World is warming. Pope is Catholic.

Guest post by Maurizio Morabito

Quite an effort has been made by many people (including Dr Richard Muller) to portray the BEST pre-pre-pre-papers as some kind of death blow against climate skepticism, as if the whole debate had been a sports match with everybody pigeonholed in two opposite camps: here, the noble scientists finding out the world is warming; there, the ignoble skeptics pretending the world is not warming.

Needless to say, it’s all the usual crass, outdated lie.

How do I know? I know it from the About page at [my] blog. Why? Because that page does not contain just a text by Yours Truly, rather a large quote by Willis Eschenbach. [Who is a major essay contributor here at WUWT.]

It was simply such an appropriate, informed, short and straight argument, I knew it was going to describe pretty much all my future efforts at the blog.

Original publication place & date? The ClimateSceptics yahoo group, Mon Oct 22, 2007, 12:22pm

I also think that increasing GHGs will warm the earth … but that is not the real question to me. The real question is, how much it will warm the earth. To date, I have not seen any “useful quantative results” regarding that question either …

Once those quantitative results are in, we can proceed to the next question — is a warmer earth better or worse on balance? The globe has warmed quite a bit since the 1600s, and in general this has been of benefit to humans. The sea level rise from the historical warming has not been a significant problem. In addition, a warmer world is predicted to be a wetter world, which overall can only be a good thing. So, will warming be a problem, or a benefit? This is a very open question, and one which will be difficult to answer as some areas will win and some will lose. To date, however, recent warming seems to be occuring outside the tropics, in the night-time, in the winter … this does not seem like a bad thing.

And at some future date when those questions are answered, we can proceed to the final question, viz:

If GHGs are determined to be a major cause of the warming (as opposed to landuse changes, or black carbon on snow, or dark colored aerosols, etc) and if we determine that the warming will be on balance a negative occurrence, is there a cost-effective way to reduce the GHGs, or are we better off putting our money into adaptation?

Until we can answer all of those questions, we should restrict ourselves to actions which will be of value whether or not there is future warming. The key is to realize that all of the problems that Al Gore is so shrill about are here now with us today — floods, heat waves, famine, rising sea levels, droughts, cold spells, and all of the apocalyptic catalog are occuring as I write this. Anything we can do to insulate the world’s population from these climate problems will be of use to everyone no matter what the future climate holds […]

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Hugh Pepper

You can easily find the answer to your question regarding how much warming can be expected. Check out Dr. Santer’s lecture on this Blog. He addresses this question in a rational way. He also makes the point that the models are all publically available and are presently being used by thousands of scientists around the world. You could use these also. Information on this question abounds in the literature and it has been summarized by several sources, including the the IPCC.

I think this post is right on the money, we need to adapt not destroy entire economies just because one GHG MAY be responsible for some of it. I fully believe the climate is changing, but I suspect 99% of it is natural. The climate has been changing throughout history and will continue to do so, to think we can stop it and preserve some magic stable point is naive at best.
There is some evidence, as yet uninvestigated to the best of my knowledge that the end of the ice age may have drowned some very early cities – there are some very interesting and very unnatural looking structures off the west coast of India on the continental shelf at about the right depth to have been coastal during the ice age and I believe others have been noted elsewhere. We also know that the climate when the Pueblo cities were built in the US was very different to what it is now. So the climate must have changed significantly in the past and is not set in stone as the Greens seem to think.
I look forward to the day someone actually wakes up to this and decides to find ways to adapt!

Theo Goodwin

“…the BEST pre-pre-pre-papers as some kind of death blow against climate skepticism, as if the whole debate had been a sports match with everybody pigeonholed in two opposite camps: here, the noble scientists finding out the world is warming; there, the ignoble skeptics pretending the world is not warming.”
Extremely well said. Right on the money. As regards your major point, please forgive me for taking this opportunity to explain what most turns me off about climate blogs. A large percentage of people who comment treat commenting as if it were a scored sport in which the object is to prove that your result is bigger than the other person’s result. Such behavior is a clear sign of testosterone poisoning and people are supposed to outgrow that problem at some point. Muller can be excused somewhat because he is a lifelong academic and is at Berkeley. That being said, Muller’s behavior is a fine example of the effects of testosterone poisoning.

