Global warming skeptics have had it rough recently. I don’t know about you but when Al Gore says that the debate over global warming is closed, we may as well shut down all the laboratories studying the problem and simply give in to the inevitable – that a bunch of Luddites and anti-industrial, anti-capitalist, anti-globalization nitwits should take control of the American economy and bring us into a new age of carbon free living while bringing back the horse and buggy and steam powered locomotives.
But something happened on the way to creating this nirvana, namely Steve McIntyre.
Mr. McIntyre is a saboteur, an apostate, a living, breathing monkey wrench who has thrown himself into the global warming Juggernaut and caused the entire machine to stop dead in its tracks:
Steve McIntyre posted this data from NASA’s newly published data set from Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) These numbers represent deviation from the mean temperature calculated from temperature measurement stations throughout the USA.According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is.
Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.)
McIntyre had discovered a slight error in NASA’s temperature calculations – enough to skew the results considerably and throw the global warming worshippers for a loop. In fact, since many advocates treat global warming more as a religion than science, McIntyre’s discovery would be like finding out that Jesus Christ never lived or that Moses never got the Ten Commandments from God.
Now, lest I be accused of denying other evidence for climate change – namely the rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere whose measurements have spiked in the last 100 years and are at levels rarely seen in the last millions of years – I will state flatly that the data Mr. McIntyre has forced NASA to change only alters the debate over how serious the problem is and not whether the problem exists. In short, the alterations in climate data simply proves a point global warming skeptics have been making for more than a decade; that more research is needed before we crash the economies of the industrialized world in order to satisfy those whose agenda is more political than scientific.
Steve McIntyre will go down in history as perhaps the man who saved the global warming debate. By showing the true believers that they can be wrong, he has reminded the scientific community about their obligations to discovering the truth regardless of where it leads. And that goes for skeptics and believers alike.
McIntyre is, judging by his bio, a brilliant mathematician and has authored or co-authored several papers on temperature change. He is a confirmed skeptic about climate models that show a precipitous rise in temperature over the last 1000 years. He was one of the most vocal critics of the so-called “hockey stick” graph that showed a stable temperature record for most of the last 1,000 years until the 20th century which revealed a steep rise in temperatures in North America – a debate that rages in the scientific community to this day.
McIntyre is not employed as a climate scientist nor does he receive any funds for his research. His expertise is in running mineral companies, a job that he thinks has prepared him well for his research into temperature models as he explains in his bio.
In short, he is a citizen-scientist with no ax to grind save seeking the facts and holding scientists to a high and rigorous standard of research. What he has done is nothing less than bringing the debate over global warming back into the realm of science – for the moment anyway.
Consider the history of another controversial theory; the origins of the universe. For decades, cosmologists believed in the “Steady State Theory” as the best explanation for the creation of the universe. Those who disagreed with it were given short shrift and dismissed as cranks. Then a new theory arose in the 1960’s that challenged the primacy of the Steady State idea of the universe – an elegant mathematical construct we commonly call “The Big Bang” theory. Slowly, instruments became available that were able to supply observational proof for the Big Bang to go along with the complex mathematics until today, few cosmologists subscribe to the Steady State theory – even though it was gospel less than 50 years ago.
The reason cosmologists were able to change their thinking was the compelling nature of the observational data that matched up almost perfectly with the mathematical proofs. Even those scientists who had a heavy intellectual investment in seeing that the Steady State theory remain gospel were forced to alter their own theories in order to acknowledge the facts at hand.
McIntyre’s work will do something similar; it will force those scientists with a vested interest in seeing their theories about global warming validated by their peers to alter their models to reflect the new data. Those scientists who truly seek the facts about global warming will swallow their pride and perhaps come to new conclusions. Those scientists more interested in riding the global warming gravy train will denounce and obfuscate McIntyre’s work, hoping politicians like Al Gore come to their rescue by loudly proclaiming that the debate is still “closed.”
And we, the lay public who know next to nothing about the many scientific disciplines that are engaged in climate study, must ourselves keep a more open mind in order to decide the right course of action for the future. If nothing else, McIntyre has shown once again that scientists are as fallible as the rest of us.
Perhaps the scientists themselves need to be reminded of that from time to time.
8:44 am
that more research is needed before we crash the economies of the industrialized world in order to satisfy those whose agenda is more political than scientific.
This is the part of the global warming skeptics’ argument that I have never really understood. No one that I know of is proposing “we crash the economies of the industrialized world”. Gee, even many of those evil liberals might be against that. That kind of language is as alarmist and over-the-top as anything said by the “tree huggers”.
I don’t see how driving cars that get better gas mileage, changing out light bulbs and other mostly modest steps that have been proposed are going to crash anybody’s econoy. The paper sellers on Wall Street seem perfectly capable of doing that.
Of course scientists will revise their models given new data. That’s the scientific method which has served us pretty well over the last few centuries. They certainly have less of a political agenda than those who deny the climate is warming because scientists have the burden of proving what they postulate.
