on RC. See this comment from Gavin Schmidt on Real Climate:
You and McIntyre are mistaken. The first intimation of a problem was posted on Watt’s blog in the comments by ‘Chris’ at around 4pm EST. By 7pm in those comments John Goetz had confirmed that the NOAA file was the problem. Notifications to the GISTEMP team of a problem started arriving very shortly after that, and I personally emailed them that evening. However, no action was taken until the next morning because people had left work already. They had decided to take the analysis down before 8.14am (email time stamp to me) since the overnight update to the NOAA file (uploaded 4.30am) had not fixed the problem. McIntyre’s intervention sometime that morning is neither here nor there. Possibly he should consider that he is not the only person in the world with email, nor is he the only person that can read. The credit for first spotting this goes to the commentators on WUWT, and the first notification to GISTEMP was that evening. – gavin
John Goetz writes later in RC comments, it appears that Steve McIntyre at least raised the consciousnous level with his first blog posting:
For what it is worth, Chris posted his discovery on WUWT about 45 minutes before I made my update indicating an error existed. However, I made my posting because of two emails Steve Mc sent me about two hours prior. The first was the email John S. sent him, quickly followed by a confirmation from Steve. I simply had not checked email due to being busy with work. Steve had already written most of his post by the time I saw the emails.
Not sure it really matters who was there first. I am ashamed to say I saw the big red blotch in central Asia and was so insensitized that I did not investigate it further. Perhaps I’ve lost my critical eye.
Despite some commenters there at RC referring to WUWT in less than glowing terms, I’m pleased that this blog has been a vehicle for, ahem, “climate change”. 😉 Being first really isn’t all that important, getting the data right is.
Quality control is the issue. It is the reason that I started the surfacestations.org project. If after QC for climate data has been suitably addressed with a standards compliant methodology, such as ISO-8000, I’ll be satisfied with the final data. Right now I’m not convinced that the surface data is truly representative.
Gavin, if you’d like to do a guest post here on this error, the floor is yours. Just leave a comment or drop an email. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
davidcobb:
I did not “take into account” anything about GISTEMP. I took the published GISTEMP data for the USA lower-48 and compared it to a temperature trend created using only the best rural stations (CRN12R). The comparison was very good. It’s that simple.
Since there were not very many stations with the best CRN rating, I did a similar analysis including stations with a CRN rating of 3. If I remember correctly (it’s been about a year), there were about 50 stations in this category.
Here’s a quick graph of the comparison:
http://opentemp.org/_results/20071011_CRN123R/crn123r_gistemp_5yr.png
George, thanks for that great explanation. I fall short on scientific credentials, I’m just a regular guy trying to make my way in a complex world. Over the past few years I’ve dug into everything I can possibly find to educate myself on climate science and the above is one of those posts I’ll keep with me.
[REPLY – Yes, George, excellent. ~ Evan]
Please bear in mind that what Steve McIntyre does is point out statistical problems. What Anthony Watts does is photodocument site quality and coordinate the documentation of others.
Yes, they are responsible for doing this in a fair manner. That is their ethical challenge. They are NOT, however, responsible for whether the CO2-induced AGW theory ultimately turns out to be correct or not.
On this site, the Rev has continually said that in science the chips fall where the chips fall. (He also lives a very “green” lifestyle. Solar panels, electric cars, etc.)
The blame–if any–must be directed at those responsible for the poor statistical practice and serious site violations that have contributed to the doubt surrounding said theory. Even if they are right the damage is self-inflicted.
I find it hard to believe that so many smart people are completely wrong about AGW,…”
Me Too!!! 🙂
Global warming/climate change are normal cycles of the Nature of Earth. Argue until you are “blue-in-the-face,” about the occurence of the above cycles, but until you prove that anthropogenic CO2 is not the cause, you are going to pay for the Algore/UN/IPCC/Hansen lies.
Ruling: Coal Plants Must Limit C02
In a move that signals the start of the our clean energy future, the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) ruled today EPA had no valid reason for refusing to limit from new coal-fired power plants the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. The decision means that all new and proposed coal plants nationwide must go back and address their carbon dioxide emissions.