Mike Bromley the Kurd

Right. Again, also, is the thing I’ve been harping about….the premise of a stable climate to begin with. The graphs all show this skyrocketing curve. Yawn. Look at the vertical axis. Now look at the vertical axis as if it starts at zero degrees Kelvin. If you include 0-300 K as the scale, you can’t even see the warming. A tiny relative change in heat. And, Yup, it’s changing. Back to the yawn. Somehow the warmists want to treat tat 0.7 K rise like it was 70. Or something. So they build a straw man, and set him on fire. See the evil “doubters” (denier has slipped from favor…?)…they don’t think delta-T exists. Well sorry, we do. And it’s a non-issue. I must say “BEST” is an unfortunate choice of acronym….

Mike Bromley the Kurd

Hugh Pepper, I mean, honestly, pull your head out of….oh never mind.

Latitude

Hey om!
….I live on a tropical rock, out in the middle of the ocean
of course I think warm is better….LOL
(but then, you knew that already)

Theo, not sure if you’ve seen this from Legatus on another thread.
Muller & Associates
http://www.mullerandassociates.com/index.php
Richard Muller , President and Chief Scientist
GreenGov is a service offered by Muller & Associates
Helping governments build energy strategies that are right for them
Government energy policy is increasingly confounded by the complex interplay of international treaties, fluctuating prices, declining reserves, and a rapidly growing array of technological developments. Energy policy involves economics, energy security, and climate change. For some initiatives, these issues may be addressed simultaneously. For others the potential solutions might be in direct conflict. Coal, as one example, is abundant in some countries, but it is also a strong emitter of carbon dioxide
Clean Energy – demystifying emerging technologies and avoiding costly “misinvestments
We know that in order to be effective, solutions must be sustainable.
A ‘lifelong academic’ with a warmist sideline. 🙂

sharper00

Anthony Watts and Joe D’Aleo August 27th 2010 in Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception? Summary For Policy Makers point #1
“Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century”
From “A question of global temperature”
“These factors all lead to significant uncertainty and a tendency for over-estimation of century-scale temperature trends. A conclusion from all findings suggest that global data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or rankings or validate model forecasts. And, consequently, such surface data should be ignored for decision making.
From “Adjustments not made or made badly”
“There are no adjustments in NOAA and Hadley data for urban contamination. The adjustments and non-adjustments instead increased the warmth in the recent warm cycle that ended in 2001 and/or inexplicably cooled many locations in the early record, both of which augmented the apparent trend.”
From “Case Studies in data manipulation”
“A series of case studies illustrates the scale and frequency of data manipulation. In every instance, the effect of the tampering is to make it appear as though temperature has risen faster in the instrumental record than in truth it has. This is but a sampling. By the time you read this, there probably will be many more.”
“CASE 1: THE SMOKING GUN AT DARWIN ZERO” written by the same Willis Eschenbach quoted above
“It is difficult to justify adjustment on so very large a scale. We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? NOAA added a huge, artificial, imaginary trend to the most recent half of the raw data. Now it looks like the IPCC diagram. Note how the magnitude of the adjustment climbs in discrete steps like a ziggurat. What’s up with that?”
In her introduction of the BEST publications Judith Curry noted:
“I think the BEST project is very important given the importance of the surface temperature data set and the problems that have been associated with the CRU and NASA data sets, not to mention their disagreement. “
The BEST project was created precisely because of the claims by skeptics of widespread manipulation and corruption of the surface temperature record. It’s entirely ridiculous to now argue those claims never really existed at all and skeptics have all along accepted the surface temperature record as reliable and robust. I find it difficult to believe that people who’ve been reading wattsupwiththat and other blogs for years and accepted the claims the surface temperature record was unreliable will accept they simply misunderstood what was being said.

Adam R.

More back-pedaling and history re-writing by the “skeptics” .
Anthony has been on a crusade for years to show the world is NOT warming. It was really all those badly located thermometers, remember?
Now that it has been clearly shown (again) it WASN’T a siting problem, a new “skeptic” meme must be created, as we see in this post.

Theo Goodwin

jazznick (@jazznick1) says:
October 22, 2011 at 12:09 pm
As I have said elsewhere, Muller is proving to the corporate types that he is a Loose Cannon on Deck, which is the kiss of death for the corporate types.

sharper00,
Your conclusion is wrong; BEST was created for public relations purposes. And given Muller’s lack of professional ethics, ‘propaganda’ would be the correct label. Muller uses fine sounding words, but as we have seen, his actions are despicable.

