Bravo Anthony! Bravo!
You do the Opposition (i.e, skeptics) a wonderful service in heading up this blog, along no doubt with the wonderful mods and guest posters. There are many informational sites that I like, but this one offers so much more of an atmosphere. There is variety, there is community, there is healthy and often vigorous debate, and there is manifest fairness, even with those who disagree. It is a noble tribute to what one man can start up and bring others on board to share. A great and worthy enterprise no doubt!
Bravo!
darwin
February 1, 2009 1:10 pm
Watch out Anthony! Hansen will steal your graph!
Any graph showing an uptick will be issued new variables and claimed as proof of global warming.
Hey everybody,
I seriously urge everyone to keep a close watch on what is currently happening at RealClimate at the moment (and in the near future, of course).
Looks to me as though they are very near meltdown!
Absolutely desperate! Take a look!
No longer any pretense of reasoning about the facts and figures. They are now just trying to convince us that they didn’t ever present an “irreversible” scenario!!
Shysters! (Or however that’s spelt [I’m English].) The lot of them!
Keep thinking for yourselves, everyone!
**********************************************************
For Anthony.
You are doing a great job, Anthony, but can you help me with the following?
I’d like to open a thread on some site or other (I’d happily start my own, but I’m not clever enough, and don’t know how at the moment) to discuss a “formal proof” that CO2 does NOT drive temperature.
That would be a FORMAL ACEDEMIC PROOF, a big ask, but I have convinced myself that it’s possible.
The numbers actually speak for themselves. It’s just that no-one seems to be looking at them in the right way.
I have developed (OK, stumbled one) a very simple logical case that should be easily understood by any jury of “peers” (12 men and true) from any western court, and which should put an end to all this AGW rubbish if it can be presented in a serious legal forum. But I need to discuss it with some sensible people.
And it will need sensitive handling, so I would appreciate your diplomacy in what you publish about this message.
I mean, the place for this is in a legal court with appropriate authority, with the appropriate protagonists present (you know who I mean).
If any of this interests you, please drop me an e-mail.
Please feel free to copy this, and your thoughts, to people (eg Steve McKintyre, Lucia, William Briggs etc) who you feel we can really trust. But keep in mind that emails are very probably being watched! This AGW thing really IS a conspiracy.
OK, so you don’t actually know that you can trust me. Of course not. So please suggest any other secure way you would prefer to communicate. You are more expert at this sort of thing than I am, I’m sure. I’ll go along with anything you say.
There’s quite a long way to go, but I can see the end of the tunnel from here!
Your thoughts, please, in confidence (copied to anyone you really trust).
Regards
Steve
DaveE
February 1, 2009 1:45 pm
Congratulations Anthony.
Pierre Gosselin (04:36:50):
“He even deleted the post of a very well known climate scientist not long ago – whose name escapes me at the moment.
It’s one reason his blog is so highly respected.”
By all quarters, even some at RC.
DaveE.
DaveE
February 1, 2009 2:01 pm
wws (06:55:17) :
OMG Don’t even JOKE about it!
I’m sure they would if they could!
DaveE.
esin
February 1, 2009 2:44 pm
… and, now, a part of everyday, from every computer I login on. Logical conjecture based on overwhelming evidence, affirming ~thanks
Congrats, Anthony and a hat’s off to all contributors. First place I visit when I log on. I’ve learned a great deal here and also have a ton of files saved/bookmarked/printed. This site is indispensable for those seeking the truth.
Psi
February 1, 2009 3:12 pm
Anthony,
Let me add my congratulations to those already expressed. You have a great site here, one characterized by substantiave content, real debate, professional courtesy by the pros, and a healthy interaction between specialists and members of the general public who are thirsty for serious information about global climate.
Thanks,
Roger Stritmatter
PhD, Comparative Literature
Here a member of the general public.