“Today’s decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy,” said Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club Senior Attorney who argued the case. “This is one more sign that we must begin repowering, refueling and rebuilding America.”
http://action.sierraclub.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=78902.0
I truly hope AGW is non-existent but if it isn’t I wouldn’t like to be in the shoes of a Mr Watts or McIntyre, ethically speaking.
Pardon me? These blogs are about science, not politics. We will never know if AGW is non-existent unless the science is rigorously tested.
Ethically speaking, that is exactly what these gentlemen are attempting.
Of course people who “know” things without doing science may justify themselves with whatever ethics they choose and many do. But that is politics, not science, and is far more dangerous to humanity.
George Smith writes: “Clearly the very hottest places on earth are actually cooling the planet fastest, and the polar regions are doing very little to cool the earth, and the hot deserts can be cooling the earth at double the rate corresponding to the global mean temperature.”
Hi George. Your scientific pedigree is higher than mine, just for the record. And yet … I think talking about the Earth in terms of the black body model that you have gone into is not entirely helpful.
Not only do the great ocean currents carry vast quantities of heat toward the poles, but storms — everything from Nor’easters to hurricanes — do the same. Staying on the subject of the ocean currents just for a second: The Gulf Stream alone transports more water than all the rivers of the planet combined. I won’t name all of them, but picture this great volume of water — the Nile, the Mississippi, and the Amazon plus, say, a hundred other major rivers brimming with heat taken on in the tropics — moving slowly but inexorably northward. And this is just a single current!
Add to that powerful pole-ward moving currents in the southern Pacific Ocean, the Southern Atlantic Ocean, and the Indian Ocean and you’ve got a lot of heat headed away from the equator.
Now add 60 or 80 tropical cyclones a year and another hundred powerful non-tropical cyclones to the warmth departing the tropics for the poles.
Plenty of other atmospheric dynamics are in play, everything from prevailing winds, to cloud formation, to precipitation — among others!
So far as I know, the atmosphere over the equator and the rest of the tropics is far thicker than over the poles, which is among the reasons for the great warmth at the equator.
So, to sum up with my layman’s best, I think you may find that the conventional wisdom — that the poles are the Earth’s air conditioner — is about right. In stasis, it might be otherwise, but stasis is not what we’ve got.
Presumably, someone else will have written far more clearly on this than I as I struggled to lay this out.
‘They are NOT, however, responsible for whether the CO2-induced AGW theory ultimately turns out to be correct or not.’
Of course they aren’t. But if the AGW theory turns out to be correct with possibly dire consequences for a lot of people they have made a considerable contribution – in my view – to delaying action that could have lessened those consequences.
This blog even more so than the one run by Mr McIntyre (which is mostly a crusade against the hockey stick I believe) because a) practically anything that goes against the AGW-grain will be placed here as an article, no matter how far-fetched; for instance I’ve noticed quite a few times different articles on the front page that are contradicting each other quite blatantly, and b) because any comment that goes against the AGW-grain will pass unmoderated or unchallenged, no matter the level of parrotted ignorance.
Now I don’t consider myself an intelligent man, I find most of the science is hard to follow, but 50% of the comments here are a constant reiteration of arguments that even I see don’t hold up. Now if this were my blog I would leave a reply at those comments along the lines of ‘What you say has been proven to be incorrect, this or that is a much better argument against X’, or I’d delete them. The reason I’d do so is I wouldn’t want other readers to be confused by this clutter of persistent misunderstandings, and I wouldn’t want people to think that I endorse every single view uttered as a comment on my article. Because that’s what’s implied if I do absolutely nothing about them. This sometimes gives me the feeling that this blog is mainly about ‘the more confusion, the better’.
To be fair, a thing I find very good about WUWT (and the reason I keep coming here to read up, even though I’m on the alarmed side) is that occasionaly there is room for articles such as the Q&As with Dr Meier from NSIDC, and some of the commenters (such as Leif Svalgaard and Chris, if he’s the same Chris as on RC) are very interesting to read.
It would be nice however – although I’m sure he’s done that already – if Mr Watts would now and then share his views on the AGW-theory a bit more in his articles. Like, does he believe the Earth is gradually warming? If so, will it continue to do so over the long term? Is CO2 emitted by human activities the cause, or only partially so? I would venture to say he’s more or less in agreement with these points, considering the fact that he’s leading a very green lifestyle (for American standards), but perhaps he doesn’t feel there’s a catastrophe on our doorstep, or the science could be conducted in a better way (which are fine opinions IMO). The content of his blog and the toleration of above mentioned comments would suggest however that the AGW-theory is a 100% scam.
