Slashdot Mirror
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 .
So? Is the rise in temperature (and the receding glacier) due to human action (CO2-emissions) or due to something else (increased solar-activity, altered wind-patterns etc.)?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
As I Canadian, I want to add a few comments.
First, the National Post is noted for having a right-wing bias in its editorial section.
Second, the piece in the National Post was written by an Earth Sciences professor of a University famously known as "last chance U": Carleton has one of the lowest admission standards in the province of Ontario, which tends to be correlated with the quality of faculty they tend to attract. They have a couple of good programs (such as journalism) but I can't say if the earth science department is very good or not, nor can I speak for the competence of the article's author.
Third, as other posters have mentioned, the paper wasn't published by people who necessarily understand anything about climate - the work was done by an economist and an "independant consultant". I'm not saying that you need a PhD in earth sciences or meterology to contribute to the debate, but on the other hand, I'd like some reassurances they neither they nor the editors of the journal (how to put this?)... have pointy-hair.
On the matter of the journal, I think it is a bit of a stretch to say they are "respected". As another poster mentioned, their website implies a slight bias to the warming naysayers crowd, and they are more or less touting this paper for publicity in a manner which verges on editorializing. Respectable journals don't do that.
Finally, having read some things about the global warming debate, I think looking at historical warming data is interesting, but it might even turn out to be a sideline. What we know without a doubt is that CO_2 concentrations are rising exponentially, and that CO_2 is trapping solar energy. The question of the global warming debate (better expressed, perhaps, as the greenhouse gas debate) isn't "is it happening", but rather, "what will be the outcome", "how soon will we see the outcomes", and "what do we need to do to guard against the outcomes".
Yes, but the assumption that man is the cause of this warming trend is not grounded on any hard scientific evidence. As of now we only have theories without any "hard" evidence, which is not enough to make good public policy with.
Take a few deep breaths, it's okay.