E.M.Smith
Editor
February 1, 2009 3:36 pm
Jim Thomas (12:08:10) : OT – Also, if anyone is interested in Aurora Borealis alerts texted to their cell phone, I wrote some code that broadcasts them for free via Twitter:
Cool! But like you said… if the sun ever gets going again… Now that the government and the MSM are now joined lovingly hand in hand, it’s nice to still see a place where you can follow truth’s bread crumbs wherever they lead.
One more bread crumb:
I’ve slogged my way through the Python in GISStemp STEP1 (it’s sort of readable even if you, like me, have never written it). My ‘best guess’ about it is that it more or less does what you would expect from the ‘readme’ gistemp.txt file. It tosses some records and has a couple of specific sites where GISS have manually adjusted the record (documented and I guess OK).
The only place where I’ve found that it creates data (fabricates? constructs? ‘freely interpolates? whatever you call it when temperatures that do not exist are created…) is in the two programs: comb_records.py and comb_pieces.py and of them, the comb_records.py looks like it mostly just takes duplicate records for the same location and averages them together. It’s comb_pieces.py that looks like it has ‘magic sauce’ in it.
If I’ve read it correctly (a big IF given that I have no training in Python!) it looks to take pieces of temperature record for a location that has ‘gaps’ and stitch them together by looking at ‘nearby’ stations to compute a correlation, then using that to turn the ‘nearby’ station data into the data created for filling in the ‘gap’.
The problems I see are:
1) It, too, uses a ‘linear’ fit rather than a slope adjusted fit (i.e. it uses linear subtraction / averaging rather than correlated fit curve or relative slope as it’s behaviour driver).
2) If I read it right, it cycles out 1 degree at a time up to 10 degees from the site with a gap looking for a ‘local’ station. This needs a real Python programmer to look at it (it uses a binary database an earlier step created and the variable is named ‘rad’ assigned a staring value from RADIUS_BUCKET – and that’s about all the hint it has … (a bit light on comments and readme docs…) It seems to me that 10 degrees is rather a long ways away from ‘local’…
So it looks to me like we have an explanation for why the middle of some curves move some times… If anyone has any insight on how often a USHCN station has a ‘dropout’ in the data series for monthly averages from NOAA it would be interesting to know. (That would give a sense of the ‘size’ of the issue here…)
Phil's Dad
February 1, 2009 3:56 pm
Roger H (05:54:36) : says “My main question would be how can this information get distributed to larger amounts of people in a shorter time and therefore possibly enlighten our Politicians to the situation? I realize there might not be a way to change their minds…”
Roger, I am a politician with an environment brief. Probably not ‘your’ politician – but who knows. The point is we are here, reading, sometimes asking questions, hopefully learning.
Anthony, it’s working – don’t stop.
Nic Lonsdale
February 1, 2009 4:00 pm
I do not know what is true about CO2/AGW/&Warming.
I am concerned that after Copernicus it was said that “the science is settled” and Gallileo was tortured by the Inquisition for proposing another theory. (A theory we now consider correct).
Am I allowed to read/listen/think/question and study without being burnt at the stake for heresy ? (And buy Nigel Calder a pint for explaining the Danish research).
Great web-site. Much food for thought.
E.M.Smith, the largest gap in the USHCN raw data that I’ve come across so far, is 15 days in July 2002.
The B91 form (monthly form from observer) from New Braunfels, TX stated “FLOOD” in caps.
The reason I found it was that I was trying to track down the spike in annual data that occured in 2002.
Hello Steve of G Brown Land
I suggest you go to this BBC site where complaints weere made about splice gate-the BBC’s splicing together of two unrelated segments of Obamas inauguration speech to try to pretend he said more about AGW than he actually did.
‘Captain Climate’ on post 42 suggests the BCC mount a programme called ‘Did co2 kill the planet’ which would be conducted with the rules of evidence of a court. This would allow the two sides to meet for probably the first time to give objective information- not unsupported theories. I suggest you add your voice to this idea?