This in my view, again, could prove to be a very irresponsible message to disseminate. There are a lot of people who love this blog because it confirms them in their wish to not do anything or change anything they do. If the AGW-theory turns out to be true these people will have been misled, but everybody will have to bear the consequences.
You see what I mean? If AGW turns out to be happening this blog has indirectly harmed me, my children and all the other people I care about. If this weren’t so I would not be saying any of this. People are free to choose and believe whatever they want but their freedom stops where the freedom of others begin. That’s what makes AGW so interesting.
In terms of the effort to record the Earth’s “average temperature,” this has become a shorthand, albeit an ugly one full of complicated problems, for people to discuss climate trends.
For those of us who see ocean cycles, such as the PDO, as significant in terms of climate change, it’s of some use to know what the world’s “average temperature” was before during and after the super El Nino of 1998, for instance. It’s of some use to know what happened to the “average temperature” during the last negative PDO and the positive PDO just ended.
As Hansen specifically and NASA more generally have more or less backed those who do not accept their positions in regard to anthropogenic global warming into a corner, we are reduced to speaking to those who have the media and the public’s attention in their own language to some extent, it is true.
Fortunately, the solar minimum and negative PDO are likely to produce news that not even NASA can manipulate.
Hi Nevan,
Regarding smart people and AGW.
(1) To quote Upton Beall Sinclair, Jr. (i.e when your livelihood depends on it…)
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” (Ref http://www.online-literature.com/upton_sinclair/)
(2) Cognitive Dissonance. I.e Smart people can become emotionally invested in their beliefs just the same as less smart people. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)
(3) Smart people can be dishonest conmen, charlatans and frauds. Ref “Snakes in Suits” at http://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp/0061147893/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226630032&sr=1-1
(4) And as a variant on (3) Smart people can have a Political Agenda that goes something like “I’m doing this for the betterment of humanity and/or saving the planet (Noble Cause) hence any means (such as lying) is justified to achieve the realisation of this Noble Cause.”
I think that number 4 has a lot of buyin for the lower ranks of the AGW movement (and some of the higher ups) as it can provide a strong sense of life purpose.
It’s just unfortuate that the means of CO2 abatement are inherently destructive to human civilisation (eliminate cheap and reliable sources of energy) and the general welfare of the planet (impoverished societies have a poor track record of environmental conservation).
So that instead of saving the planet and bettering humanity the opposite is more likely.
Harold Ambler
Good start. See further description at Roy Spencer’s Global Warming and Nature’s Thermostat, especially the section on precipitation.
Neven,
Allow me to address your post.
1) “If AGW turns out to be happening this blog has indirectly harmed me, my children and all the other people I care about.”
This appears to me to be a plea to follow the ‘precautionary principle’. This is to take action to avoid ‘dire consequences’ even if we don’t know for sure that the theory claiming the ‘dire’ consequences is actually true. While the logic of the precautionary principle is appealing, it works both ways. Have you considered the opposite proposition. That being the harm taking the actions recommended by the proponents of AGW will cause to you, your wife, your children if AGW theory is incorrect? By AGW Theory this I mean that the human contribution to warming is overwhelmingly the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere – you have to be careful because ‘AGW Theory’ means different things to different people. The harm could be severe in economic and health terms if we follow through. Also, I think there is an implicit assumption in your belief that you may or may not be aware of. This is the assumption that we know what would happen to the climate if we did take the actions AGW proponents are proposing. What if we are wrong and our actions cause a disastrous spiral into an unstable climate or an ice age? Can anyone tell you (and prove) that we can terraform the planet to our liking and that actions intended to do this will not result in unintended consequences? The climate is a complex, non-linear, chaotic system (agreed to by the IPCC). This means to me at least that we can’t predict the effects of any attempt to manipulate the system. It is provable mathematically that you cannot predict the state of a chaotic system unless you know the beginning state of all the variables and processes that affect it to an extraordinary degree of accuracy. Can you honestly say that we have that state of knowledge of the earth’s climate? I don’t.
