Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) are a team of independent scientists who have released of their temperature record.
The team was led by Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California. There were 10 contributors in total, only one of whom is a traditional climate scientist.
Saul Perlmutter, one of the team, recently won a Nobel Prize for “the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe”.
The team have drafted four papers:
(If you don’t want to read the full papers, they have a two page summary)
Having looked at considerably more than the usual climate data, they conclude that
- The temperature records by GISS, NOAA and CRU are pretty much right (BEST are warming than CRU & NOAA)
- The “Urban Heat Island” is a myth, since urban areas are less then 0.5% of the surface on land
- Bad quality of stations is a real problem, but that they do not significantly change trends
Not exactly shattering news, then, but learning why the team decided to undertake the study is interesting.
In the Economist, who broke the story, tells us
Marshalled by an astrophysicist, Richard Muller, this group, which calls itself the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature, is notable in several ways. When embarking on the project 18 months ago, its members (including Saul Perlmutter, who won the Nobel prize for physics this month for his work on dark energy) were mostly new to climate science. And Dr Muller, for one, was mildly sceptical of its findings. This was partly, he says, because of “climategate”: the 2009 revelation of e-mails from scientists at CRU which suggested they had sometimes taken steps to disguise their adjustments of inconvenient palaeo-data. With this reputation, the Berkeley Earth team found it unusually easy to attract sponsors, including a donation of $150,000 from the Koch Foundation.
So Muller was sceptical. This is good and natural, of course. And they decided to check their results for themselves.
Rather than just use the datasets already available, they also included all the records that they had found (in some cases only for a short duration). In total they accumulated 1.6 billion records, about 5 times the data used by GISS, NOAA and CRU. And they had to develop a new analytical approach to incorporate fragments of records.
One caveat – the papers have been submitted (to the Journal of Geophysical Research) but have not yet been accepted. The CRU has declined an offer on the story, because the papers have not yet been through peer review. Possibly this is why Real Climate have not covered the story yet. It could still be a damp squib, but that leaves us exactly as it was before.
Certainly Watts critical (I counted eight blogs about BEST since the story broke), but I do not recall too much concern about peer review in the past.
And Dellingpole’s Global Warming is real is a gem:
“The planet has been warming,” says a new study of temperature records, conducted by Berkeley professor Richard Muller. I wonder what he’ll be telling us next: that night follows day? That water is wet? That great white sharks have nasty pointy teeth? That sheep go “baaaa”?
Some more sensible blogs include
- SkepticalScience (hat tip)
- The Great Beyond (Nature)
- Deltoid
- Open Mind (Tamino)
- Climate Central
And probably many more …
S2
Update: This was covered by BEST before, back in April. I was busy with Eigenvectors and didn’t pay attention.
Image Credit:
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Comment Policy
–
It is worth knowing and abiding by whether you comment on this blog or not.
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
- The “Spam” Comment Thread is for comments posted by people who think that they can ignore site policy.
Greenfyre's 
I suspect that the oil companies know that continued payments to wack-job lunatic spokespeople is not working well,,, and may be counter-productive.
So the message is loosened… just as long as carbon fuel is protected – then they can say whatever they like.
‘That sheep go “baaaa”’ – that describes those poor denier sheep. Now that Muller has run rings around them and shorn them of their major hope, they don’t know what to do.
I know what they’ll do, they’ll resort to type and denounce Muller and claim he’s sold-out to the gravy-train [as usual it’ll be innuendo and malicious allegations], or been got at etc. Watts is in a tizzy, and throwing hissy-fits.
Standard denier tactic keep telling those Delingpoles.
PS I think Muller should apologise to each and every climate scientist he impugned.
I think perhaps in your enthusiasm over a report that purely demonstrated what no sceptic including James Delingpole has ever denied – that the World is warming, and has been since the Little Ice Age (the debris left by which I can observe from my window, incidentally) – you failed to notice this comment by Professor Richard Muller:
“How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.”
And this:
“The researchers find a strong correlation between North Atlantic temperature cycles lasting decades, and the global land surface temperature. They admit that the influence in recent decades of oceanic temperature cycles has been unappreciated and may explain most, if not all, of the global warming that has taken place, stating the possibility that the “human component of global warming may be somewhat overstated.”
