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Needless to say, it’s all the usual crass, outdated lie.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 […]
On the subject of religion and “Climate Change” since there seems to be a bit of confusion.
Holy Land’s religious leaders reach agreement– on climate change
In a rare sign of accord, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim leaders in the Holy Land will unite behind a call for action on climate change, Vatican Insider reports.
The “Holy Land Declaration on Climate Change” will be launched on July 25 in Jerusalem, with endorsements from prominent leaders of each of the three monotheistic faiths…. http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=11126
Gail Combs says:
October 24, 2011 at 10:19 pm
On the subject of religion and “Climate Change” since there seems to be a bit of confusion.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Trying to understand your point………..
Are you saying that Religious brought on the AGW hypothesis and activism? If so, I believe, the AGW hypothesis was conceived / fueled / financed without Religions [ other than the religion of environmentalists ]…and most of them (environmentalists) that brought us AGW… subscribe to what belief structure?
Are you saying that Religious have never before been concerned about climatic / environmental / economic issues / impacts faced by humankind before AGW?
Are you saying the unproven hypothesis of AGW is the same as Climate [ Climate Change ]?
BTW was it Religions that changed the name – so that it could “Green” Religions? You see, in the strictest sense, “Anthropogenic” – “Anthropocentric” – “Anthropocene” – “Man-Made Climate” aren’t really words Religious flock towards. Those names seem to radically change the sift from what they believe…. BUT Climate, by nature, has always changed. Haven’t you ever wondered who did… and why the name changed from “AGW” to “Climate Change”?
You linked to a page that has the word Vatican and Catholic in it….are you trying to say that “Vatican Insider” [ a newspaper ] and “Catholic Culture Blog” are the voice of Catholicism, or that even The Pontifical Academy of Science is?
Do you suggest that Climate / environmental / economic issues and or impacts, on humankind, only pertain to non-theists and should not be discussed or investigated, by theists?
Like it or not, the hypothesis of AGW and CO2 regulations and economic schemes imposed by AGW’ers…. are nondiscriminatory to humans.
IMO Climate Realists have a choice – To maintain the old, “religion is anti-science” mantra….and alienate… OR to invite and help educate… to be able to see / recognize the new “Greeners of Religions”???
kim;) says: October 23, 2011 at 12:30 pm
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. 🙂
Sorry about warping your smiley kim;)
I do not need your excuse, but thanks for the honour……
I guess I was not trying to make a point, but just posting information for readers. And those that have not read Donna Lamframboise’ book. And for readers to further consider the output from the academic public health sphere and its absence in detailing violence over the years yet its interest in AGW and meeting the (developing nations) global health/Millennium Goals etc. http://www.cfcpng.org.pg/downloads/petition_agains_family_violence_11.06.08.pdf
Public health has long committed itself to the [spiritualism of the] environment and tribal peoples (codified at Alma Ata in 1978). It is quite a feat of science to carpet such facts of life-lived violence while negating ‘human dignity’. And then to propose Nobel Prize winning Grameen Bank ideas, or carbon exchanges in vast areas kept deliberately gated by anthro-pologists-cum-eco-nomists and radical environ-mentalists over the years resulting in gross lack of production or development or now touted for tourism for eg.
I guess it would only take a ‘revolution’, in IT not an industrial one, for a ‘market’ to develop? Maintain education of all while the dictators (elders) of ‘communal lands’ are supported in new ventures? What is this model supporting?
‘…As religious leaders of different faiths, who share the conviction in the one Creator, Lord of the Universe; we believe that the essence of religion is to worship G-d and respect the life and dignity of all human beings, regardless of religion, nationality and gender.
We accordingly commit ourselves to use our positions and good offices, to advance these sacred values, to prevent religion from being used as a source of conflict, and to promote mutual respect, a just and comprehensive peace and reconciliation between people of all faiths in the Holy Land and worldwide.’
http://www.crihl.org/ (thanks to Gail Combs, and I just noted kim is trying to understand her point also).
Yep, carbon trading, the new religion, certainly dampens that source of conflict between religions. That is the new eco-religion, based on trading a very small % of the atmosphere for the sake of retaining communal land under dictators, littel improvement in violence against wmen, teenagers and children and rights-based types while playing with private property rights of others by the State.
# 36 “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.” (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html ).
Hmmm. Even PNG local peoples can condemn the behaviour of individuals and their greater impact on women and children. Australians can’t even do that for the women, teenagers and children in the vast outback reserves. Let alone the Church(es) in Australia. Or Bill Gates.