TonyB http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/susanwatts/2009/01/restoring_science_to_its_right.html#commentsanchor
E.M.Smith
Editor
February 1, 2009 4:33 pm
Tom in Texas (16:10:17) :
E.M.Smith, the largest gap in the USHCN raw data that I’ve come across so far, is 15 days in July 2002.
15 days is not too bad. I was more worried that a station or stations might ‘come and go’ for months or even years at a time.
Thanks! Your posting got me thinking: by this stage in the processing, GIStemp has already combined UHCN and GHCN data into one composite set, so dropouts in either would be handled by this ‘in-fill’ code. I’m assuming it’s the case that what NOAA put in UHCN ought to be in GHCN…`
It’s also the case that the ‘reference station’ used to create the in-fill has already been through one ‘reference station method’ adjustment step (supposedly to adjust for UHI, but done in a way that will fail to do so). This means that you will be creating the in-fill data from stations that will themselves often have ‘modified’ data. A kind of ‘double dip’ into the fiction bank…
DaveE
February 1, 2009 4:42 pm
TonyB
I also live in G. Brownland, (guess why it’s brown), probably something to do with all the sh1t.
I submitted a formal complaint about the Newsnight program and rather foolishly put in my real postcode, (zip code).
Why foolish? I don’t watch T.V. so I don’t pay the T.V. tax, the only thing I have watched was this piece of misreporting on the internet. However, this now leaves me liable to this tax. Sad isn’t it?
DaveE.
Ellie in Belfast
February 1, 2009 5:00 pm
I’ve long thought that the debate on climate raging here* is the modern equivalent of the Royal Society in the 18th and 19th century (“The Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge” and analogous institutions elsewhere), where, ‘gentlemen philosophers’ and the scientists of the day presented and debated their discoveries and theories.
* OK not just here, but WUWT has to be one of the best in terms of the mix of subjects, people and the decorum maintained.
The mix of professions and scientific disciplines, and expert and lay knowledge is amazing. Finding little time to comment recently, nonetheless I have found the posts on WUWT, since the New Year especially, really interesting and they have moved my understanding forward enormously.
My daily read! (even before ‘the news’ – if you can call it that these days.)
E.M.Smith
Editor
February 1, 2009 5:17 pm
Pierre Gosselin (10:39:28) : But I simply cannot resist: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/4423919/Snow-and-freezing-weather-threaten-to-shut-down-Britain.html
Thanks! Maybe Anthony could do a post explaining what this ‘pole split’ is. I’ve never heard of one and it sure does seem to have made a mess of the U.K.! From the article in your link: This winter has already been the coldest for 13 years, delaying the arrival of snowdrops in gardens.
Now horticulturalists have reported unusually late daffodil growth.
“Now is the time you’d expect to see the daffodils coming out but we’re not expecting them for two or three weeks at best if it warms up,” said Laura Davies, head of horticulture at the National Botanical Garden of Wales.
Gotta love those gardens… the plants know the truth and never lie…
Best of luck with the snow… but look on the light side: Every day with snow counts as a ‘rain free day’! 8-}
Congratulations Anthony on your excellent site. As a new comer to it I’m particularly impressed with your control of ad hominem when compared with alarmists sites like RealClimate where the stock response is to try and make questioners feel somewhat ridiculous and/or foolish.
I’ve never brought into AGW and until I started reading around the blogs my decision was purely intuitive thinking how could humans possibly affect GW. Having now read extensively from a laymans point of view on the subject I’m utterly convinced humans have little influence on CO2 production. That more is better and that CO2 does not significantly affect our climate when relative to other external influences completely out of our control.
However having said that and after perusing a list of Pro IPCC Views sites on http://climatedebatedaily.com/ the arguments for AGW are both many and well presented on authoritative looking sites. The articles are also often authored by respectable sounding people from positions of authority. SO how EASY it would be to buy into AGW and heavens lets all get together and save Gods planet before its too late – and who cares if we ALL have to pay more taxes to do so as its our fault in the first place. Its gotta be the only course of action because I mean even our new messiah Obama believes the planet needs saving.