I personally want to wean civilization from oil because, by doing this we will clean the air (and CO2 is NOT a pollutant) of all manner of unhealthy byproducts of that energy production. To my mind this focus and expecditure of massive amounts of money on AGW is impeding that effort, with a continuing harmful effect on me, my family, and those I care about. Thus, the people pushing the AGW theory ARE doing what you hint we may be doing.
As far as Anthony ‘censoring’ his blog to only allow posts that agree with his positions. I don’t quite know what to say about that. why on earth would he do such a thing? If he wants to only hear things that he agrees with a better position would be to simply not allow posts to his blog, then he could simply post HIS beliefs and read them. I think he intends this blog to be an open exchange of views and does not want to impose his idea of ‘right thought’. He allows people would vehemently disagree with him to freely post (unless they are rude or insulting personally). the consequences of this are that you will have people post the same thing repeatedly, you will have people post nonsensical things. Personally, I’ve learned a great deal from the posters, many of whom are far smarter and far better educated than I am.
I can’t speak for Anthony, but my personal opinion about ‘human induced warming’ is more in line with Dr Peilke at climatesci.org. Yes, people are affecting the the climate, but CO2 is a minor role player in that. the primary affect is regional, not global and is a result of land use change and ‘real’ pollution, like the Asian ‘brown cloud’.
Moptop (13:54:59) :
The choice of baseline does not make any difference to the shape of the graph, or the temperature trends. Using a different baseline only shifts the entire graph up or down.
I get the impression that you think the baseline is actually some sort of trend line, with a slope to it?
It is not. The baseline is a simple arithmetic average over an arbitrary period of time. Higher than that average plots as a positive anomaly, less than that average plots as a negative anomaly.
REPLY: The choice of baseline matters in the presentation of an anomaly graph. In the case of GISS, using the 1951-1980 baseline tends to make the graph more visually compelling than say one of UAH data that uses a more recent baseline. Hence the rub. Since the GISS graph is the most often cited one, it “look” displays a greater sense of urgency. I view the choice not to use the more recent baselines as one of PR value, not science. – Anthony
[…] Watch it unfolding in episodic instalments on various threads on Climate Audit and Watts Up With That? minute by minute; perhaps add your assessments to brighten the future, because a sad ending will be […]
If Harlod Ambler thinks that this is a parochial issue limited to this site, it would be educational for him to review Climate Audit, too.
Smokey (20:42:40) :
If Harlod Ambler thinks that this is a parochial issue limited to this site, it would be educational for him to review Climate Audit, too.
Prior to receiving your prompt, I had looked at Climate Audit 5 times today. Did I say something to suggest parochialism?
If you scooted around a little more on this site, you might see that I took some pains to defend Steve McIntyre today.
Apart from that, you’re right on the money!
Nevan, how would a warmer climate harm you, your children, and those you care about? Warmer means longer growing seasons, more CO2 for plants, increased food production in spite of the use of plants for biofuels, and increased rain to soak into those fields bursting with food. Will the weather get worse? Doubt it. It has now been conclusively determined that tornadoes and hurricanes are not getting worse or more frequent. If anything, flooding could return to the days prior to the whiteman invasion of North America. That’s why the soil is so rich. All that silt and loam washed into floodplains and created just the right soil mix for farming. Will it snow more? Maybe. The upper levels of the mountain peaks would still be cold enough for precip to fall as snow in the winter, and since warmer means wetter, we could get tons of snowpack. So I am searching for the harm. Please chime in with the negative stuff (just don’t bring in the wizard of oz stuff).
A case in point. Have you ever been to Jamaica? I have. While it is no where near the equator, relatively speaking, it is very warm there. And very wet. The wild but edible vegetation grows right up to the roadbed so thick that constant mowing is necessary to keep the growth from covering the road.
I live in Oregon and it would be really nice if we could grow mangoes and coconuts along the side of the road. And the high desert could stop sucking up water from the Columbia because along with the warm weather, deserts would become self-watering entities in our state. And if you are thinking that CO2 warms oceans (it doesn’t but I can dream can’t I), it would be nice to be able to actually SWIM in the ocean off the Oregon coast.
What harm?
