October 31, 2011

Global Warming Science Is Settled, As Long As You Overlook Some Of The Science
— DrewM

Last week Gaia worshipers rejoiced when a report was released that seemed to confirm that everything they had been saying including the famed "hockey stick" graph was right.

Turns out there was some premature celebrating going on.

Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually.

Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it.

...

But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

So the number two researcher on the project is calling out her fellow researcher for overstating their results? There's only one response to that...POPCORN!

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

However, Prof Muller denied warming was at a standstill.

‘We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. There was, he added, ‘no levelling off’.

Below are two graphs of the data. One shows the "case closed" data that the media hailed and the other is the last 10 years of the data broken out on its own.
gwgraph.jpg

What's the importance of the second graph? The guys at Watts Up With That have the answer.

It is a statistically perfect straight line of zero gradient. Indeed, most of the largest variations in it can be attributed to ENSO and la Nina effects. It is impossible to reconcile this with Professor Muller’s statement. Could it really be the case that Professor Muller has not looked at the data in an appropriate way to see the last ten years clearly?

Indeed Best seems to have worked hard to obscure it. They present data covering more almost 200 years is presented with a short x-axis and a stretched y-axis to accentuate the increase. The data is then smoothed using a ten year average which is ideally suited to removing the past five years of the past decade and mix the earlier standstill years with years when there was an increase. This is an ideal formula for suppressing the past decade’s data.

When examined more objectively Best data confirms the global temperature standstill of the past decade. That the standstill should be present in land only data is remarkable. There have been standstills in land temperature before, but the significance of the past decade is that it is in the era of mankind’s postulated influence on climate through greenhouse gas forcing. Predictions made many times in the past few years suggest that warming should be the strongest and fastest in the land data.

Of course Muller's claim that this settles the debate will be tested through the usual scientific channels of peer review, right? Um, no.

But although Prof Curry is the second named author of all four papers, Prof Muller failed to consult her before deciding to put them on the internet earlier this month, when the peer review process had barely started, and to issue a detailed press release at the same time.

He also briefed selected journalists individually. ‘It is not how I would have played it,’ Prof Curry said. ‘I was informed only when I got a group email. I think they have made errors and I distance myself from what they did.

‘It would have been smart to consult me.’ She said it was unfortunate that although the Journal of Geophysical Research had allowed Prof Muller to issue the papers, the reviewers were, under the journal’s policy, forbidden from public comment.

Prof McKittrick added: ‘The fact is that many of the people who are in a position to provide informed criticism of this work are currently bound by confidentiality agreements.

‘For the Berkeley team to have chosen this particular moment to launch a major international publicity blitz is a highly unethical sabotage of the peer review process.’

In Prof Curry’s view, two of the papers were not ready to be published, in part because they did not properly address the arguments of climate sceptics.

As for the graph disseminated to the media, she said: ‘This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.

In other words, shut up they explained.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:03 AM | Comments (91)
Post contains 929 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Of course there is global warming, but I's sure as hell is freezing my ass off down here on Wall Street?

Posted by: OWS Scum at October 31, 2011 06:05 AM (i6RpT)

2 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 06:06 AM (8y9MW)

3 *now* can our Candidates start saying, "I don't accept that global warming is occurring, let alone that man is responsible for it?"  Especially since we now have two or three separate studies (by warmists, no less) that show no statistically significant warming in at least the last 11 years?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 06:07 AM (8y9MW)

4 Sure as hell is freezing in my house with no heat?

Posted by: nevergiveup at October 31, 2011 06:09 AM (i6RpT)

5 ...is this where newt says he's not as smart as he looks?

Posted by: phoenixgirl ready to drink the perry flavor-aid at October 31, 2011 06:09 AM (SH3gZ)

6

"I don't accept that global warming is occurring, let alone that man is responsible for it?" 

Oh, don't expect Huntsman to do that.

Especially after he went after Mittens recently for being a flip-flopper.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at October 31, 2011 06:09 AM (sbV1u)

7 John Corzine takes his firm into bankruptcy. I guess NJ made the right choice. http://tinyurl.com/62edpdm

Posted by: MrCaniac at October 31, 2011 06:09 AM (AM+sr)

8 AGW has never been about the climate anyway. It has always been about money, power, and the drastic abridgment of our freedom.

