AGW - or I am confused.

I am sure you all have seen this 75 minutes of AGW denial by now. Typical half-truth TLC-type fair, but produced by an independent production company TV for BBC. Which is to say, not a single sentence is a lie, but be very skeptical of the inference they are trying to draw from the many short sentences cut together. Carl Wunsch of MIT (and the most credible of their interviewees) is not happy about the editing of his bits.

But... But... What was the budget for climatology in, oh say, 1980? Did Thatcher really pimp CO2 dangers and suggest that there was lots of pounds sterling on the table for global warming? If the $170 million growing to $2 or $4 billion for climatology research is true (I find references to 4.5-6.0 for the U.S. fed budget for the last few years depending on how certain items are accounted), then I sense some serious bias. That bias arrow points towards catastrophic warming, but how much is not clear.

A number of scientists and AGW friendlies are not helping their cause. Trying to find my way through explanations of "controversial" areas I find lots of dismissal based on the person and funding sources rather than the claim - It is not clear to me why Exxon-Mobil (or most other multi-national companies) would necessarily be AGW deniers, there are more rents to be had with AGW than without. Nor is it clear to me why a complaint about statistical methods by someone trained in statistics but not climatology should just be tossed in the trash. This isn't to say that the research in question is any good, I'm just pointing out that arguing from authority is *BAD* science. If you happen to maintain or write for an AGW web-site (or anywhere else for that matter) *do not* denigrate the person, just rebut the claim.

Share this