Thank you for responding, Bill. There are some points we obviously agree upon.
‘I personally want to wean civilization from oil because, by doing this we will clean the air (and CO2 is NOT a pollutant) of all manner of unhealthy byproducts of that energy production. To my mind this focus and expecditure of massive amounts of money on AGW is impeding that effort, with a continuing harmful effect on me, my family, and those I care about. Thus, the people pushing the AGW theory ARE doing what you hint we may be doing.’
Don’t you think that weaning civilization from oil and reducing the emission of CO2 through efficiency and use of alternative energies amount more or less to the same thing?
I think what you refer to is things like cap-and-trade, carbon storage technologies or people exploiting the AGW-hype. These are subjects that can all be discussed separately, but let’s say for argument’s sake they’re all intrinsically bad. It’s the nature of hypes (which I dislike and mistrust personally, as I’m allergic to masses) that people try to exploit them for their own benefit or that they make people honestly think they do the right when the opposite is true. The whole biofuel-disaster is a great example.
I think this is inevitable. A great Dutch football player, Johan Cruijff, once said: ‘Every advantage has its disadvantage’. A hype can get something going and gradually transform the collective mind, but it also entails popular delusions and outright charlatanism. However, if the AGW-theory would turn out to be a scam, people would find something else to profit from, governments would find other ways to tax the money out of your pocket. In fact, this is happening right now. Wars for instance are hypes that are mainly there to profit from and push agendas. Like I said earlier, the war in Iraq is already costing billions of tax dollars and millions of lives (lost or seriously affected). It’s a huge waste – in my opinion – of money and resources.
Even if I would believe that AGW is a hoax, I’d still be way more worried about the military-industrial complex hoax, or the overconsumption-is-good-for-everyone hoax. I would find the AGW-hype bothersome but not entirely pernicious (because of its speeding up the transition to energy-independence, less pollution (which CO2 isn’t of course) and the creation of jobs etc) and focus mainly on hypes that are damaging big time, right here, right now.
It’s all about hypotheses. What if AGW is happening? What if AGW is a hoax? In general: If it is happening, some form of action must be taken and discussed. If it’s a scam or not happening, some of the huge amounts of money will be well spent on weaning off the dependence on oil, some of it will be wasted. But huge amounts of money will always be wasted, be it on wars, be it on socialist utopias, be it on extravagant consumerism. That’s the nature of the game.
On a personal level: If AGW is happening, I have to try and change my lifestyle without resorting to asceticism, find that balance between personal well-being and group well-being. Going solar, buying locally grown food, building smart, these are in my view intrinsically good things to do, given the state of the world today. If AGW isn’t happening, I wasted a lot of time but at least I’m living in a low energy house with solar panels and efficient water use etc, which is a good thing, given the state of the world today, regardless of AGW.
On a blog-level: If AGW is happening and my site is about promoting mainstream climate science I contribute to raising awareness so people take action that possibly mitigate the consequences of AGW. If AGW isn’t happening I’m wasting people’s time, I humbly apologize for being misguided but at least there will be no increased frequency of (heavier) storms, droughts, sea level rise etc.
If AGW isn’t happening and my site promotes whatever goes against the grain of mainstream climate science I rightly and intrepidly convince people to not waste time and money on something that isn’t real. If AGW is happening I can apologize all I want but I’m responsible, however marginally, for the inaction that excluded mitigation of consequences that cost huge amounts of money and inflict human misery on a global scale.
Now where does WUWT stand exactly? Does it only highlight alleged flaws in the mainstream science surrounding AGW but deliberately keep silent about alleged flaws in the science coming from the ‘contrarian’ side? Is everything wrong concerning the mainstream AGW-theory, or are there some legitimate points most people more or less agree upon? Do we only get an article in a few months’ time about the Arctic never seeing so much ice in January but then hear nothing when by accident the summer melt is quite heavy again?
And are ‘nonsensical’ comments (such as the recent ‘how can the Arctic freeze up so fast with those high air temperatures?’) being left untouched deliberately in order to stimulate people not to act upon the AGW-hype and do nothing, under the guise of ‘an open exchange of views’? This would be an irresponsible thing to do IMO, because there is a chance that AGW isn’t a scam, isn’t completely riddled with mistakes and fallacies, is going to have consequences that could be dire. I personally wouldn’t want to take that risk.