Posted by: Soona at October 31, 2011 06:09 AM (Gj5dA)

9 THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: charles johnson lap dogs at October 31, 2011 06:10 AM (SH3gZ)

10 Nice post, Drew.

In a kinda similar vein, here's another "the 'conventional scientific wisdom' was wrong" story:  (from the American Thinker)

Another 'scientific consensus' bites the dust

It turns out that human beings have been using tools a lot longer than the scientific consensus used to allow.  A dissident scientist, who discovered the proof almost 35 years ago stands vindicated, thanks to the development of technology.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at October 31, 2011 06:10 AM (9hSKh)

11 I sweat more when I fap in my garage. If that isn't SCIENTIFIC evidence of AGW, I don't know how else to convince you wingnut DENIALISTS !!

Posted by: Dr Charles Johnson, Scienceologist at October 31, 2011 06:11 AM (Y+DPZ)

12 7....... maybe christie needs to go there next.....

Posted by: FU52 at October 31, 2011 06:11 AM (EaimS)

13 Posted by: Sean Bannion at October 31, 2011 11:09 AM (sbV1u)

The only thing I "expect" from Huntsman is the occasional whiny "Can I play?"

Posted by: phoenixgirl

In the alternate universe in which Newt ever admits mistakes?  Yes.  In this one?  Dream on.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 06:11 AM (8y9MW)

14 is this where al gore has to give all the money he earned on this farce back?

Posted by: phoenixgirl ready to drink the perry flavor-aid at October 31, 2011 06:11 AM (SH3gZ)

15 And the guy that Gore based his 'the polar bear are dying!!!1!1!!' research on is being forced to undergo a lie detector test as they think he fudged his data.

Good, good times!

Posted by: laceyunderalls at October 31, 2011 06:11 AM (pLTLS)

16 It has been reliably reported that Gaia has filed a harassment complaint against Al Gore.

Posted by: dick cheese at October 31, 2011 06:13 AM (IfkGz)

17 We observed all of our measurements utilizing a meat thermometer plunged into a the carcass of free range chicken we found in the Mojave desert. 

Posted by: Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team at October 31, 2011 06:13 AM (vbh31)

18 It's amazing to me that scientists on the government dole are considered "untainted," while scientists that work for industry are corporate flacks.

Where do liberals get this unwarranted belief in the superiority of government to solve everyone's problems.

BTW, when do I get my mortgage paid and gas in my car?  Pass this bill now!

Posted by: Arms Merchant at October 31, 2011 06:14 AM (hW3KZ)

19

Drew is on fire!

Posted by: Truman North at October 31, 2011 06:14 AM (G5JPI)

20
Meanwhile on "America's Dumbest Dumbfucks":  The city of Eugene (Oregon) decided this week that they are going to reduce greenhouse emissions by 50% by the year 2030.  Even though there is no technology to make this possible, they say it is an attainable goal because in the last 5 years after they approved an outrageously high city tax on gasoline, fuel use went down by 11%.

I don't think anyone had the heart to tell them that people just aren't buying gas in Eugene anymore.  Gas in some nearby towns is up to $0.50 cheaper per gallon.

Posted by: Lemmiwinks at October 31, 2011 06:14 AM (pdRb1)

21 My dog ate my homework.

Posted by: Professor Muller at October 31, 2011 06:15 AM (hW3KZ)

22 "I don't accept that global warming is occurring, let alone that man is responsible for it?"

Or that it's not something to be desired.  Warmer = prosperity and growth, Colder = famine and death.

Posted by: dick cheese at October 31, 2011 06:15 AM (IfkGz)

23

>> I'm supposed to get my own server.

 

Three words Jeff: "virtual machines"

Posted by: Bill Gates in Texas at October 31, 2011 06:15 AM (WvXvd)

24 Raw data? What raw data?

Posted by: James Hansen at October 31, 2011 06:15 AM (hW3KZ)

25 Hide the decline!

Posted by: Phil Jones at October 31, 2011 06:16 AM (hW3KZ)

26 Gaah, Most people never said there was not global warming from 1950s through 1999 anyway. The skepticism was always "How much if any of this is due to human influence and especially carbon dioxide?" The MarxSpewMedia does the same thing with stem cell research. They conveniently drop the embryonic when discussing embryonic research and try to conflate it with the successes using adult stem cells. I'm SO tired of their bloody newspeak.