Is anyone in favor of formulating some Just War-like principles that those who are fighting the Climate Wars should try to adhere to?

Theo Goodwin

sharper00 says:
October 22, 2011 at 12:14 pm
“The BEST project was created precisely because of the claims by skeptics of widespread manipulation and corruption of the surface temperature record. It’s entirely ridiculous to now argue those claims never really existed at all and skeptics have all along accepted the surface temperature record as reliable and robust.”
As Anthony has explained in the plainest language, BEST did not address his evidence of poor climate records. As he has also explained, BEST changed the topic from Anthony’s 30 year period starting in 1979 to a 60 year period for which there is no siting data and, thereby, changed the topic and committed the fallacy of Red Herring.

pat

Muller argues with the Straw Man. Like all Warmists, he finds the Straw Man to be woefully informed and strangely silent in response to his insightful evidence.

sharper00

From Watts’ introduction of the BEST project February 2011
“I can tell you that this project is partly a reaction and result of what we’ve learned in the surfacesations project, but mostly, this project is a reaction to many of the things we have been saying time and again, only to have NOAA and NASA ignore our concerns, or create responses designed to protect their ideas, rather than consider if their ideas were valid in the first place. I have been corresponding with Dr. Muller, invited to participate with my data, and when I am able, I will say more about it. In the meantime, you can visit the newly minted web page here. I highly recommend reading the section on methodology here. Longtime students of the surface temperature record will recognize some of the issues being addressed. I urge readers not to bombard these guys with questions. Let’s “git ‘er done” first.”

Adam R. says:
“Anthony has been on a crusade for years to show the world is NOT warming.”
Are you that ignorant? Or do you simply invent your falsehoods?
I’ve followed WUWT since its inception, and I’ve never seen Anthony Watts state that the planet is not warming. You must be confusing Anthony with the mendacious Michael Mann, who ridiculously claimed there was little temperature change until the industrial revolution. But MBH98 has been so thoroughly debunked that even the self-serving IPCC can no longer use Mann’s alarming MBH98 chart.

The planet has not warmed, since the MWP, or the Holocene Optimum. Has it warmed since the LIA? Probably. Are we glad it did? I certainly hope so! Are we responsible for said warming? No one knows.

Adam R. says:
October 22, 2011 at 12:52 pm
More back-pedaling and history re-writing by the “skeptics” .
Anthony has been on a crusade for years to show the world is NOT warming. It was really all those badly located thermometers, remember?
Now that it has been clearly shown (again) it WASN’T a siting problem, a new “skeptic” meme must be created, as we see in this post.

A trifecta!
1) A strawman.
2) A non sequitur
3) A total ignorance of the subject matter.
No competent skeptic has ever argued that the average surface temperature of the Earth hasn’t been rising since the early 1600’s.
The fact that BEST used the same raw data as GISS, NOAA and CRU to confirm their findings doesn’t invalidate the siting problem.
The surface temperature rise from 1977-2003 doesn’t invalidate the flat OHC and non-GISS surface temps since 2003.

Adam R, Anthony has been on a crusade to get the best data possible before making grand pronouncements. This forum constantly demonstrates the value of questioning experiments, observations and theories. Demonstrating the surface station record was fraught with misleading data is not the same as claiming there has been no rebound from the little ice age. If you don’t care about getting the best data you don’t care about science.

Brian H

The trolls are dining on Own-Foot today. The novelty has worn off long ago, of course.

Bob Johnston

Adam R. says:
“Anthony has been on a crusade for years to show the world is NOT warming.”

I won’t speak for Anthony but my interpretation is that the Surfacestations project was created to show just how poor the the temperature data actually is and to draw any conclusions from that data is probably not a good idea.
But as a skeptic, I have no problem believing the earth has warmed since the end of the LIA and I can’t imagine that my position is different from most skeptics.

sharper00

My previous comment seems to have gotten swallowed completely, the site wasn’t loading very well when I posted it so here it is again:
When Anthony Watts first introduced the BEST project in February 2011 he said:
“Good news travels fast. I’m a bit surprised to see this get some early coverage, as the project isn’t ready yet. However since it has been announced by press, I can tell you that this project is partly a reaction and result of what we’ve learned in the surfacesations project, but mostly, this project is a reaction to many of the things we have been saying time and again, only to have NOAA and NASA ignore our concerns, or create responses designed to protect their ideas, rather than consider if their ideas were valid in the first place.”