#35 ‘It is in the interests of the market to promote emancipation, but in order to do so effectively, it cannot rely only on itself, because it is not able to produce by itself something that lies outside its competence. It must draw its moral energies from other subjects that are capable of generating them. bold inserted.
I guess it is the in the moral interests of those that are not frightened to speak out, even if there is granted no freedom of speech…… or human dignity? Surely that IS THE ROLE of The Church?
BTW…I am going to hear Cardinal George Pell speak at the GWPF’s Annual Lecture in London, UK on Oct 26 (6pm GMT). Topic “One Christian Perspective on Climate Change”. If there is cell signal, I’ll report from it live on Twitter (@mmorabito67).
Dalazal + Sharperoo + many others:
Thank you for pointing out the obvious dishonesty. I honestly cannot fathom the level of cognitive dissonance impairment required to not realise even a slight discrepancy between:
[blockquote]1) “it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century”[/blockquote]
and:
[blockquote]2) “Needless to say, it’s all the usual crass, outdated lie [that] skeptics [are] pretending the world is not warming.” [/blockquote]
Actually, every single blog that has pushed the urban heat island effect as a major source of contamination of the global data set has made the same claim as in 1). This includes both WUWT, Climateaudit, BishopHill, William Briggs and almost every minor sceptic troll blog (“Omnologos”, CO2science, antigreen etc. etc.)
These arguments all follow the line from Freud´s famous “Kettle defense”: (http://www.ntskeptics.org/1998/1998february/february1998.htm):
[blockquote]”A man is suing his neighbor. He claims in court that the neighbor borrowed a kettle from him and returned it damaged. He wants the neighbor to pay reparations.
The neighbor offers his defense in three parts: 1) “I never borrowed the kettle.” 2) “It was already damaged when I got it.” 3) “It was in perfect condition when I returned it.”[/blockquote]
Find the point you deem to be the least minimally defensible and argue from this – and proceed to the next when necessary (and just ignore any contradictions, inconsistencies and such boorish stuff). 1) CO2 is not rising significantly compared to earlier in the 20th century (Beck, Segalstad, Jaworowski) 2) OK, so CO2 is rising, but human sources are but a minor player (Howard Hayden, Spencer on WUWT) 3) OK, so human CO2 is significant, but its temperature effect is nonexistant (Heinz Hug) 4) OK, so CO2 has a temperature effect, but it is dwarfed by water vapour (Lindzen, Reid Bryson, Tim Ball 5) OK, so the CO2 temperature effect is not completely dwarfed by water vapour, but the sun is much more important (Svensmark, Shaviv, many others) 6) OK, so the solar output has been flat since the 50ies, but there are no net positive feedback (Lindzen again, Spencer again) 7) Actually, there has been no significant global warming (Watts, Singer + more), 8) Hey, all this warming is a) unstoppable anyway (Singer again) b) good for humanity (Michaels).
Of course one may throw in all sorts of rubbish anywhere in between, return to previous talking points when the sceptic realises that he is going down a risky path 🙂 or simply use them all invariably in blog post written a litlle time apart, hoping that your readers either have a short memory or care equally little about such petite details as consistency. Several of these arguments have been put favourably forward on this blog, more or less thinly veiled as someone “just lauching some interesting heretic thought”………chances are that sometime in the future, new posts in this blog will push the “no significant global warming” meme again. I certainly wont be sitting waiting by the computer……….:)
I find it amusing that Mr Bugge Harder is unable to competently use even the most basic HTML commands without totally screwing up throughout his wild-eyed rant.☺
Smokey – even more amusing is CBH’s inability to understand that if a place warms up because of UHI, still it does warm up.
I guess the world looks different if one is obsessed with CO2.
Jessie says:
October 25, 2011 at 4:46 am
Hiyas Jessie,
I totally agree with your post.
As to this final statement: “Surely that IS THE ROLE of The Church?”
I post on an international Christian site, for a number of years now, mostly on social justice. Which of course, also includes the issues of AGW – Cap and Trade – Carbon Credit schemes etc.
As with the public, a Church relies on information. Sadly, it gets the information from the same MSM as does the public. At first, I was set upon by the hmmmmm “SOLD ON AGW” crowd. Even to the point that someone, who couldn’t debate the issues, invited posters from SkS and RC to “come and set me straight”. 🙂 The problem was, unlike them, I would read opposing views such as SkS and RC [ pre SkS’s changes ]….and knew what the “counters” to claims made by this crowd were.