Posted by: Palerider at October 31, 2011 06:17 AM (ITaIZ)

27 Popcorn & pudding share up !

Posted by: RUReadingthis at October 31, 2011 06:19 AM (V92KK)

28 It's a redistribution scheme.

We need a graph of spending to fight 'carbon' and 'climate change.'

Posted by: nickless at October 31, 2011 06:20 AM (MMC8r)

29 Call me when the French Vinters are again complaining about unfair competition from inexpensive English wine.

Posted by: Written history is a grand thing at October 31, 2011 06:20 AM (IfkGz)

30

I bet if you asked anyone in the OWS crowd what the importance is of peer review, they wouldn't have a clue.  They'd probably say it was only an opportunity for detractors to sabotage a solid piece of science and thus damage its credibility, when in fact it's the absolute opposite.  Because they are a bunch of frigging idiots, just as the MFM is a bunch of frigging idiots, and the average Joe Schmoe who lazes around on his parents' couch eating Cheetos and absorbing all of his news through The Daily Show is a frigging idiot, and the average Jane Blaine who gets all of her talking points from celebrity interviews in People and Vanity Fair is a frigging idiot.

I despair for the future of humanity.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 31, 2011 06:21 AM (4df7R)

31 "I don't accept that global warming is occurring, let alone that man is responsible for it?"

Or that it's not something to be desired.  Warmer = prosperity and growth, Colder = famine and death.

Or.. assuming that global warming is real, and that man is causing it, and despite 10000yrs of history to the contrary assume that it would actually be a big problem for us, how on earth could we do anything meaningful about it? We only make 4% of the CO2, we'd have to cut our emissions down to nothing in order to make a dent in global CO2, which would cause global famine and death.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 31, 2011 06:21 AM (0q2P7)

32 Boeing is taking over one of NASA's big buildings at the Cape? So NASA really is out of business ha?

Posted by: nevergiveup at October 31, 2011 06:23 AM (i6RpT)

33 Cain now live on FOX

Posted by: nevergiveup at October 31, 2011 06:23 AM (i6RpT)

34 Anyone who believes this shit now is either a liar or a fool.

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2011 06:23 AM (YdQQY)

35

The Sun and volcanic blurps of ash/gases....in other words, natural sources.....are still the prime movers in planetary warming periods. Always have been.

What bothers me, is that we are tuning up for another Solar Maximum peaking in the next couple of years. The increase in sunspots and solar activity always gives up an uptick in temps for a little while. .....So the AGW dickheads will probably exploit that while trying to deflect attention away from the cause.

Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 06:24 AM (XkwIi)

36 It still amazes me that an overpaid egghead can create a chart from data pulled out of thin air and people believe the shit, - or worse, want to enslave mankind because of it!

Posted by: Fritz at October 31, 2011 06:24 AM (/ZZCn)

37 The truth is that the problem isn't the message as much as it is the messengers.

So long as "climate change" is pushed almost exclusively by weirdo leftists, and the proposed solutions are always curtailed industry/higher taxes/more government, I will always be a skeptic of the provided data. Not because I don't believe in science, but because I simply don't trust the messengers.

Posted by: weew at October 31, 2011 06:25 AM (7RbIF)

38 3 *now* can our Candidates start saying, "I don't accept that global warming is occurring, let alone that man is responsible for it?"

Hasn't Perry already said this back in August?

"I think we're seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists that are coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is what is causing the climate to change," the Texas governor said on the first stop of a two-day trip to the first-in-the-nation primary state.

He said some want billions or trillions of taxpayer dollars spent to address the issue, but he added: "I don't think from my perspective that I want to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven and from my perspective is more and more being put into question."


Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 06:26 AM (5H6zj)

39 They'd probably say it was only an opportunity for detractors to sabotage a solid piece of science and thus damage its credibility, when in fact it's the absolute opposite.