Any correction in the data doesn’t prove scientists had a political agenda, but that they were using incorrect information given them by NASA (who you might think would be reliable).
8:56 am
You are naive if you believe some scientists do not have a political agenda in the global warming debate.
And yes, there is a sizable segment of advocates who wish to destroy capitalism, industrialization, and globalization.
Few skeptics (and I don’t consider myself a skeptic as much as an agnostic on the subject)are saying the debate is over – as many advocates have done. It is stupid, silly, and unscientific to say so – especially since the body of opinion on global warming agrees on so little; only that temps are rising and that man has played an as yet unknown role in it. Outside of that, there is no agreement on the severity, or even what is causing the rise in temps. Mount Pinatuboa put more CO2 in the atmosphere in 3 months than man has generated over the last 100 years. Few advocates can agree on just how much man is to blame.
The solutions be advocated are draconian – forcing the US to reduce our output of CO2 to levels last seen in 1993 while allowing China and India – the two biggest poluters on the planet a free ride is stupid and smacks more of politics than policy based on science. The damage to our economy of reducing our emmissions to that level have been well documented by economists. Advocates say that is the price we have to pay. Fine. Most would be willing to pay that price if the necessity for it could be proven beyond models that don’t work and now temps that were false to begin with.
The alarmists are shown to be wrong with this story. Not that global warming doesn’t exist (as I say in my piece) but that the urgency of the Al Gores and his ilk is ill founded and not based on scientific fact.
9:29 am
Rick, your comparison to the Big Bang theory may be more apt than you want it to be. As cosmology developed in a science, most cosmologists assumed the universe to be eternal. They had no real evidence for that – they were simply operating on the principle that there should be no privileged frame of reference. As evidence began to accumulate (Olber’s paradox, recession of the galaxies, etc) keeping that story going required more and more desperate measures such as Fred Hoyle’s theory that expansion was caused by new matter being spontaneously created somehow. One of the predictions made by the Big Bang theory was that of cosmic microwave background radiation. That radiation was discovered in the 1960’s and the last opposition to the Big Bang theory (well almost all of it) was dropped. Climatology has likewise grown from assumptions based on little evidence (we are not capable of changing the atmosphere on a global scale) to theories based on mounting evidence (we are capable of causing such changes).
And you need to drop the volcano statement if you ever want to have any credibility. According to the USGS Pinatubo put 237 million metric tons of CO2 into the air. Volcanos worldwide (barring major eruption) put out ~ 60 million tons each year. The US alone put out 5 billion metric tons each year. I dunno who lied to you on that one but you might not want to use them as a source any more.
12:00 pm
Al Gore’s Global Warming Hysteria the Result of a NASA Programming Error…
This is big, big news. Al Gore’s global warming cause is based upon NASA graphs that say 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium. It turns out that is…...
6:28 pm
Rick, maybe Pug could spend some time researching Maurice [pronounced Morris] Strong and his relationship with the High Priest of the Religion of Ghia, Al Gore. And while he is at it, Pug could research the designs Strong has on the U.S. economy and his desire, partnered up with George Soros, for the Chinese car, Chery, and how it will break the backs of the U.S. auto industry.
Just a suggestion for Pug.
8:06 pm
not big news
not sure i have done the link right…
1934 is now the warmest year on record in the US. no change in the list of warmest years globally. this is a detail worth mentioning, don’t ya’ think?
8:42 pm
One of the things that has always made me scratch my head is that the Earth has had far larger amounts of carbon dioxide than now… and while temps were warmer we had a different configuration of the continents and less tectonic activity, too. The current inter-glacial period we are in has sudden changes, up and down, temperature-wise, but within a relatively small range. That range is way, way, way below the pre-K/T norm. So, the outlook remains the same for the next few million years at the very least: bitter cold with sudden, short warming periods before heading into the deep freeze again. People forget that when you want to analyze long-term climactic patterns you do not talk to meteorologists, but to geologists. Call me when real global warming data has been accumulated, but on no account before 10,000 more years have passed. Because the things that change the climate don’t have much to do with carbon dioxide, save at the low end, and lots to do with continent position, plate tectonics and having one continent in a heat sink position… that last makes this place very chilly.
9:59 pm
Anyone interested in the truth of this should go to this website:
http://www.realclimate.org/
They’ve debunked pretty much all of this already. This is actually a blog run by climate scientists, volunteering their time. They are the real “citizen-scientists”, along with people like Hansen who spoke out despite the Bush administration’s attempts to keep him quiet. By this I mean they are real practicing climate scientists trying to help the public understand this, and are not ideologues or paid shills with ties to, say, the mining industry.
