In the wake of the publication of the East Anglia e-mails, information strengthening the case of global warming skeptics has been coming to light at such a rapid pace than even the most dedicated followers of this debate can barely keep track of the data coming to light. Al Gore has cancelled his $1,200 a head reception in Copenhagen. One of the chief advocates of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis (thanks for the correction, Dave!) got quite testy in confronting a critic.
. . . plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.
The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.
In other words, as Sonicfrog (who alerted me to this article) notes, “those now examining the state of everything that went on have absolutely no confidence that things were done properly.” Well, it seems they got cold feet about their reexamination and won’t be doing a do-over, but will be making “an effort to release more data to to public.” Let’s hope they do more than just make an effort and actually release the data.
Just another sign how much global warming alarmists have been keeping us in the dark.
This failure to release the data shows o what extent so many such alarmists have been going on faith. And reminds me of a challenge I have occasionally made over the past four or five years to friends convinced about the reality of the AGW hypothesis, asking them, based on the global warming “science,” to predict what temperatures will be five or ten years hence. If the earth warmed as per their predictions, then I would join them in supporting drastic carbon-reducing measures.
Instead of taking me up on my challenge, they respond that in five (or ten) years, it will be too late, that we need to act now. Like those withholding the data, they too refrained from giving me figures. And anyway, from what I’ve been reading in recent days, it seems had any of them taken up my challenge, well, they’d have to explain why temperatures these past few years have, instead of increasing, been decreasing.
So, yes, let’s look at the data. And in the three years it was supposed to take to reexamine them, if we see a warming trend, I might be less of a skeptic than I now am, but given what we’ve learned in the past two weeks, global warming hypothesists have a lot more to do to convince me (and a lot of others) of the merits of AGW than they did a few years back.