That's because you'd be asking them wrong.  You have to lead up to it.

You say things like, "Were you aware that most of the studies purportedly refuting man-made climate disruption* were not peer-reviewed?"  They'll say yes, even though the answer is probably no.  You follow up with, "Are you aware that [Science Publication], which publishes studies confirming man-made climate disruption, is one of the best peer-reviewed journals in science?"  They might say "no," but if so, they'll follow up with "but I'm not surprised."

That's when you ask about the importance of peer-review, and ambush them about why Prof. Mueller would publish without waiting for peer-review.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 06:26 AM (8y9MW)

40

...35 ...*always gives us an uptick in temps

I gotta cut my fingernails.

Posted by: ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at October 31, 2011 06:26 AM (XkwIi)

41 So out of Cain's own mouth. He was accused of sexual Harrasment. He says they are baseless and that "HE" never paid anyone off, BUT if the Restaurant Association did, he has no "Knowledge" of it?

Posted by: nevergiveup at October 31, 2011 06:26 AM (i6RpT)

42 So my husband had part of the city's website up to see if the youth football games were cancelled due to the snow. I caught it out of the corner of my eye and saw the word "Grasscycle'. I, of course read it as "Grassicle" because I had just read the word "Commiesicles" here. Anyway, apparently grasscycling means that you mulch the grass instead of picking up (which I hate) and they prefer you to use a push or electric mower. The epa guy on the block with the electric mower can't mow his grass all at once. Anyway, seriously? I use maybe 4 gallons of gas all year in the mower. Idiots.

Posted by: dagny at October 31, 2011 06:26 AM (7enUC)

Posted by: NPeeArrgh at October 31, 2011 06:27 AM (m8ARs)

44
Breaking News from Poshitico!

Politico has finally found a friend from Obama's past.

oh wait, no they haven't

Posted by: soothsayer at October 31, 2011 06:27 AM (sqkOB)

45 Any supposed confirmation of the Hockey Stick would be premature extrapolation.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at October 31, 2011 06:27 AM (Jdtsu)

46

I'm surprised Joe Biden isn't out there talking about how global warming will lead to an increase in rapes and murders unless Congress PASSES OBAMA'S JOBS BILL RIGHT NOW! 

I suspect he'd also make some kind of hamfisted, breathtakingly racist reference to Do the Right Thing that the MFM wouldn't report, because it's just Slow Joe being Slow Joe.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at October 31, 2011 06:27 AM (4df7R)

47 @41
I would think the head of the organization would know if there were settlements made. 

Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 06:28 AM (5H6zj)

48 And the Daily Worker Yahoo is running this on its front page:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.


Climategate the scandal that the MFM ignored? But this they'll trumpet forever to show comrades that it's real and the EVIL Koch brothers have been foiled again

Posted by: TheQuietMan at October 31, 2011 06:28 AM (1Jaio)

49 17 We observed all of our measurements utilizing a meat thermometer plunged into a the carcass of free range chicken we found in the Mojave desert.

Also, the chicken was roasting on a spit at the time.

Posted by: Detroit at October 31, 2011 06:28 AM (aDFMZ)

50
Poshitico is about to reveal all the juicy details of how Obama spent the 1990's.

Here's a sneak peek of their stellar investigative journalism:


Posted by: soothsayer at October 31, 2011 06:28 AM (sqkOB)

51 I would think the head of the organization would know if there were settlements made. Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 11:28 AM (5H6zj) Yeah that is hard for me to believe also. Just like Holder had no idea about "Fast and Furious"?

Posted by: nevergiveup at October 31, 2011 06:30 AM (i6RpT)

52

The Sun and volcanic blurps of ash/gases....in other words, natural sources.....are still the prime movers in planetary warming periods. Always have been.

Right.  Also, an increase of a whopping 0.75 degrees C when your normalization reference is the average temperature between 1950-1980 elicits a big "meh" from me.  