Adam R. says:
October 22, 2011 at 12:52 pm
More back-pedaling and history re-writing by the “skeptics” .
Anthony has been on a crusade for years to show the world is NOT warming. It was really all those badly located thermometers, remember?
Now that it has been clearly shown (again) it WASN’T a siting problem, a new “skeptic” meme must be created, as we see in this post.
====================================================
Oh my……. the alarmists are out today. I’m sure there will be more.
You guys are making leaps on top of leaps. First of all, none of that BEST garbage has been accepted by any science.
Secondly, if it is, we’ll know it was from pal review instead of any objective view. How do I know this? Kriging or no, you can’t just invent temps! BEST clearly has. See here…… http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/is-that-the-best-they-can-do/ They interpolated and extrapolated across entire continents.
Thirdly, there’s a huge difference between pointing out errors in the temp record and stating that the earth hadn’t warmed. Most of us accept that just because you can’t prove something, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Read up on some science concepts to try and understand that thought which, apparently is a bit complex for the average warmista.
Lastly, skeptics come in all shapes and sizes. There isn’t one person or blog that speaks for the skeptic camp in its entirety. In fact, skeptics disagree on a great many things. We abhor the echo chambers that are so prevalent on alarmist blogs. Something about we prefer to do our thinking for ourselves.
If you don’t understand what I’ve stated, just ask. If you disagree with what I’ve stated, then you haven’t been paying attention and should reserve your comments until such time you can get up to speed.

Steve Oregon

Adam R. is playing a broken record.
At this advanced and progressing juncture of climate discussions there is no excuse for his foolishness.

I do wonder about Muller… maybe he’s a mixed bag like Trenberth, part brilliant, genuine scientist, genuinely wants to get things right… and part washed up by the gravy train, the corruption that he cannot yet believe exists RIGHT THROUGH THE WHOLE OF CLIMATE SCIENCE…
Uh oh. I know what it could be. See here. Stanley Milgram wanted to understand why so many apparently rational, kind, normal people got taken in by the unmentionable Austrian lance corporal. Did they really have twisted morality or were they just blindly obeying orders from “authority”?
Milgram’s extraordinary experiments showed that people could be made to do the most awful things to “outsiders”, and put aside all their personal qualms, if they believed they were being commanded to do so by an ostensibly benevolent “authority”. The group of people most likely to behave like this were people that in normal life wanted to please others. Eccentrics and rebels had far better inbuilt brakes to, and recognition of, cruel behaviour per se.
Put that in the marxist Berkeley environment. The False Flag syndrome emerges: Ally, Neutralize, Destroy.
Ally “We are fellow skeptics like you! Watts’ concern is important!!”
Neutralize “Our results show that Watts’ work, though a salutory check, is actually nothing to worry about!”
Destroy “MEDIA MEDIA MEDIA!!! Even skeptics now see that warming has happened, records are trustworthy, and UHI is nothing to worry about!”
Maybe.

Theo Goodwin

sharper00 says:
October 22, 2011 at 1:06 pm
From Watts’ introduction of the BEST project February 2011
“I can tell you that this project is partly a reaction and result of what we’ve learned in the surfacesations project, but mostly, this project is a reaction to many of the things we have been saying time and again, only to have NOAA and NASA ignore our concerns, or create responses designed to protect their ideas, rather than consider if their ideas were valid in the first place.”
That is what Anthony expected. What he got was Bait and Switch. BEST substituted a 60 year period for the 30 year period that Anthony wanted and expected. There is no siting data for the first 30 years of the 60 year period so BEST chose not to address Anthony’s concerns with poor siting.

Theo Goodwin

Adam R. says:
October 22, 2011 at 12:52 pm
“Now that it has been clearly shown (again) it WASN’T a siting problem, a new “skeptic” meme must be created, as we see in this post.”
BEST substituted a 60 year period for the 30 year period that Anthony wanted and expected. There is no siting data for the first 30 years of the 60 year period so BEST chose not to address Anthony’s concerns with poor siting. BEST did this without consulting Anthony and so practiced Bait and Switch. BEST had a moral duty to inform the media about how they mistreated Anthony.