The extreme right and industries who devote substantial resources to defame climate researchers often bring up someone like this every now and then, one self-professed “contrarian” who hasn’t published any actual research yet proudly proclaims every major scientific organization is involved in a massive conspiracy for some nefarious purpose. Usually the supposed motive makes no logical sense. For example why would climate scientists, who depend more than most on funding from governments and corporations and a high-tech economy want to see the economy collapse? Then however the real scientists point out how their talking points are complete BS (usually on web sites and science magazines and the like), however this is never similarly shown in the media. Thus a large segment of the public will continue to think there really is nothing to all this or that there really is a massive debate going on, with no solid evidence either way.
“And we, the lay public who know next to nothing about the many scientific disciplines that are engaged in climate study, must ourselves keep a more open mind in order to decide the right course of action for the future. If nothing else, McIntyre has shown once again that scientists are as fallible as the rest of us.
Perhaps the scientists themselves need to be reminded of that from time to time.”
I also wish so-called skeptics like whoever wrote that would have a little more respect for real scientists and not blindly believe whoever comes saying (with no evidence) that there’s a massive conspiracy by all the world’s scientists to defraud the public. Do you have a solid background in atmospheric physics, have you completed a dissertation in climate science and done research in this field as a profession? I myself don’t, which is why unless I had a very good reason, I don’t blindly go around saying how the scientists must be wrong because they’re telling me something I don’t want to hear. In a very complex and technical field, for example brain surgery I’m not going to arrogantly think I know more than someone who’s worked in it their entire careers.
In the end, I think anti-intellectualism and rhetoric will cause America to seriously decline unless more speak out against it. No one thinks scientists are infallible, and no real scientist will tell you they are or that science knows everything. That’s just a typical right-wing strawman. The real problem now is the exact opposite, too many people don’t care about facts, science, or history when it goes against what they want to believe, and get their information on things like global warming, energy issues, and evolution from people like Rush Limbaugh and O’Reilly, and actually think they’re informed.
10:03 pm
Lol, I guess it looks like this brave “human monkey wrench” hasn’t exactly stopped the “global warming juggernaut” in its tracks afterall, except of course in the minds of the right-wing nutcases. Just like how we’re finally winning Iraq despite liberal naysayers, and the GOP is doing fine, Bush is a decent, compassionate president, we’re in the middle of the best economy ever, etc.
9:53 am
MRK hit the nail on the head. All that has changed is a single data point, and by about one one-hundredth of a degree at that; the trends have not changed, other evidentiary sources such as global glacial retreat patterns and temperature-sensitive wildlife migrations haven’t changed.
Sadly, what also hasn’t changed is the 9/11Truther-ish huge global conspiracy attitude of the deniers. Real environmental “hysteria” and “alarmism” comes from the people who say that every new environmental law will destroy capitalism and send us back to living in caves.
2:03 pm
-that more research is needed before we crash the economies of the industrialized world in order to satisfy those whose agenda is more political than scientific. ... And yes, there is a sizable segment of advocates who wish to destroy capitalism, industrialization, and globalization.
The “Enviro-wackos” are, almost universally, NOT scientists – most of em dont have the ability to tackle anything other than “world studies” or, the ultimate major for retarded monkeys, “political science”.
The Earth-worshipping Gaia crowd and the Scientific community have little overlap. Those tree-loving douchebags dont have the patience or brains for science and aren’t a significant part of the scientific community in ANY field – even Climatology.
Like you, I also oppose draconian policies that would wreck our economy, but unlike you I do not peddle deranged conspiracy theories about legions of commie scientists who are lying to further the great socialist agenda.
You’re brand of Global warming “skeptisicm” isn’t based in rational scientific skepticism, it is based on the knee-jerk fear of Watermelons (Green on the outside,Red on the inside).
Grow up.
8:58 am
From a new RWNH reader and 1st poster, Good Job Rick Moran!
I’m amazed at your persistant efforts in responding to the swarm of Troofers and Lefty yapping dogs that have attacked a lot of the Center/Right blogosphere. These Lefty Trolls are easily ignored, they are so obvious with their arrogant rants and illogical rightousness…reminds me of the swarm of savages from the Lord of the Rings.
12:47 pm
I took ‘mrk’s advice and read what a statistically insignificant event the restatement due to McIntyre really was. I have to agree, and it seems most everyone commenting does too. So I guess that makes it settled science
What amazes me is just how significant the data was when it was wrong.
I love the argument that only people without industry ties are pure. What’s really being said is only people funded by government can be trusted to be objective. The same government which seeks to grow its influence over the populace doesn’t look for answers it doesn’t want to hear. This government is seeking to justify increasing its regulatory powers. But why are these pure, objective, square-jawed, steely-eyed scientists so exercised by skeptics? I’ll grant you that I have some suspicions.
McIntyre was either right or he was wrong. The source of his income may influence all manner of his outlook on life, but it doesn’t alter the veracity of his results. Whether the proponents of the anthropogenic carbon argument are right, or not, I don’t care who signed their paychecks; only their results. I can be convinced by evidence, but I’m not thus far. And “ad hominem” attacks on skeptics doesn’t convince me at all.
3:34 pm
If you don’t mind me asking John are you not convinced by proponents of Global Warming or not convinced by the opponents of it?