And it begs the question: Is Mr Watts naive or is he getting something out of this that makes him potentially irresponsible? I don’t think he’s sponsored by Exxon or anything but I do think website traffic can be addictive and flattering your vanity. Many people, on both sides, myself included, are in it for the ego-thing, I believe . But I’m not running a blog to promote action or inaction. I only have the responsibility of my personal actions to consider. Mr Watts is running a (popular) blog, and as long as he keeps the ‘exchange of views’ limited mainly to whatever view is opposing (part of) the AGW-theory and as long as he tolerates ‘nonsensical’ comments that confuse and distort, he’s running the risk of being partially responsible for something I’m not sure anyone wants to be partially responsible for. There’s a huge difference between being wrong and wasting time and money, and being wrong and end up adapting to consequences that are way too late to mitigate.
Pascal’s wager does not apply. The “safe” way out is not without cost. The cost (according to Stern) is a third or more of GWP growth per year. Kyoto costs (according to Molinari Inst.) even more, and a greater percentage falls on the UDCs (more dependent on coal, even with more lenient targets).
Such cost is not merely burdensome to the developed world; the heaviest penalty falls on the undeveloped world — paid in human life.
And because neither Pascal nor Dr. Precaution is on this case, we had better be a damn lot surer of our diagnosis than we are. The way the science stands now, it all rests on the single pedestal of positive CO2-induced feedback loops. Without that, CO2 AGW theory cannot stand.
Feedback loops have been called into extremely serious question by the recent data from the Aqua Satellite. I read the NASA paper. From what I could gather, it just goes back and forth and says nothing. Spencer seems quite convinced, however, that extra water is not going into ambient vapor or cirrus clouds, but to low-level cloud cover.
Therefore, instead of positive feedback loops from water vapor, we are seeing albedo increase – negative feedback from low-lying clouds. Flatline global climate trend over the last decade would seem to be consistent with Spencer’s take.
It’s also consistent with the multidecadal cycles. From 1979-2001, the Big Six flipped warm. Then all are on warm till last year. And now the PDO turns cold, and possibly the AO and NAO to follow on. Do we see a pattern?
On top of this, last year’s downturn and the possibility of a solar grand minimum would augur that we are not anywhere near a “tipping point”.
Therefore we badly need to take a very close look at the positive feedback theory. The data is still new. But it seems to me we have a moral imperative to straighten this one out before we take action which will take life.
We need to look — far more carefully than we have done — before we leap, because once we do, there will be no turning back, mark my words. No to do so would be . . . sinful.
Hey, farmer, farmer,
Put away that DDT.
You may spoil some apples
But gimme the birds and the bees,
PLEEEEASE . . .
//Insert emoticon indicating mordant irony//
Neven, I will also address why the precautionary principle does not work in regard to fighting Global Warming.
A) Due to the increase in CO2 from China and India, even the most draconian restrictions placed on Western civilization will only delay the 1C warming by five to ten years.
B) Those drastic restrictions on CO2 emissions will decimate the economy. Don’t believe me, this is confirmed by Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
C) Man, and many creatures in the biosphere, can adapt to the changes that will occur in the next one hundred years. Some in the biosphere won’t, but the changes we are capable of making will only delay their demise by ten years (see A).
D) If Pachauri is right (and I don’t doubt him, he is the head of the IPCC after all), then the measures you would impose would stifle world economic growth. This means less money to invest in world saving ventures. In economics, there is a principle called opportunity cost. Any amount of money, effort (whatever) spent on one thing, cannot be applied to something else; resources are finite. The Money spent trying to fight Global Warming, a long term potential threat to future generations, will not be available to alleviate current immediate problems, such as disease (AIDS prevention), hunger, lack of potable water, genocide, pollution…. you get the picture. By siphoning off money to combat the immediate needs of the living, you would sacrifice millions of current world citizens in order to combat a problem we can adjust to.
Am I saying we should do nothing? No. The world is already moving in a green direction. But the solutions recommended buy those junk science peddlers, such as Robert Kennedy Jr. and Al Gore,, are dangerous to the population of the world TODAY.