Not to mention that the second graph, the graph that was purposely omitted doesn't show any significant increase in average global temperature for the past 10 years.  Now if the temperature had increased from say 0.75 degrees C over the reference to 2 or 3 degrees C over 10 years, that would have been confirmation of the warmener's hypothesis.  And even that might have been nothing as 10 years over the lifetime of the planet is not even the equivalent of a blink of an eye time-wise.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at October 31, 2011 06:30 AM (9hSKh)

53 So out of Cain's own mouth.

He's done.  Just like the free range chicken.

Posted by: Detroit at October 31, 2011 06:31 AM (aDFMZ)

54
Here's how Obama spent the 1980's:

Posted by: MSDNC & Poshitico at October 31, 2011 06:31 AM (sqkOB)

55 If a man who was well known as a sexual predator claimed that invisible flying elves were an existential threat and showed you charts and graphs that "proved" it, and he says the only solution was to let him have sex with your wives and daughters... how much credence would you give his evidence?

Posted by: weew at October 31, 2011 06:31 AM (7RbIF)

56 So out of Cain's own mouth. He was accused of sexual Harrasment. He says they are baseless and that "HE" never paid anyone off, BUT if the Restaurant Association did, he has no "Knowledge" of it?

Okay... that strikes me as BS.  He was the CEO of the Association.  He would know if a check of that size had gone out or not, because it likely would have required his authorization.

Count me on the "something smells fishy- and I don't think its the anchovies on the pizza" bus.

Still think this is much ado about nothing, but that response doesn't seem right.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at October 31, 2011 06:31 AM (8y9MW)

57 It turns out that human beings have been using tools a lot longer than the scientific consensus used to allow.

Lifsen completely misreads the article.  What Gustafson shows is that people were here in North America before the last Ice Bridge from Asia.  This isn't even a new observation.  There is a good bit of data that suggests the crossing occurred on the previous ice bridge more that 25k years ago.

Posted by: Written history is a grand thing at October 31, 2011 06:31 AM (IfkGz)

58 FWIW, ace reports Cain's denial somewhat differently than it was reported here.  There's a new thread on it.

Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 06:32 AM (5H6zj)

59 Three words Jeff: "virtual machines" Running 2 virtual machines already on the SQL server. That's the problem, not the solution, homie. Not enough system resources.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at October 31, 2011 06:33 AM (0yt4x)

60 Whoops, retract that.  I misread Ace's post. 

Posted by: Y-not at October 31, 2011 06:34 AM (5H6zj)

61 All one has to do to determine what the "real" problem is is to look at the proposed solutions.

Doing that we find that the real problem is we have too low of a tax rate and not enough government control of out lives. IOW, we are not communist enough.

Posted by: Vic at October 31, 2011 06:34 AM (YdQQY)

62 "Green Technology" would deliver unicorns from Heaven

If they would stop going bankrupt that is ...

Two more Friends of the SCOAMF have gone tits up;

Beacon Power Corp filed for bankruptcy on Sunday, just a year after the energy storage company received a $43 million loan guarantee from a controversial Department of Energy program.

The company Open Range, backed by a commitment of $267 million in loans from the Agriculture Department, filed for bankruptcy this month.

Posted by: kbdabear at October 31, 2011 06:35 AM (Y+DPZ)

63 Interestingly, if you look at Muller's bio on Wikipedia it shows that he authored a book called Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes: data, spectral analysis, and mechanisms.  According to the two reviews I read on Amazon, it's pretty much what the title suggests, a $200 academic tome regarding the correlation and causation of astronomical effects on our environment.  Chapter 1 apparently covers six prior heating and warming phases the Earth has gone through over the past half-million years that he has been able document (suffice to say, we weren't around back then to affect those changes).

For some reason, it is now out of the question that astronomical causes are driving our current warming period (only greedy Republicans can do that), and he appears to be flat-out lying about the recent decade-long temperature stagnation.

Dude is also a professor at freakin' Cal-Berkeley.

Something doesn't seem kosher here.  Has anyone actually looked into whether (and how much) of a skeptic he was before?

Posted by: Rick Rombachcaingrichsman at October 31, 2011 06:38 AM (8/DeP)

64 I believe that there always will be climate change and periods where we are above or below 'normal'. I also believe man plays an insignificant part in it. But I also believe we should do our best to reduce pollutants and emissions. It has to be balanced with the economic costs and not do more harm than good.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 31, 2011 06:49 AM (IqM9e)

65

Charlie Martin cuts through the BS too.

