AGW Climate Change Global Warming Omniclimate Science

So What Is O'Donnell et al Good For?

Andy Russell of Our Clouded Hills recently mused about Anthony Watts’ “tone” regarding the O’Donnell et al “improvements” on Steig et al 2009.

This is a comment I have left at Russell’s site, reproduced here for future memory:

Andy – comment 541991 by O’Donnell at WUWT appears to contradict your “poor form” statement

Title of the post: I do not see any misrepresentation in Anthony’s use of the word “rebuts” […] There is nothing inconsistent between ‘rebuttal’ and ‘improvement’

Given the fact that Watts has not used the term “repudiate”, what exactly are you accusing him of insinuating?

Secondly, you ask how can the new paper be “achieving something potentially useful”. Well, you’ve answered yourself:

a rapidly warming peninsula is not a good situation either and is also likely to have anthropogenic causes, albeit complicated ones.

This should be welcome news to all interested in seeing climate science progress forward at a regional level. If O’Donnell et al are right – we have a rapidly-warming region that is called Antarctic Peninsula, and it stands out against its surroundings…let’s figure out what is happening!!

If on the other hand Steig et al are right – there isn’t much to do, is there, apart from putting a few more weather stations across West Antarctica to confirm the claimed trends…especially given the fact that the Antarctic Peninsula does sport a highly positive measured anomaly, as in NASA’s Earth Observatory note for Dec 10.

0 replies on “So What Is O'Donnell et al Good For?”


I left a quick response over on my blog but thought I’d just clear something up.

You’ve misunderstood what I said about the new paper.

I didn’t say “how can the new paper be “achieving something potentially useful””.

I was wondering why Watts was focusing on the “battle” with Steig et al rather than focusing on the useful results of the new paper.

There already are stations in west Antarctica, it’s just that they show undesirable results. You see global warming is a fact, not a theory, so when the data contradicts the fact the data must be wrong.

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.