Theo Goodwin [reply to sharperoo] That is what Anthony expected. What he got was Bait and Switch. BEST substituted a 60 year period for the 30 year period that Anthony wanted and expected. There is no siting data for the first 30 years of the 60 year period so BEST chose not to address Anthony’s concerns with poor siting.
Bait-and-switch. Of course

sharper00..uhm…not by a long shot.

otter17

Hugh Pepper says:
October 22, 2011 at 11:31 am
“You can easily find the answer to your question regarding how much warming can be expected. Check out Dr. Santer’s lecture on this Blog.”
__________________
Yes, I agree. It is an 1.5 hours, but well done, plus a question from Anthony Watts. Link here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/dr-ben-santer-speaks-on-climate-modeling-and-everything-else/

Brian H

The BEST acryonym was a warning flag from the beginning. Truly honest folks are reluctant to claim the label: they’re too honest. So you just KNOW if you shop at Honest Al’s you’re going to be robbed …

Brian H – in politics, it is well known that chosen names indicate the opposite of any group’s true intentions. So the Democrats aren’t democratic, and the Republicans aren’t federalists. ThinkProgress doesn’t think and leads to no progress, Fox News is not fair and balanced. MoveOn is a bastion of reactionary conservatism, CFACT cares about today. And so on and so forth. It is a phenomenon that applies more or less everywhere in the world, akin to the Communist “Democratic Republics” of old.
So I am not surprised if PR-obsessed BEST isn’t.
Paradoxically, the best party to vote for should be called “Stupid heartless visionless dishonest losers”. They’d be brilliant, caring, honest, forward-thinking winners, for sure.

pat

The UHE is well established and has consistently been used to exaggerate temperatures. Usually by dropping rural readings that would have showed far less warming than was wanted by the Warmists. Many of us remember the Honolulu weather station head laughingly telling a reporter that record highs were being reported by a single site, the Honolulu International Airport, and that another site half a mile away was far cooler. But the HIC report was the one that would be official.

Anna Lemma

“That being said, Muller’s behavior is a fine example of the effects of testosterone poisoning.”
Interesting……when women on “The View” shriek and threaten to pull each other’s blonde hair out by its black roots, would you call that “estrogen poisoning”?
IOW, please retire your witless and sexist cliché.

I think “estrogen poisoning” is commonly known as “hysteria“.

1610s, from L. hystericus “of the womb,” from Gk. hysterikos “of the womb, suffering in the womb,” from hystera “womb” (see uterus). Originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus. Meaning “very funny” (by 1939) is from the notion of uncontrollable fits of laughter. Related: Hysterically.

I also doubt Anna Lemma is a female member of the human species, otherwise she would have known about the stigma of hysteria.

Legatus

That reminds me, Durban, perhaps now we know why BEST is rushing out to the media, and planned to long in advance, because they knew the date of Durban. The idea, discredite the skeptics and neutralized and co-opt them before Durban, so that they will not weaken it. yet another peice of data that makes it look more and more like a false flag operation (prentending to be skeptics as a plan to ally with, neutralise, and finally, destroy them).

Quite an effort has been made by many people (including Dr Richard Muller) to portray the BEST pre-pre-pre-papers as some kind of death blow against climate skepticism, as if the whole debate had been a sports match with everybody pigeonholed in two opposite camps: here, the noble scientists finding out the world is warming; there, the ignoble skeptics pretending the world is not warming.
Could I see some quotes on that, or a point to a web site or some such? If so, that would be absolute connfitmation of my already largely confirmed theory (complete with motive) that the BEST project was lying deliberatly when they claimed to be “skeptics” all along.

CRS, Dr.P.H.
1DandyTroll

Is the Catholic pope really Catholic after exclaiming that Catholics should start to believe in something else altogether?

