AGW Climate Change Omniclimate

World is warming. Pope is Catholic.

UPDATE: this post has featured at WUWT

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Needless to say, it’s all the usual crass, outdated lie.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 this very blog. Why? Because that page does not contain just a text by Yours Truly, rather a large quote by Willis Eschenbach.

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 […]

AGW catastrophism Climate Change Culture Freedom Global Warming Omniclimate Policy Politics Science Skepticism

The Climate Article The New York Times Editors Did Not Want You To See

As reported here on March 2, there has been a very unique phenomenon at the International Herald Tribune (IHT) / The New York Times (NYT): for the first time ever, an IHT printed-paper article was not immediately available in the NYT website. And a front-page article it was: “Feeling the heat from critics, climate scientists battle back“, by John M Broder.

The article finally appeared online in the early AM GMT hour of 3 March, titled “Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate“. Tellingly, the structure has been heavily changed, and the interviewees as well. I have had a series of e-mail exchanges with Mr Broder today and won’t report any of them. The impression remains that some Editor at the NYT panicked (**) after reading the IHT version, and got Mr Broder or some sub-editor to rewrite it almost from scratch to eliminate some inconvenient names and acquire warmist respectability by giving the concluding remarks to Gavin Schmidt (*).

All in all, it has been an episode wholly consistent with an atmosphere of climate bullying at the NYT.

I have scanned the IHT article and here it is in 2 parts:

JMBroder - Feeling the Heat, IHT 2010/3/2 part 1
JMBroder - Feeling the Heat, IHT 2010/3/2 page 1
JMBroder - Feeling the Heat, IHT 2010/3/2 page 8

For an example of what has been changed, note the mysterious disappearance of Judith Curry from the NYT version (Prof Curry is out there to conclude the IHT article), whilst a Peter C. Frumhoff of the Union of Concerned Scientists, plus Gavin Schmidt, are parachuted in literally out of thin air.

ps Gavin being Gavin, he’s now quotable with a “Good science is the best revenge“, some sort of instinctive plagiarism of Willis’ exhortation a few days earlier: “Do good science, and publicly insist that other climate scientists do good science as well

(*) see also WUWT “Willis makes the NYT, Gavin to stop “persuading the public”” and Willis Eschenbach’s generally positive comment to Broder’s NYT piece

(**) In fact, see what kind of mess they made of the NYT website around the same time… 😎

UPDATE March 7: To be 100% clear, this is how I see things have happened:

1. After weeks of deafening silence on Climategate and derivatives, Mr Broder got commissioned to write finally an article about it, once enough “scientists fighting back” quotes could be summoned

2. Mr Broder wrote his piece (version “A”) on Monday AM EST but felt it necessary to include things at they stand, including Judith Curry’s “fiasco” remarks

3. Version “A” passed all editorial checks and by Monday noon was singled out for importance and relevance as one of the front-page stories for the IHT

4. Somebody above the Editors did not like it, likely because there was no quote from GISS. Monday evening word came down to change the article.

5. It was too late for the IHT and therefore I saw version “A” printed there.

6. But it was early enough for the web so version “A” did not show up there at all

7. Mr Broder was asked on Tuesday AM to talk to Schmidt and the other guy

8. A sub-editor changed version “A” to version “B” eliminating the inconvenient pieces, moving things around and adding what was wanted, including the “good science is the best revenge” dramatic quote at the end

9. Alas, it took a while to do all that, so version “B” appeared on the NYT website only very, very late on Tuesday evening.

Cambiamento Climatico Italiano Riscaldamento Globale Scienza

L’Unica Strada Seria Riguardo I “Cambiamenti Climatici”

(Il testo seguente è una traduzione da un intervento in inglese di Willis Eschenbach, ripubblicato qui in originale con il consenso dell’autore)

Ritengo […] che l’aumento dei GHG [ga serra] riscaldera’ la Terra… ma non è questo per me il vero problema. La vera domanda è: quanto sarà piu’ calda, la Terra. Fino ad oggi, non ho visto “risultati quantitativamente utili” in merito a tale questione […]…

Una volta che tali risultati quantitativi siano ottenuti, siamo in grado di procedere alla prossima domanda: tutto considerato, una Terra più calda ci porta in una situazione migliore o peggiore?

Il mondo si e’ riscaldato un po ‘dal 1600, e, in generale, questo è stato di beneficio per l’uomo. Storicamente, l’aumento del livello del mare legato al riscaldamento del pianeta non è stato un problema significativo. Inoltre, un mondo più caldo si prevede che sia un mondo piu’ umido, che globalmente non può che essere una buona cosa.

Dunque, il riscaldamento e’ un problema, o un vantaggio? Si tratta di una questione molto aperta, e a cui sarà difficile rispondere, dato che alcuni settori vinceranno e altri perderanno. Ad oggi, tuttavia, il recente riscaldamento sembra che si sia verificato al di fuori dei tropici, di notte, in inverno… questo non sembra una cosa negativa.

E, in futuro, data in cui tali questioni avranno risposta, si potra’ procedere alla domanda finale, vale a dire: Se i GHG risulteranno essere una delle principali cause del riscaldamento (invece che i cambiamenti nell’uso del suolo, l’annerimento della neve dovuto al pulviscolo da carbone, o gli aerosol, ecc) e se verra’ determinato che il riscaldamento del pianeta sarà tutto considerato un evento negativo, esiste un modo economicamente efficiente per ridurre i GHG, o faremmo meglio a investire i nostri soldi nell’adattamento?

Fino a quando non sarà possibile rispondere a tutte queste domande, dobbiamo limitarci ad azioni che saranno importanti sia che ci sia, sia che non ci sia un futuro riscaldamento del pianeta.

La chiave è capire che tutti i problemi di cui strilla Al Gore sono qui con noi gia’ adesso – inondazioni, periodi di calore estremo, carestie, innalzamento dei livelli del mare, siccità, freddi improvvisi, e tutto quanto in uso nel catalogo apocalittico, si verificano proprio mentre scrivo questo.

E’ utile a tutti fare qualcosa per proteggere la popolazione mondiale da questi problemi climatici , qualunque sia il futuro del clima.