 

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at October 31, 2011 06:50 AM (O7ksG)

66

Yahoo "news" should be ignored. It's bunk.

 

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at October 31, 2011 06:52 AM (O7ksG)

67 And if we were heading into a warming period, maybe it would be a good thing.  We're about due for another Ice Age to start.  Without some warming, we could have glaciers down to Minneapolis before long! 

(Thanks to Larry Niven/Jerry Pournelle/Michael Flynn and Fallen Angels for this little heart-warmer.)

Posted by: Benzadmiral at October 31, 2011 06:54 AM (WuRdj)

68

The left have to push fear with lies. Ice Age! Heat wave! it gives them more room for graft.

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at October 31, 2011 06:56 AM (O7ksG)

69
“hide the decline”

*cough*

The decline is the apparent decoupling between tree ring data and the temperature data over the last 40 years. If tree ring data isn't always positively correlated to temperature, then it is an unreliable indicator of temperatures in historic reconstructions relying on tree ring data.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at October 31, 2011 07:01 AM (1hM1d)

70 Does it matter that Curry says that she wasn't repudiating the data, just the publicity?

And finally, this is NOT a new scandal. An important new data set has been released. Some new papers have been posted for comments, which are not surprisingly drawing criticism and controversy. The main issue seems to be Richard Muller’s public statements. All this does not constitute a new scientific scandal in any way.


source


Posted by: chad at October 31, 2011 07:02 AM (a/nZ0)

71 AGW is a little sketchy to say the least. It's true that humans have increased co2, and that it is a greenhouse gas, but climate is like economics. Too many variables to know what causes what. Of course if we had a sane energy policy nukes drilling here and letting renewables develop by the market, and developing fusion we would also have less co2.

Posted by: Avi at October 31, 2011 07:14 AM (Gx3Fe)

72 Does it matter that Curry says that she wasn't repudiating the data, just the publicity?
Posted by: chad at October 31, 2011 12:02 PM (a/nZ0)

‘This is nowhere near what the  climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’

She's not just talking about the data or the publicity, she's talking about the conclusions that Muller is drawing and selling to the public.

Posted by: DrewM. at October 31, 2011 07:30 AM (plesI)

73 "Prof McKittrick added: ‘The fact is that many of the people who are in a position to provide informed criticism of this work are currently bound by confidentiality agreements." Confidentiality agreements which restrict scientists from discussing science? Science paid for by public funds?

Posted by: Galos Gann at October 31, 2011 07:45 AM (T3KlW)

74

It must be nice when every eventuality "proves" global warming.  It seems however that this snowy October surprise just might have exposed some of the true believers ...  http://ow.ly/7dng6 

Posted by: ombdz at October 31, 2011 07:46 AM (2DpoY)

75

Well. That should prove Global Weirding once and for all. Happy, wingnuts?

 

Also, The World Is Flat. So there.

Posted by: Tom Friedman's Ass at October 31, 2011 10:18 AM (4bvZp)

76 @DrewM.

She also says that wasn't the question they were attempting to answer, or perhaps she agrees with their explanation that that wasn't the question they were attempting to answer:

I also suggested a FAQ on their “end of skepticism” claim, see their response here: “Our study addressed only one area of the concerns: was the temperature rise on land improperly affected by the four key biases (station quality, homogenization, urban heat island, and station selection)? The answer turned out to be no – but they were questions worthy of investigation. Berkeley Earth has not addressed issues of the tree ring and proxy data, climate model accuracy, or human attribution.” This is a reasonable statement, but comes across very differently from the WSJ editorial.

And she says that she is not the one who suggested the "hide the decline / climategate comparison.  That in essence the reporter was trying to generate a sensational quote for the story:

I have dug into my memory.  Rose brought up hide the decline in our first interview, in the context of the plot that ends in 2006. He called me back specifically to discuss this and teased the “hide the decline” out of me.  The hide the decline discussion was in this particular context.