Steve from Rockwood

I thought the pope was Polish. Gotta upgrade my 286.

kim;)

1DandyTroll says:
October 22, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Is the Catholic pope really Catholic after exclaiming that Catholics should start to believe in something else altogether?
Could you provide evidence of this above statement?
The pope has never spoken these words from the chair…Anthropogenic Climate Change – AGW – Man Made Climate.
He has asked for good stewardship for natural climate changes.

kim;)

Steve from Rockwood says:
October 22, 2011 at 7:40 pm
I thought the pope was Polish.
German 🙂

Jessie

No Frakking Consensus, Laframbroise’ recent book references p 68-71 Anthony McMichael, public health specialist (Australian National University).
Further sourcing of McMichael’s work –
Andreae, M, Confalonieri, U, McMichael, A et al 2006, ‘Global Environmental Change and Human Health’, in P J Crutzen (ed.), Interactions Between Global Change and Human Health, The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Vatican City pp. 213-29 AND also p374- 394 is authored by an AJ McMichael.
Working Group October-November 2004
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/documents/newpdf/sv106.pdf
3.4MB
‘…… At the most fundamental level, the pervasive improvement in public health in the 19th and 20th centuries has ultimately made possible the massive global change that the world is experiencing at present. Improvements in health care, urban sanitation, domestic hygiene, nutrition, and literacy have resulted in greatly reduced infant/child mortality and have facilitated rapid growth in the human population. By reducing costs associated with mortality and disease, they have also allowed increasing accumulation of wealth into the hands of individuals, enabling the development of a consumer society. This, together with an increasingly energy-intensive and carbon-intensive economy over the past century, has caused the rapid build up of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere…..
I = P A T
I is environmental impact
The product of human population size (P)
Level of affluence (A)
Type of technology (T)

p382-383
Noting her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is visiting Australia this week http://www.norepublic.com.au/ and lunched today with
Muriel Porter & Dr Catherine Hamlin. Also Geoffrey Rush (movie the The Kings Speech).
Dr Hamlin has worked in Ethiopia since 1954, where she and her husband opened ‘The Fistula Hospital’.
A remarkable documentary well worth watching (50 mins) portraying the lives of country women and the men and women who provide surgery and care to these women & children.
<A Walk to Beautiful
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D3w-fOmovijc
Also http://www.smh.com.au/interactive/2008/world/addis-ababa-fistula-hospital/index.html
McMichael and his colleagues would do well to consider the energy-intensive but short lives of women & children in the Asia-Pacific region, in light of Dr Hamlin and staff’ work and the documentary A Walk to Beautiful.

UK Sceptic

Hugh Pepper. Please repeat after me:
GCMs are not evidence for AGW. There are only evidence that the modellers have no idea how climate works.

Vince Causey

Is it the case the BEST has looked at siting issues? If not, then in what way have they concluded that the surface temperature record is correct?

Sal Minella

If the global climate temperature trend is positive, as one might expect during the warming phase of an interglacial period, then humankind will be best served by adapting as the alternative would seem to be unrealistic.
If we are able to reduce the global average yearly temperature to a single value, a value that is accurate to +/- .1 degree C, over a period of 150 years and that indicates an increase of somewhat less than a degree C, what does that mean? It could mean that we are actually in the warming phase of the current interglacial or that we are on the leading edge of a positive “noise” artifact within a long-term either positive, negative, or neutral trend.
At any rate, as winter approaches upstate New York (my home for over a half-century), I do what I have done all my life – pray for a warmer winter. If the temp trend is up, it has had no noticeable effect on my life. It is still way too cold for way too long each year.
My adaptation to global warming would be to wear shorts for a larger part of the year, shop the farm markets for fresh produce for a larger part of the year, spend thousands less per year heating my home, not have to spend most of the spring and half of the summer recovering from winter, not have to spend half of the summer and most of the fall preparing for winter, and well, you get the picture.
Maybe the idea of fighting what has occurred in cycle after glacial cycle with or without the interference of humanity is colossal hubris. Maybe we should reap the benefit, however small it might be, of our possibly warming earth and hope for more.

Rhys Jaggar

Here are a few things to think about, whether or not it is warming or not due to greenhouse gases:
1. Don’t live on the banks of rivers which flood. Nature thinks that rivers flooding is a good thing: it replenishes land with sediments. It’s just a silly place to build houses.
2. If you live in places where droughts of several years occur repeatedly, it’s a good idea to have good water management strategies, rather than letting all the excess water when it DOES rain flow back into the sea.
3. If you live in places where it can be cold in winter, its a good idea to build houses properly.
4. It’s probably a good idea to plan agricultural needs assuming that La Ninas and El Ninos will be with us, which implies that different places on earth will have different needs to over-produce depending on which regions are having a good year for crops.
5. It’s probably a good idea for deserts to be used for solar power generation. They are hot, sunny and with low population density.