I absolutely know that my posts have been seen by the pulpit. As witnessed by two PAS reports having an Official spokesperson set the record straight, in news articles, about not coming from the Pope, as it was being reported as having come from. The problem was, much like the BEST report, it was leaked to news agencies before hand. It was even described as being peer-reviewed. [ No PAS paper is peer-reviewed, no matter how many authors they list within it ].
The point I’m trying to make: Sometimes, it takes the “body” of a Church to wakeup the “pulpit”.
omnologos says:
October 25, 2011 at 4:12 pm
BTW…I am going to hear Cardinal George Pell speak at the GWPF’s Annual Lecture in London, UK on Oct 26 (6pm GMT). Topic “One Christian Perspective on Climate Change”. If there is cell signal, I’ll report from it live on Twitter (@mmorabito67).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Could you please post on your web page, as well?
Christoffer Bugge Harder says:
October 26, 2011 at 6:33 am
I can see you are used to posting on php blogs. Try instead of [ ] ..:)
You say [ and my bolding ]:
“1). This includes both WUWT, Climateaudit, BishopHill, William Briggs and almost every minor sceptic troll blog (“Omnologos”, CO2science, antigreen etc. etc.)
hmmmmm
You say:
“Of course one may throw in all sorts of rubbish anywhere in between, return to previous talking points when the sceptic realises that he is going down a risky path 🙂 or simply use them all invariably in blog post written a litlle time apart, hoping that your readers either have a short memory or care equally little about such petite details as consistency. ”
Oh my…:)
Constancy? Surely, you MUST be talking of ” hide the decline” – “It’s in the oceans” – It’s a travesty” – redefine what the peer-review” – adjusted” – “and adjusted” etc….etc……….etc………………
You’ve had over 30 years and hundreds of millions of dollars – And all you can show is the AGW mantra and “adjusted data” spewed by “adjusted models”.
And you talking of “kettles”…C’mon.
“Smokey”: You may well (as usual) have missed anything related to logic, facts, arguments, and three-syllable words, but I fully agree you deserve a laugh about my lack of html skills. Just stick to such objections in the future, and this blog will be a better place for all of us.
“Kim;”: I gather that you don´t like Trenberth, Jones and probably others, but I honestly have no idea what other points, if any, you were trying to make, and/or if they were related to anything brought up by me or others in this thread?
Maurizio Morabito: The only slight problem with your “argument” is that BEST shows that Earth is not warming up because of UHI. Oh wait, and you failed (like in all other similar comments) to explain how “no significant global warming in the 20th century” could be compatible with the result of BEST, here in Muller´s own words:
I am a bit puzzled how such an obvious point could escape a man with such ample experience in scientific writing/editing. Oh, wait……..:)
CBH is clearly under the illusion that this site is like the ones he’s used to, in which The Message is unitary, uniform, and carefully filtered. The exploration of multiple POVs and analytic approaches is deadly to the purity of AGWist sites, but core here.
So his distress and confusion are ineluctable.
Brian H,
Yes, CBH has been sent running off to Skeptical Pseudo-Science with his tail between his legs before by WUWT commentators. Now, instead of using his time productively to learn the most elementary HTML commands, Bugge Harder is back bugging us harder, but accomplishing nothing constructive. He can’t. Here’s why:
If CBH ever learns how to comprehend the null hypothesis, he will understand that there’s no “there” there. CAGW has no testable, empirical supporting evidence. It is merely a conjecture that cannot be falsified like the null hypothesis, and therefore the scientific method doesn’t apply to it. It’s just conjecture.
[Snip. Insulting our host is unacceptable. ~dbs, mod.]
kim;) says: October 26, 2011 at 10:28 am
Jessie says:October 25, 2011 at 4:46 am
Well that is interesting Kim.
For instance, given that primary health and education in Latin America (and PNG, Timor etc) have in the past and currently are provided by The Church at ‘grass-roots’ level, then there would appear to be a problem with what is reported up the line?
I am afraid I do not understand the term ‘social justice’- individual justice, yes.
Otherwise we are going into the field of Freire, in my view a complete blight on the landscape. You’d almost be telling me we need structural readjustment programs based on carbon or carbon dioxide to pay for health and education to achieve social justice? Pull the other one!