Obviously the political decisions makers are ambivalent about good science because they work to an agenda that is all about implementation of good socialism and the levels of control it brings. It will be an easy position to sell particularly in the USA where people will be keen to stick it to the greedy capitalist businesses who stole their money.
Another problem is that irrespective of how many skeptics of scientific authority the anti-AGWer’s roll out it wont matter a damn because, as skeptics are quick to point out, good science is not necessarily based on consensus within the scientific community. Also the average person like me does not understand the difference between good and bad science so we make our decisions based on WHO is telling the either good or bad science and how convincing they are. And also perhaps somewhat influenced by what the weather is currently doing 🙂
And so that finally brings me to the point that the skeptic community really needs to play the game from within the AGW stronghold by cramming as many influential “deniers” as possible within positions of political importance. And just maybe over time many more non-scientific people like myself will listen and start taking heed.
My last comment is that if our planet was capable of independent thought and action it has certainly learnt how to come out in support of the skeptics cause. Maybe a new skeptic tag line should say “even our planet supports us”.
Blessed are the crack for they see the light.
Thoughts from New Zealand.
Thanks all.
James
Psi
February 1, 2009 6:41 pm
@ur momisugly Benjamin P. (11:48:08) :
Things I have learned with my contributions of page views to your busiest month ever.
Wow, dude. You need to take a course in reading. Obviously, what is written is not registering. Or were you trying to parody the defensiveness of the committed AGW when confronted with the reality that the “consensus” ain’t one?
P.L. Harmon
February 1, 2009 11:38 pm
What a great site! I have learned a great deal here and look forward to the frequent posts. WUWT has re-taught me to look behind the seemingly authoritative statements made on many issues by those who somehow get into the news and examine the supporting details. It is so great to have a site that discusses the science of the issues and is so respectful of all. I appreciate all you do and have recommended the site to many who spout AGW dogma and should know better. Keep up the good work.
pyromancer76
February 2, 2009 5:56 am
Anthony, you may be responsible for a bit of “work slowdown” and not just in the U.S. Do you realize that the comments to WUWT posts beginning last Tues keep on growing! I got up early this morning (Mon) to make sure that I could follow the threads. I return to S. Goddard’s Sat essay about ocean corals being acidified; from Sun to Mon comments have increased from 176-235.
I’ve let the lovely gull go and I tried to give up on Forecasting — too difficult for me. I even threw away my little sticky of the front of the computer that helps me keep my place. However, I take a peek this morning and the comments number 324, many more than when I left off. Since E.M. Smith and Tony B and Juan are there, I return, reading backward from #324. Finally, I hope I can stay with the MET (Sun) and look forward to new posts, but when I check one where Dr. Theon provides his wisdom about James Hansen of NASA the comment number has jumped from 484 to 549. My eyes ache…..
What helps most about the threads is that not only do many commenters put complicated science into understandable concepts and language, a manageable chunk at a time, but some AGWers — still too many ad hominem attacks and faulty science — are trying to present their best scientific perspectives. The debate is lively and it is likely that no one and no position has all the answers.
Anthony, I think you are helping to create a new interdisciplinary science of climate as differentiated from weather out of its old-wive’s-tale or propagandistic beginnings. Quite an accomplishment.
pyromancer76
February 2, 2009 6:04 am
Mama mia, I left out Frank Lasner’s insightful CO2 temp and ice ages — Sun 346 comments, Mon morn before the sun is up 370!
A Lovell
February 2, 2009 11:57 am
Benjamin P
“There is a secret geo-political agenda, but that agenda is loosely defined (or not at all).”
See http://www.green-agenda.com. The agenda IS defined, and it frightened me! The more people who know about this the better I feel. (Be sure to include the dash in green-agenda.)