Thanks Maurizio, good post.
I have updated my pages to include links to your Omniclimate. (Willis is a genius)
I consider AGW an extraordinary hypothesis in need of extraordinary proof, and until such proof comes forth, I’ll suspend belief.
On the other hand, SKY and CLOUD are quite extraordinary, I think.

peter stone

“World is warming. Pope is Catholic.”
I’m astonished at the belated certainty from skeptics that the “knew all along” that the BEST results would confirm global warming, and would be entirely consistent with the HadCrut, NASA, and NOAA temperature reconstructions.
At the outset of the BEST project, A.W. said he wasn’t sure if the BEST reconstruction would show warming, cooling, or no change, as shown below. A cursory review of this blog and other skeptic blogs easily show routine and frequent comment threads and posts yucking it up about “global cooling”. There was widespread speculation among skeptics that the existing temperature reconstructions were bogus and were based on manipulation, fraud, and deceptions. So how exactly is is that skeptics somehow knew all along that the BEST project would confirm the global warming that had been established in the NASA, NOAA and HadCrut temperature reconstructions? And if skeptics “only” concern about global warming was the attribution of sources, why all the ruckus about allegedly manipulated and fraudulent temperature datasets from existing sources? Finally, A.W. said he would accept “whatever” results BEST produced. There were no caveats, or provisional implications in the statement. Consequently, I don’t get the firestorm of comments downplaying the BEST results.
*******************************************************************************************************************
A. W. Re: the BEST Project: “I have no certainty nor expectations in the results. Like them, I have no idea whether it will show more warming, about the same, no change, or cooling in the land surface temperature record they are analyzing”….
“And, I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise…. Climate related website owners, I give you carte blanche to repost this.”
REPLY: And I’d have no problem at all if they kept their word given to me when I visited a full day that they would do this per the scientific method. Instead they went for a media PR blitz before science had a chance to speak. If they had done peer review first, then issued PR, like we see daily from other scientists on Eurekalert.com I’d have no reason for taking an issue with it.
But they changed the game from one of scientific method to one of media blitz. The papers have not completed peer review, and they have not been accepted by a science journal. If I had done the same thing, I’d be excoriated by people just like yourself.
But you seem OK with this PR before peer review method, so I think that says more about you than me. – Anthony

peter stone – I’m astonished at the belated certainty from skeptics that the “knew all along” that the BEST results would confirm global warming, and would be entirely consistent with the HadCrut, NASA, and NOAA temperature reconstructions
This is what I wrote at Omniclimate on Feb 28, 2011:

[…] my predictions on the BEST results:
* According to the Berkeley group, the Earth’s surface temperature will have risen (on average) slightly less than what indicated by NASA, NOAA and the Met Office
* Differences will be on the edge of statistical significance, leaving a lot open to subjective interpretation
* Several attempts will be made by climate change conformists and True Believers to smear the work of BEST, and to prevent them from publishing their data
* After publication, organised groups of people will try to cloud the issue to the point of leaving the public unsure about what exactly was found by BEST
* New questions will be raised regarding UHI, however the next IPCC assessment’s first draft will be singularly forgetful of any peer-reviewed paper on the topic
* We will all be left with a slightly-warming world, the only other certitude being that all mitigation efforts will be among the stupidest ideas that ever sprung to human mind.

ferdberple

The argument that humans should adapt to climate change rather than try and change the climate is supported by the evidence in BC.
Our Carbon Tax was intended to reduce carbon emissions. Under the Law schools and hospitals must be carbon neutral, which is basically impossible because they have no carbon neutral source of energy they can purchase. So, the schools and hospitals must purchase carbon offsets from Pacific Carbon Exchange.
As a result, taxpayer money that could be used to insulate these schools and hospitals, and to purchase more efficient boilers, that money is instead being removed from schools and hospitals to purchase carbon credits. In the end the result is that schools and hospitals create more CO2 as a result of the law than if they were allowed to instead use the money to improve efficiency.
The problem is that well meaning politicians forget that money is not infinite. We cannot afford to do everything at the same time. If we are going to tax carbon, that money must come from somewhere else, which means giving up something else.
In the case of hospitals and schools the carbon tax means that schools and hospitals can pay the tax, or make improvements, but they cannot afford to do both. The law says they must pay the tax. The law doesn’t say they must make improvements, so they pay the tax and the improvements don’t get made. The very problem the tax was intended to correct is made worse by the tax.