I hope you made the time to watch the 50 min Dr Hamlin video. The point there, besides the honour had by Dr Hamlin to having luncheon with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, being that men (hey and they were both black and white blokes) were conducting gynaecological/obstetric surgery and clinical discussions. This work, by men that they have been effectively sidelined [banned] from doing has been due to feminist outcry. In many many other nations, even here in outback Australia, where some midwives want to return tribal peoples to ‘traditional birthing practices.’ The gender and colour debate has truly reached downwards to its penultimate, at the expense, of truly lived needs of the woman/child.
omnologos says: October 25, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Thank you
Our paper The Australian posted Cardinal Pell’s speech today. Just fantastic to read. I read it in paper version as usual, but you can read it on the web also!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/be-prudent-with-climate-claims/story-e6frgd0x-1226177730473
source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion
Dear moderator: Sorry if I insulted our undoubtedly likable and honourable host. However, I would honestly love to hear someone explain how one can seriously reconcile our honourable host´s (and many other´s with him) statement
with the result of BEST, which happen to show that it can indeed be credibly and undeniably affirmed (once again) that there has been an unequivocally significant “global warming” in the 20th century that is in no way a result of any wide, systematical or unidirectional tampering of pre-satellite data.
Our honourable host may disagree with BEST, but the (IMHO) slightly less honourable author of this post suggests that “it’s all the usual crass, outdated lie [that] skeptics [are] pretending the world is not warming”. With all due respect, our honourable, sceptical host did clearly make a pretense that the temperature data of GISS/NOAA/NCDC/HADCRU could not be used to claim that the world was warming.
For the sake of consistency, Mr. Morabito must either reject the result of BEST, rendering this post pointless, or our honourable host must set him straight and admit that BEST is irreconcilable with his own previous statements, also rendering this post pointless. Leaving blatant inconsistencies uncorrected is highly damaging to a site´s credibility. I fail to see how any fair-minded reading of this could possibly arrive at a different conclusion.
P.S. I hope the above is sufficiently polite to let through. You are, of course, free to snip this below if you want, but I would be happy if anyone could enlighten me as to what insulting content the previous post contained? “Brian H” appeared to suggest that it was the core of this site to explore arguments along the lines of e.g. a) world isn´t warming, b) warming of the world is all natural, and anyway, c) the anthropogenic warming is only small.
I merely pointed out that this approach may work fine for a defense lawyer whose legitimate job it is to try to generate reasonable doubt (and who legitimately does not need to believe in what he says), but that in science, one needs to have a consistent argument one actually believes in, taking into account the whole picture, if one is to be taken seriously. If “Brian H” thinks that such lawyerly approaches are the core of WUWT, and if this appeared insulting to you, then maybe you should rather have a kind word with “Brian H” instead of attacking the messenger?
Evaluating Mr. Morabitos earlier touted predictions on BEST is actually worthwhile:
Actually, BEST found a trend of 1.9 ± 0.1 °C/100yr since 1950, exactly what has been indicated by NASA: NOAA and CRU.
But somehow, the results left nothing open to interpretations regarding whether the trend was a) real, b) significant, or c) not a result of UHI.
On the contrary, everybody welcomed the results of BEST´s work (though noting that it was highly unsurprising), and RealClimate has even called it “laudable” that they are writing their work up as scientific papers.
Actually, journalists and organised groups have made it painstakingly clear for everyone what BEST found, as has Muller himself: The trend is clear, robust and by no means a result of UHI or irregular “tampering”. (It is hardly their fault that it still does not appear to have filtered down to the author of this blog)
The questions having been raised against BEST and their treatment of UHI issues have, so far, been exactly the same tired arguments we have heard for decades now, which are already debunked in BEST itself. But I will be surprised if those papers, once they get published, do not appear in the next IPCC report, both in draft and in the final version.
“Slightly” contains enough wiggle room for any suggested trend as to be impossible to evaluate, but certainly, we are left with a world warming exactly as it was concluded before BEST. As for the latter “certitude”, while I don´t pretend to know or be able to evaluate all mitigation efforts, then I can say for sure that I have seen far more grotesquely stupid ideas and claims from at least one self-identified omniscient blogger posting not far from here.
Christoffer Bugge Harder says: October 27, 2011 at 2:41 am
Most impressed with your grovelling and art in logic.
There have been arguments by time-rich CBH. However there’s no evidence as yet of any significant argument.
QED
Dear Mr. Morabito: If you could find time to answer just how you reconcile the honourable Mr. Watts:
with Mullers results:
then it would suffice.
I appreciate you may find it difficult to fit in your hard-pressed schedule – it sure must take some time to find words fit to defend all Berlusconi´s actions, or to write three papers in less than 20 years – but I hold out high hopes. .)