Many congratulations Anthony. I think a few thousand hits were mine during the voting! Nail biting stuff.
Alexis
Benjamin P.
February 2, 2009 1:06 pm
@A Lovell
Thanks for the laugh! That website has me near tears!
The Club of Rome is going to take away your SUV and make you a ‘gaia’ worshiping pagan!
Some of the current members have been dead for decades…I imagine they are contacted by a Ouija board?
Bravo Anthony! Bravo!
You do the Opposition (i.e, skeptics) a wonderful service in heading up this blog, along no doubt with the wonderful mods and guest posters. There are many informational sites that I like, but this one offers so much more of an atmosphere. There is variety, there is community, there is healthy and often vigorous debate, and there is manifest fairness, even with those who disagree. It is a noble tribute to what one man can start up and bring others on board to share. A great and worthy enterprise no doubt!
Bravo!
Watch out Anthony! Hansen will steal your graph!
Any graph showing an uptick will be issued new variables and claimed as proof of global warming.
Hey everybody,
I seriously urge everyone to keep a close watch on what is currently happening at RealClimate at the moment (and in the near future, of course).
Looks to me as though they are very near meltdown!
Absolutely desperate! Take a look!
No longer any pretense of reasoning about the facts and figures. They are now just trying to convince us that they didn’t ever present an “irreversible” scenario!!
Shysters! (Or however that’s spelt [I’m English].) The lot of them!
Keep thinking for yourselves, everyone!
**********************************************************
For Anthony.
You are doing a great job, Anthony, but can you help me with the following?
I’d like to open a thread on some site or other (I’d happily start my own, but I’m not clever enough, and don’t know how at the moment) to discuss a “formal proof” that CO2 does NOT drive temperature.
That would be a FORMAL ACEDEMIC PROOF, a big ask, but I have convinced myself that it’s possible.
The numbers actually speak for themselves. It’s just that no-one seems to be looking at them in the right way.
I have developed (OK, stumbled one) a very simple logical case that should be easily understood by any jury of “peers” (12 men and true) from any western court, and which should put an end to all this AGW rubbish if it can be presented in a serious legal forum. But I need to discuss it with some sensible people.
And it will need sensitive handling, so I would appreciate your diplomacy in what you publish about this message.
I mean, the place for this is in a legal court with appropriate authority, with the appropriate protagonists present (you know who I mean).
If any of this interests you, please drop me an e-mail.
Please feel free to copy this, and your thoughts, to people (eg Steve McKintyre, Lucia, William Briggs etc) who you feel we can really trust. But keep in mind that emails are very probably being watched! This AGW thing really IS a conspiracy.
OK, so you don’t actually know that you can trust me. Of course not. So please suggest any other secure way you would prefer to communicate. You are more expert at this sort of thing than I am, I’m sure. I’ll go along with anything you say.
There’s quite a long way to go, but I can see the end of the tunnel from here!
Your thoughts, please, in confidence (copied to anyone you really trust).
Regards
Steve
Congratulations Anthony.
Pierre Gosselin (04:36:50):
“He even deleted the post of a very well known climate scientist not long ago – whose name escapes me at the moment.
It’s one reason his blog is so highly respected.”
By all quarters, even some at RC.
DaveE.
wws (06:55:17) :
OMG Don’t even JOKE about it!
I’m sure they would if they could!
DaveE.
… and, now, a part of everyday, from every computer I login on. Logical conjecture based on overwhelming evidence, affirming ~thanks
Pyromancer, thanks.
Anthony, roof-raising thanks!!!!!
Everyone, here’s fun http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/videos/
Congrats, Anthony and a hat’s off to all contributors. First place I visit when I log on. I’ve learned a great deal here and also have a ton of files saved/bookmarked/printed. This site is indispensable for those seeking the truth.