ferdberple

Rhys Jaggar says:
October 23, 2011 at 7:03 am
5. It’s probably a good idea for deserts to be used for solar power generation. They are hot, sunny and with low population density.
California has huge desserts with a very large population close at hand eager to purchase power. They have a larger economy than most of the countries of the world.
Yet when you look at the history of solar power in California it is a history of failure after failure. The issue is price: Energy wholesales for about $0.03 cents per kWh. The cost of solar power installed is about $ 10.00 per watt (http://www.californiasolarstatistics.ca.gov/reports/cost_per_watt/)
This works out to $10,000 / kW. You will need to generate at a minimum 10% ROI cost per year to pay for the investment and maintenance. More realistically you should shoot for 20-25% to allow for contingencies, opportunity cost (what else could you have done with the money) and heaven forbid, profit. Let us 10% as this is our minimum.
$10k / kw * 10% = $ 1k worth of power per year minimum return required.
On average you get 2-3 k hours of sunshine a year in a good location. Lets use 3k hours the best case.
3k hours * 0.03 per hour = $90 per year actual return
So, on an investment where we need to make $1000 per year, we are going to make $90 per year best case, when solar power goes head to head with traditional power generation.
In other words, for California to switch to solar power, electricity rates would have to go up by a factor of 10 minimum, and likely a lot more. This is in California, which is perhaps one of the best locations on earth for solar power.

kim;)

Jessie says:
October 23, 2011 at 4:25 am
“No Frakking Consensus, Laframbroise’ recent book references p 68-71 Anthony McMichael, public health specialist (Australian National University).
Further sourcing of McMichael’s work –
Andreae, M, Confalonieri, U, McMichael, A et al 2006, ‘Global Environmental Change and Human Health’, in P J Crutzen (ed.), Interactions Between Global Change and Human Health, The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Vatican City pp. 213-29 AND also p374- 394 is authored by an AJ McMichael.
Working Group October-November 2004
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/documents/newpdf/sv106.pdf
3.4MB ”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I can only assume that you are trying to make a point with this.
Just what it is…………….
If you are Catholic and think that the Pontifical Academy of Science [ OR a “working group” ] speaks for the Pope – Shame on you…… If not – you are excused. 🙂
In fact, a “working group” doesn’t even speak for the whole of the academy.
[ As witnessed within your PDF on page 3 ]
Quote:
[ “The opinions expressed with absolute freedom during the presentation of
the papers of this meeting, although published by the Academy, represent
only the points of view of the participants and not those of the Academy.”]
The Pontifical Academy of Science is comprised of scientists whose backgrounds are from Atheists, Agnostics, Christians, – Some even very anti-Catholic / Christian [ Paul J. Crutzen The lead Author of this group – Signed The Humanist Manifesto. ]
[ http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III ]
[ http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III/Notable_Signers
[“Located in the heart of Washington D.C., the AHA brings together humanists and nontheists of all stripes together toward the cause of progressive social change” ]
[ http://www.americanhumanist.org/What_We_Do/Overview ]
You will note, many members of The Pontifical Academy of Science here – Are well known scientists – few are Catholic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Members_of_the_Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences
The important part: They are a body of scientists – FREE to report on scientific opinions.
Surely, you don’t think Atheists are the Voice of Catholicism? They are no more a voice of Catholicism – as is the CRU the voice of Congress… or the President.
I repeat: “The Pope has never spoken these words from the chair…Anthropogenic Climate Change – AGW – Man Made Climate.
He has asked for good stewardship for natural climate changes.”

Hugh Pepper

To UKSceptic. Please check out the lecture given by Dr Ben Santer, a real expert on the subject of global warming and climate change. You can find it elsewhere on this BLog site. Dr Santer addresses the issue you raise and cites evidence based on observation. Your skepticism might be alleviated by this information.