Am sorry CBH but I can take the donkey to the water, and I can show the donkey how to drink the water, but under no circumstance I’m going to spend any time arguing with the donkey what to do, with the water.
“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.”
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
click8
click9
click10
click11
click12
The official temperature record has been so completely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it can not be credibly asserted that the official record reflects reality. All official adjustments result in a more alarming message. There probably has been some mild natural global warming since the LIA. But based upon the constant revisions of the official record – revisions which always indicate either higher current temperatures, or a more rapid warming, they cannot credibly assert anything. Their unexplained revisions are simply a ploy to get more funding by falsely alarming the public.
Once again I invite Bugge Harder to try to falsify my simple and straightforward hypothesis, using empirical, testable evidence per the scientific method:
CO2 is a harmless and beneficial trace gas. More is better.
B-H is going to have to either provide testable evidence verifying global harm traceable specifically to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or be seen as just another in a long line of mendacious alarmists who cannot falisfy the hypothesis. The demonization of “carbon” is being promoted by unscrupulous individuals and groups for their own self-serving agenda. They are a plague of scientific charlatans and parasites on on all honest taxpaying citizens.
Mr. Morabito: Staying with the metaphors: If you could just offer some kind of hint as to where in your “arguments” in this thread you see just the slightest drop of water, then this poor thirsty donkey will happily do all work necessary to find any way to quench his insatiable though hitherto woefully unfulfilled thirst for logic, consistency and truth.
Smokey: You are merely rehashing all the old points debunked by the BEST team (and many others before them). Given this plain and simple refusal to accept or even consider the facts here, I have little doubt that you will dispel out of hand any reference to the attribution studies linking the observed warming to GHGs (like e.g. Stott et al. 2000), or the following droughts in the Mediterranean region or the Moscow Heat wave . Besides, I think you will use this as a “safe exit” that will allow you to make any kind of argument along the lines that that since we have only one planet, it is impossible to test anything reliably in the climate system anyway.
However, one thing that is already well known and simply testable is the CO2 acidification of the oceans, which has many times been shown to be detrimental to corals, coralline algae, foraminifera or shellfish (see e.g http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n2/full/ngeo100.html ). This is quite unequivocally an adverse effect due to anthropogenic CO2. (Of course, I´m sure you will find a way to dismiss this as some kind of alarmist fakery, too. But then again, you also have some trouble grasping the fact that the CO2 rise is manmade anyway, don´t you 🙂
I do, however, credit you for being such an honest, well-paying taxpayer. We really do need people like you.
Best regards, yours truly
CBH – Your obsession is puzzling. I thought I was a troll? Please do make up your mind. Or maybe not, since there’s no mind of yours in these exchanges.
B-H,
Changing the subject again, I see. I’ll educate you anyway:
The “ocean acidification” nonsense has been debunked by experts, while you were no doubt picking up alarmist talking points at Skeptical Pseudo-Science [SPS] and other lightly trafficked propaganda blogs. Here are some links to the science:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/19/the-electric-oceanic-acid-test
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/10/ocean-acidification-chicken-of-the-sea-little-strikes-again
You’re not nearly up to speed on the ocean pH question. When you’ve finished reading the articles and comments linked above, you will know something about the subject.
And it is you who are projecting your faults onto others. You say I have not read your links, but I have. The latest link is from 2007, and the previous was from 2000. They have since been falsified due to bad experimental modeling. Read the links I provided to find out more.
Rather than avoid the shenanigans exposed in the charts and blink gifs I linked, you simply avoided facing the corruption of the temperature record – which absolutely supports Anthony’s statement that “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.” I provided proof. You answered with baseless opinion.
Finally, I note that you continue to hide out from my hypothesis:
CO2 is a harmless and beneficial trace gas. More is better.
It is because you are unable to falsify it in any testable manner, per the scientific method. It is the current null hypothesis, against which the alternate CAGW hypothesis fails; nothing unusual is occurring. Natural variability fully explains the planet’s various climate systems, with no need to add an extraneous variable like CO2.
…”In addition, a warmer world is predicted to be a wetter world, which overall can only be a good thing”…
Oh really?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2011/oct/27/italy-floods-liguria-video?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3486
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/27/world/asia/thailand-flood/index.html?&hpt=hp_c1
The Pope is Catholic and Anthony Watts doesn’t get it. What else is new?
REPLY: Thomas, I get it just fine. If you don’t like my position, nobody is forcing you to argue here. – Anthony