I’ve posted some negative things about global warming or climate science in the past (e.g., here) and some things that I’ve thought were witty (please don’t tell me if it’s not actually witty, as that would hurt my feelings). However, I have also declared myself (specifically in this post) a “data-based agnostic” in the matter of global warming–and, in particular, anthropogenic global warming (AGW)–and have stated clearly that mankind should be more worried about TGW: theogenic global warming, which is on the way (e.g., Rev. 16:9) unless some serious repentance begins in earnest.
But I have a chance here to demonstrate that I really am open to both sides of the debate by linking to this article: “Global warming ‘confirmed’ by independent study” (BBC, 10/20/2011–old news, I know). What makes the “independent” work of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study worthwhile (IMHO) is its combination of team members and methods, breaking out of the sheltered cloister that much of climate science had become (hence the nastiness in the “Climategate” scandal) and introducing some appreciated data & method transparency. Some of the funding even came from groups who lobby against global warming-oriented politics.
It truly seems to be a credible group whose findings should be taken seriously, though, of course, some will disagree. While not all of the standard set of global warming orthodoxy was confirmed by the B.E.S.T. folks (what a name!) and there were some differences, some of the fundamental items of dispute were settled in the team’s conclusions in favor of global warming proponents.
Do their findings end the debate? Hardly. There are legitimate questions about the results, which hopefully their transparency will allow to proceed in a civilized fashion. If you’d like a contrary view of the B.E.S.T. study, check out the popular Watts Up With That? blog — popular hang out of weather/climate folks who push back against the global warming orthodoxy.