Read here, here and here (comments at first two links are interesting). Okay, okay, two out of three are right in the post's headline! That's a better record than any climate model.
Since RealClimate alarmists and scientists now appear to concede that global warming has not really happened since 1998, and that the climate models' predictions that they have touted were soooo wrong, is it time for them to apologize to skeptics? Well....that ain't about to happen before 2020, but the alarmists could join with many skeptics on a few issues to make some amends in the meantime. What might those issues be?
1) As www.surfacestations.org has documented, and as just about everyone agrees, the U.S. and non-U.S. climate station network is in desperate need of expert managerial attention and proper funding. The system is badly broken and if trillion dollar decisions are based on the surface data coming from the climate reporting system, it's best for all sides to be dealing with a valid, an accurate and unchallengeable source of data.
2) The collection of raw climate data and "adjusted" climate data needs to separated. Raw surface climate data needs to be collected and publicly reported by a dedicated agency and dedicated individuals who are not associated in any way with the actual climate modelers. The climate modelers should be responsible for any "adjustments." Any adjusted data (including how the adjustments were done) would be required to be publicly reported and made readily available (down-loadable).
3) The authors of all peer reviewed studies would have to make available, on the Internet for download and scrutiny, all data and methodologies utilized within the published study. Refusal to do so will absolutely prohibit any given study from ever being accepted for publication in major science journals, or noted as "peer reviewed."
4) As it happens, the majority of 'skeptics' and 'alarmists' seem to agree that black soot particulates are a significant contribution to global warming and dirty air. Climate alarmists, using their influence, should make this a first priority of climate change by national politicians and world (ugh) politicians. Here is a specific climate problem that alarmists could initiate and run with and get immediate support from skeptics - if the alarmists don't overreach. This initiative would rebuild the trust and credibility of the alarmist camp (if the alarmists desire this to happen - probably not).
If the folks at RealClimate and Climate Progress would like to redeem themselves, the four points above would be a start. I'm not holding my CO2, though.