Anthony,
Let me add my congratulations to those already expressed. You have a great site here, one characterized by substantiave content, real debate, professional courtesy by the pros, and a healthy interaction between specialists and members of the general public who are thirsty for serious information about global climate.
Thanks,
Roger Stritmatter
PhD, Comparative Literature
Here a member of the general public.
Jim Thomas (12:08:10) : OT – Also, if anyone is interested in Aurora Borealis alerts texted to their cell phone, I wrote some code that broadcasts them for free via Twitter:
Cool! But like you said… if the sun ever gets going again…
Now that the government and the MSM are now joined lovingly hand in hand, it’s nice to still see a place where you can follow truth’s bread crumbs wherever they lead.
One more bread crumb:
I’ve slogged my way through the Python in GISStemp STEP1 (it’s sort of readable even if you, like me, have never written it). My ‘best guess’ about it is that it more or less does what you would expect from the ‘readme’ gistemp.txt file. It tosses some records and has a couple of specific sites where GISS have manually adjusted the record (documented and I guess OK).
The only place where I’ve found that it creates data (fabricates? constructs? ‘freely interpolates? whatever you call it when temperatures that do not exist are created…) is in the two programs: comb_records.py and comb_pieces.py and of them, the comb_records.py looks like it mostly just takes duplicate records for the same location and averages them together. It’s comb_pieces.py that looks like it has ‘magic sauce’ in it.
If I’ve read it correctly (a big IF given that I have no training in Python!) it looks to take pieces of temperature record for a location that has ‘gaps’ and stitch them together by looking at ‘nearby’ stations to compute a correlation, then using that to turn the ‘nearby’ station data into the data created for filling in the ‘gap’.
The problems I see are:
1) It, too, uses a ‘linear’ fit rather than a slope adjusted fit (i.e. it uses linear subtraction / averaging rather than correlated fit curve or relative slope as it’s behaviour driver).
2) If I read it right, it cycles out 1 degree at a time up to 10 degees from the site with a gap looking for a ‘local’ station. This needs a real Python programmer to look at it (it uses a binary database an earlier step created and the variable is named ‘rad’ assigned a staring value from RADIUS_BUCKET – and that’s about all the hint it has … (a bit light on comments and readme docs…) It seems to me that 10 degrees is rather a long ways away from ‘local’…
So it looks to me like we have an explanation for why the middle of some curves move some times… If anyone has any insight on how often a USHCN station has a ‘dropout’ in the data series for monthly averages from NOAA it would be interesting to know. (That would give a sense of the ‘size’ of the issue here…)
Roger H (05:54:36) : says “My main question would be how can this information get distributed to larger amounts of people in a shorter time and therefore possibly enlighten our Politicians to the situation? I realize there might not be a way to change their minds…”
Roger, I am a politician with an environment brief. Probably not ‘your’ politician – but who knows. The point is we are here, reading, sometimes asking questions, hopefully learning.
Anthony, it’s working – don’t stop.
I do not know what is true about CO2/AGW/&Warming.
I am concerned that after Copernicus it was said that “the science is settled” and Gallileo was tortured by the Inquisition for proposing another theory. (A theory we now consider correct).
Am I allowed to read/listen/think/question and study without being burnt at the stake for heresy ? (And buy Nigel Calder a pint for explaining the Danish research).
Great web-site. Much food for thought.
E.M.Smith, the largest gap in the USHCN raw data that I’ve come across so far, is 15 days in July 2002.
The B91 form (monthly form from observer) from New Braunfels, TX stated “FLOOD” in caps.
The reason I found it was that I was trying to track down the spike in annual data that occured in 2002.
Hello Steve of G Brown Land
I suggest you go to this BBC site where complaints weere made about splice gate-the BBC’s splicing together of two unrelated segments of Obamas inauguration speech to try to pretend he said more about AGW than he actually did.