My most important statement IMO is this: ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’  My main point was that this is a very good data set, the best we currently have available for land surface temperatures.  To me, this should have been the big story:  a new comprehensive data set, put together by a team of physicists and statisticians with private funds.  Showing preliminary results is of course fine, but overselling them at this point was a mistake IMO.

source






Posted by: chad at October 31, 2011 10:29 AM (a/nZ0)

77 that last paragraph was also a quote i screwed up the formatting so it looks like i was saying it.

Posted by: chad at October 31, 2011 10:30 AM (a/nZ0)

78 Or.. assuming that global warming is real, and that man is causing it, and despite 10000yrs of history to the contrary assume that it would actually be a big problem for us, how on earth could we do anything meaningful about it? We only make 4% of the CO2, we'd have to cut our emissions down to nothing in order to make a dent in global CO2, which would cause global famine and death.

No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die.

Posted by: Greenfinger at October 31, 2011 10:50 AM (2jQGY)

79 Posted by: chad at October 31, 2011 12:02 PM (a/nZ0) Do you *not* know what "scandal" means, or do you think that scientists misrepresenting the data is not a "scandal?" Either way, fail. The data set did not show what Muller wanted it to say, so he played a card that would have one of two results; either creating a false narrative about the results or discrediting the results. Either one of those outcomes favors the CAGW fraud.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of Candy Corn at October 31, 2011 10:55 AM (bxiXv)

80 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 11:21 AM (fyOgS)

81 80 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at October 31, 2011 04:21 PM (fyOgS)

=========

fuck the corporate media.

Posted by: jc at October 31, 2011 11:54 AM (i8c5b)

82 73 "Prof McKittrick added: ‘The fact is that many of the people who are in a position to provide informed criticism of this work are currently bound by confidentiality agreements."

Confidentiality agreements which restrict scientists from discussing science? Science paid for by public funds?

Posted by: Galos Gann at October 31, 2011 12:45 PM (T3KlW)

=====

They are peer reviewers.  It would be unethical of the them to speak outside of the review process. That's why Muller's behavior is so wrong.  He set all the reviewers up and put them in an ethical bind.

Posted by: jc at October 31, 2011 11:57 AM (i8c5b)

83 Of course scientists misrepresenting data is a scandal, although Muller et al made their data set available unlike many many others.  But what Drew and others are strying to say is that Judith Curry is repudiating the study and the data and told the Daily Mail that Muller is trying to hide data.  In her own words she says that is not what she is trying to do.  She stands behind the data set, stands behind the study and thinks the reporter teased a quote out of her to make the story more sensational.  The only fail here is you.

Posted by: chad at October 31, 2011 03:23 PM (a/nZ0)

84
You’re a very skilled blogger. I have joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your magnificent post. Also, I’ve shared your site in my social networks!

Posted by: No Regrets ePub at October 31, 2011 04:01 PM (KCI/1)

Posted by: befuddled at October 31, 2011 04:17 PM (xJU23)

Posted by: befuddled at October 31, 2011 04:19 PM (xJU23)

87 Thanks for sharing, please keep an update about this info. love to read it more. i like this site too much.

Posted by: The Next Always iBooks at October 31, 2011 04:44 PM (bYYfj)

88 You really make it seem so uderstandable with your presentation but I find this topic before really hard to understand. It seems too complicated and very broad for me.

Posted by: The Fleet Street Murders AudioBook at October 31, 2011 05:03 PM (ZCpyR)

89 Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to more added agreeable from you! However, how could we communicate?

Posted by: The Meaning of Marriage ePub at October 31, 2011 06:45 PM (2rmis)

Posted by: christine at October 31, 2011 07:41 PM (9N764)

91 Who are they to tell me to shut up?  Who the fuck are they?  Snake-oil salesmen like Al Gore who makes a ton of money pushing this shit?  So-called scientists who have grant money riding on their failed findings?  Politicians who are in bed with enviro-nazis pushing an agenda for power/money?  To hell with them.  It's about time the whole lot of them be "shut up" with some jail time.  All this global warming crap is nothing but a con.  And if its not, where is their proof, and I mean real proof?

Posted by: Case at October 31, 2011 11:35 PM (FD6YW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
123kb generated in CPU 0.05, elapsed 0.0783 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.0302 seconds, 278 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.