Neven
It is true that people can believe whatever they want. I am a Christian, my beliefs are not falsifiable, they are beliefs. Science is not about ones beliefs but about sensing what is going on in the world, refining observations, subjecting those observations and the conclusions drawn from them to scrutiny so that it is possible to convince others, fair and square, that those observations and conclusions are (provisionally at least) accurate.
It would seem that you are comfortable with the moderator of this blog simplifying arguments by dismissing a post with a simple “this has been proven false.” He wields the electrons around here so he is authorized to curtail an argument if he deems it wrong? The problem with that is: you never know.
All the world knew for a very long time that Newton had perfectly described the rules of the physical world. Einstein, a single man, in the face of the most perfect consensus about the rules of the universe would not accept that he should just shut up and go along with the consensus. This is just a very gaudy example of conventional wisdom being overthrown. The woods are thick with them.
When I was a kid it was going to be a new ice age that killed us. I remember people (don’t remember who they were, it was just Time Magazine after all) were suggesting that soot be spread over the icecaps to absorb more heat from the Sun causing them to melt. Well, if we really are in a time of catastophic global warming what a nasty head start it would have gotten if some governmental process would have decided to do that.
Neven, many of us have children and we want the best for them. Few who post here do not think the Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age. We have all seen paintings of people skating on the Thames. Cold then, warmer now. What I do not want is that my child lives in the cold and the dark with little to eat because some rent seeking autocrat calls carbon dioxide a poison. Is it really warmer now than it has been in a million, thousand, whatever, years? Enquiring minds want to know. Really.
What if it is you who are wrong. Let me ask you this. Was your post deleted or edited? It will not be here or at Climate Audit. Real Climate does not even know Steve McIntyre’s name to say it out loud let alone let him post there. Everything that Anthony and Steve do is done in the wide open. The same cannot be said for Real Climate, and sadly, neither can it be said for NASA in this case. Deven, in your experience is truth found… well, that may be going a bit much, truth and all, but… where there is transparancy or obfuscation?
Cassandra King wrote:
The question that springs to mind is what if there are previous ‘misreadings’ that are small enough to pass unoticed into the GISTEMP climate record but still support a positive warming trend and have already been passed on to policy makers and organisations like the IPCC
Consider this one:
Sydney’s historic weather station
While the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has excluded it from “climatic studies,” it’s still part of the GISTEMP database.
Pamela, like I said: ‘Every advantage has its disadvantage’. So while you would be eating coconuts (if AGW is happening I don’t expect it to be that fast) and taking dips in your lovely ocean I would probably lose most of my income because I live south of the Alps and my income is partially derived from the skiing industry, which has already been suffering from bad winters the past few years, although this winter all the Ninas, PDOs, AOs, solar spots (please ignore my ignorance, Leif, if you read this) etcetera look to be working in our favor.
But how about people who live in areas where water scarcity is an issue (Spain, California)? If things turn out really bad due to positive feedbacks which accidentally do exist these people would probably have no choice but to die or migrate. Where would they move to? Oregon perhaps? South of the Alps?
Let alone all those people in developing nations who live so far outside of our Monkeysphere, such as India and the Ganges Delta, or Egypt, or parts of China that are already suffering from desertification due to land mismanagement which would probably be intensified by AGW.
Or the people who built their cities on permafrost? Or close to the sea? Venice, Amsterdam?
So you see, one woman’s coconuts is another man’s desert. Or like the French expression runs: If someone is laughing on one side of the planet, someone is probably crying on the other side. I would like to prevent that lottery as much as possible.
Now where does WUWT stand exactly? Does it only highlight alleged flaws in the mainstream science surrounding AGW but deliberately keep silent about alleged flaws in the science coming from the ‘contrarian’ side?
No, Anthony is not like that. He’s interested in what is. If new evidence of AGW arises, he will surely adduce it. And we have a number non-skeptic posters here who will promptly jump in to keep the rest of us on our toes.
We are skeptical. But we try not to be close-minded. Anthony has the soul of a true scientist, he’s no a mere advocate – except for due diligence and high standards. He’s a true liberal, in the (all too seldom used) dictionary sense of the word.
So, I take away from this paragraph the following: “You should always do what you’re told by whatever authority tells you to do it, regardless of the evidence, or lack thereof.”
Baaaa