‘Captain Climate’ on post 42 suggests the BCC mount a programme called ‘Did co2 kill the planet’ which would be conducted with the rules of evidence of a court. This would allow the two sides to meet for probably the first time to give objective information- not unsupported theories. I suggest you add your voice to this idea?
TonyB
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/susanwatts/2009/01/restoring_science_to_its_right.html#commentsanchor
Tom in Texas (16:10:17) :
E.M.Smith, the largest gap in the USHCN raw data that I’ve come across so far, is 15 days in July 2002.
15 days is not too bad. I was more worried that a station or stations might ‘come and go’ for months or even years at a time.
Thanks! Your posting got me thinking: by this stage in the processing, GIStemp has already combined UHCN and GHCN data into one composite set, so dropouts in either would be handled by this ‘in-fill’ code. I’m assuming it’s the case that what NOAA put in UHCN ought to be in GHCN…`
It’s also the case that the ‘reference station’ used to create the in-fill has already been through one ‘reference station method’ adjustment step (supposedly to adjust for UHI, but done in a way that will fail to do so). This means that you will be creating the in-fill data from stations that will themselves often have ‘modified’ data. A kind of ‘double dip’ into the fiction bank…
TonyB
I also live in G. Brownland, (guess why it’s brown), probably something to do with all the sh1t.
I submitted a formal complaint about the Newsnight program and rather foolishly put in my real postcode, (zip code).
Why foolish? I don’t watch T.V. so I don’t pay the T.V. tax, the only thing I have watched was this piece of misreporting on the internet. However, this now leaves me liable to this tax. Sad isn’t it?
DaveE.
I’ve long thought that the debate on climate raging here* is the modern equivalent of the Royal Society in the 18th and 19th century (“The Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge” and analogous institutions elsewhere), where, ‘gentlemen philosophers’ and the scientists of the day presented and debated their discoveries and theories.
* OK not just here, but WUWT has to be one of the best in terms of the mix of subjects, people and the decorum maintained.
The mix of professions and scientific disciplines, and expert and lay knowledge is amazing. Finding little time to comment recently, nonetheless I have found the posts on WUWT, since the New Year especially, really interesting and they have moved my understanding forward enormously.
My daily read! (even before ‘the news’ – if you can call it that these days.)
Pierre Gosselin (10:39:28) : But I simply cannot resist:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/4423919/Snow-and-freezing-weather-threaten-to-shut-down-Britain.html
Thanks! Maybe Anthony could do a post explaining what this ‘pole split’ is. I’ve never heard of one and it sure does seem to have made a mess of the U.K.! From the article in your link:
This winter has already been the coldest for 13 years, delaying the arrival of snowdrops in gardens.
Now horticulturalists have reported unusually late daffodil growth.
“Now is the time you’d expect to see the daffodils coming out but we’re not expecting them for two or three weeks at best if it warms up,” said Laura Davies, head of horticulture at the National Botanical Garden of Wales.
Gotta love those gardens… the plants know the truth and never lie…
Best of luck with the snow… but look on the light side: Every day with snow counts as a ‘rain free day’! 8-}
Congratulations Anthony on your excellent site. As a new comer to it I’m particularly impressed with your control of ad hominem when compared with alarmists sites like RealClimate where the stock response is to try and make questioners feel somewhat ridiculous and/or foolish.
I’ve never brought into AGW and until I started reading around the blogs my decision was purely intuitive thinking how could humans possibly affect GW. Having now read extensively from a laymans point of view on the subject I’m utterly convinced humans have little influence on CO2 production. That more is better and that CO2 does not significantly affect our climate when relative to other external influences completely out of our control.
However having said that and after perusing a list of Pro IPCC Views sites on http://climatedebatedaily.com/ the arguments for AGW are both many and well presented on authoritative looking sites. The articles are also often authored by respectable sounding people from positions of authority. SO how EASY it would be to buy into AGW and heavens lets all get together and save Gods planet before its too late – and who cares if we ALL have to pay more taxes to do so as its our fault in the first place. Its gotta be the only course of action because I mean even our new messiah Obama believes the planet needs saving.
