This blog is, in a sense, my notebook, with a few parts in public view. It is not an attempt to persuade anyone of anything, especially in the Thunderdome that is the global warming debate. I don’t mind making mistakes if the mistakes are made in my pursuit of improved understanding and if, in the end, I learn something.
Most of the posts will involve the atmosphere in one way or another, particularly climate data.
Years ago I was an active participant at Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit website. The “hurricane wars” were my special interest and I consider it an honor that Steve published several short articles of mine. However, I’m a lukewarmer, a moderate, not a skeptic. My views include:
* Earth is warmer than it would otherwise be, due to human influences, including our carbon dioxide emissions,
* reducing our use of and dependence on fossil fuels would have considerable benefits, but a large, rapid reduction would be be socially harmful, especially to poorer people. Even if the reductions are in the developed world, their impoverishment would hurt poor people in developing countries.
* climate science today has an unfortunate ideological bent which, unlike healthy science, wants to send dissenters to the gulag. That’s bad
* the eventual impact of the warming, in terms of benefits vs. negatives, is probably a wash, as I see no reason why the net impact should be predominately positive or negative,
* climate change could be harmful in places despite a largely benign overall impact. Local negative effects deserve attention and possibly impact mitigation (including resources from the broader world)
There – that should be enough to aggravate both sides!