Climate Data Re-examined (updated)

An anonymous reader writes "An important paper that re-examines historical climate data was published on 28 October in the respected journal Energy & Environment. (The paper is also available here.) According to an article in Canada's National Post, the paper shows that a "pillar of the Kyoto Accord is based on false calculations, incorrect data and an overtly biased selection of climate records." (USA Today also has a story.) This paper will undoubtedly be controversial and should stir a vigourous data review." Update: 11/05 14:54 GMT by T : newyhouse points out a similarly contrarian 2001 Economist article by Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist .

Comments

Re:Biased Bush administration energy whores?

[ThisIsFred]

Even if it were environmentally 0 impact, they would have issues with it. Environmentalists want to impose their severe religion on everyone and so their science must be taken with as much a grain of salt as would science from RJ Reynolds.

I've never done a survey of environmentalists myself, so I couldn't possibly verify this as true. I'm not one, but despite my personal feelings, I can acknowledge some positive influence of environmentalism in my life. Although there are also points that I'd say are negatives, I can ask myself some questions:

Which is better? A 4000-pound passenger car that gets 18 mpg on the highway, or a 3200-pound car which has the same amount of interior room, 30 more horsepower and gets 30 mpg on the highway? Added bonus is that the engine doesn't turn itself into a slimy greaseball over the course of its lifetime, because of better tolerances and improved emissions controls. I know which one I'd rather drive and maintain.

Which is better, a light source that draws 60 watts or a light source with the same light output that draws 14 watts and lasts five times as long? I'll take the latter, thanks.

Which is better? Duck hunters poisoning their future game with lead shot, or a prohibition on toxic shot, resulting in a stable duck population? Being a hunter myself, I've got the old articles to prove the difficulty environmentalists had in convincing waterfowl hunters of the 60s and 70s that dumping pounds of lead into waterways was a bad idea. You'd think it would be a no-brainer, but still, resistance abounds for banning lead shot everywhere. Sure non-toxic shot is more expensive now, but it wouldn't be if the switch had been made 30 years ago.

Which is better? Dumping resultant chemicals from manufacturing into natural waterways, or storing those chemicals offsite, where other companies can deal with the disposal in a manner that doesn't kill things. Considering that I can actually swim in the local river and eat the fish I catch there for the first time in my life, I'd say that not dumping toxic chemicals is preferable.

...More efficient home furnaces, better insulating materials that don't cause cancer with repeated exposure, better air quality (sorry exhaust fumes are more irritating to me than pollen), disclosure of potentially dangerous substances in use at otherwise low-risk jobs. There are quite a few benefits to environmentalism, so I'm not quite ready to pan all environmentalists as extremists. Things are getting awfully black and white in political arenas as of late, and I wouldn't want my affiliation as "Republican" to mean "get rid of all environmentalists".