Obviously the political decisions makers are ambivalent about good science because they work to an agenda that is all about implementation of good socialism and the levels of control it brings. It will be an easy position to sell particularly in the USA where people will be keen to stick it to the greedy capitalist businesses who stole their money.
Another problem is that irrespective of how many skeptics of scientific authority the anti-AGWer’s roll out it wont matter a damn because, as skeptics are quick to point out, good science is not necessarily based on consensus within the scientific community. Also the average person like me does not understand the difference between good and bad science so we make our decisions based on WHO is telling the either good or bad science and how convincing they are. And also perhaps somewhat influenced by what the weather is currently doing 🙂
And so that finally brings me to the point that the skeptic community really needs to play the game from within the AGW stronghold by cramming as many influential “deniers” as possible within positions of political importance. And just maybe over time many more non-scientific people like myself will listen and start taking heed.
My last comment is that if our planet was capable of independent thought and action it has certainly learnt how to come out in support of the skeptics cause. Maybe a new skeptic tag line should say “even our planet supports us”.
Blessed are the crack for they see the light.
Thoughts from New Zealand.
Thanks all.
James
@ur momisugly Benjamin P. (11:48:08) :
Things I have learned with my contributions of page views to your busiest month ever.
Wow, dude. You need to take a course in reading. Obviously, what is written is not registering. Or were you trying to parody the defensiveness of the committed AGW when confronted with the reality that the “consensus” ain’t one?
What a great site! I have learned a great deal here and look forward to the frequent posts. WUWT has re-taught me to look behind the seemingly authoritative statements made on many issues by those who somehow get into the news and examine the supporting details. It is so great to have a site that discusses the science of the issues and is so respectful of all. I appreciate all you do and have recommended the site to many who spout AGW dogma and should know better. Keep up the good work.
Anthony, you may be responsible for a bit of “work slowdown” and not just in the U.S. Do you realize that the comments to WUWT posts beginning last Tues keep on growing! I got up early this morning (Mon) to make sure that I could follow the threads. I return to S. Goddard’s Sat essay about ocean corals being acidified; from Sun to Mon comments have increased from 176-235.
I’ve let the lovely gull go and I tried to give up on Forecasting — too difficult for me. I even threw away my little sticky of the front of the computer that helps me keep my place. However, I take a peek this morning and the comments number 324, many more than when I left off. Since E.M. Smith and Tony B and Juan are there, I return, reading backward from #324. Finally, I hope I can stay with the MET (Sun) and look forward to new posts, but when I check one where Dr. Theon provides his wisdom about James Hansen of NASA the comment number has jumped from 484 to 549. My eyes ache…..
What helps most about the threads is that not only do many commenters put complicated science into understandable concepts and language, a manageable chunk at a time, but some AGWers — still too many ad hominem attacks and faulty science — are trying to present their best scientific perspectives. The debate is lively and it is likely that no one and no position has all the answers.
Anthony, I think you are helping to create a new interdisciplinary science of climate as differentiated from weather out of its old-wive’s-tale or propagandistic beginnings. Quite an accomplishment.
Mama mia, I left out Frank Lasner’s insightful CO2 temp and ice ages — Sun 346 comments, Mon morn before the sun is up 370!
Benjamin P
“There is a secret geo-political agenda, but that agenda is loosely defined (or not at all).”
See http://www.green-agenda.com. The agenda IS defined, and it frightened me! The more people who know about this the better I feel. (Be sure to include the dash in green-agenda.)
Many congratulations Anthony. I think a few thousand hits were mine during the voting! Nail biting stuff.
Alexis
@A Lovell
Thanks for the laugh! That website has me near tears!
The Club of Rome is going to take away your SUV and make you a ‘gaia’ worshiping pagan!
Some of the current members have been dead for decades…I imagine they are contacted by a Ouija board?