The most encouraging aspect of this report is that it is entirely in the public domain so can be peer reviewed without fear or favour, a stark contrast to the practices generally current amongst climate scientists, such as “pal” review and the refusal to conform to of Freedom of Information Act requests, I note Mann is still obstinately refusing to divulge much of his, incidentally. One can only wonder at the secretive behaviour of scientists involved in climate research, and conjecture as to their possible motives. An old saying, “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” comes to mind.
Hopefully a new era of transparency and honesty has dawned in the climate change science industry – and it IS an industry, how much did Mike Mann’s related activities enrich him personally last year, $1,700,000, wasn’t it?
catweazle666,
Would you care to supply some evidence for your venomous claims and accusations?
>>Would you care to supply some evidence for your venomous claims and accusations?<<
Gladly.
Here you go.
"Michael ‘Climategate’ Mann Suffers Three Legal Blows in Court Escapade"
http://www.omsj.org/corruption/michael-%E2%80%98climategate%E2%80%99-mann-suffers-three-legal-blows-in-court-escapade
You provide no evidence that Michael Mann ever enriched himself on the proceeds of science grants. Personal gain from grants is a laughable concept to any scientist – Prof Jeffrey Sachs remarked that it would not even make theTop 5000 in a list of Easy Ways to Get Rich. You are aware that the success rate for science grant application is less than 10%?
You do provide evidence of a viciious personal campaign against Professor Mann carried out by political forces who need the symbolic “head” of a climate scientist to justify their personal obscurantist positions. From what I gather, Dr Muller will be next.
Deniers have always denied the planet is warming … they claimed scientists “hid the decline” in temperatures. They mangled a phrase from a hacked e-mail to justify teh accusation. How about some apologies to the scientists whose integrity has been impugned, like Prof. Phil Jones of CRU?
catweazle666,
I said evidence for your claims. I expect rock-solid evidence that indisputably supports each and every claim you have made.
Failure to do so will mean that your allegations are bogus. You have one more attempt.
catweazle666,
Is there some reason that you come running when the name Delingpole is mentioned?
You seem like a Delingpole expert so maybe you can tell me how it’s relevant to say “report that purely demonstrated what no sceptic including James Delingpole has ever denied – that the World is warming” when he has in fact repeatedly attacked the surface temperature record and regularly suggested it’s been manipulated by scientists. For example:
Global Warming: is it even happening?
“Check out this magisterial report by our old friends Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts and judge for yourself. In brief: the surface temperature records are such a mess that they simply can’t be trusted.“
Climategate goes American: NOAA, GISS and the mystery of the vanishing weather stations
“What it shows is that, just like in Britain at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) temperature data records have been grotesquely distorted by activist scientists in order to exaggerate the appearance of late 20th century global warming.”
[…]
“You know what this means, don’t you? It means the ragbag of eco-loons, politicians and technocrats pushing AGW can no longer plausibly deploy their main excuse about Climategate – that it was all a little local difficulty of no great importance because the HadCrut temperature data sets were independently confirmed by those at GISS and NOAA. What this story demonstrates, as many of us suspected all along, is that not just the British temperature records but those in the US too have been hijacked by political activists.”
So Delingpole has been telling us that the temperature records are completely unreliable to the point that it’s questionable whether there’s any warming at all and that “political activists” have hijacked the records. A new independent study shows that the records actually are very reliable and robust with CRU being, if anything, too cool. Delingpole’s (and yours) answer? That it doesn’t contradict anything said previously?
Do you really believe this? Do you really accept everything Delingpole writes so uncritically that he can contradict himself and you won’t notice?
>>Is there some reason that you come running when the name Delingpole is mentioned?<>Global Warming: is it even happening?<>Do you really believe this? Do you really accept everything Delingpole writes so uncritically that he can contradict himself and you won’t notice?<<
I don't accept anything that anyone writes, especially in a subject such as the AGW debate, where "facts" appear to be as changeable as the weather..
I prefer to draw my own conclusions, generally from empirical instrumental data, such as is produced by the Met Office amongst others, rather than from discredited climate models.
Here is the Hadcrut3 dataset covering the period from 1850 to the present day, with a little statistical treatment to reveal the trends.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1860/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:1860/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:120
Which appears to show a ~0.5 deg C per century increase in temperature overlaid with a ~60 year cycle probably due to oceanic oscillations (a surmise borne out by the BEST paper, incidentally), which is currently in a negative portion of its cycle, and is likely to remain so for over a decade.
I can see no evidence that there has been any statistically significant change in either of those trends before or after the generally accepted date of the commencement of anthropogenic influence on the climate, 1940.
catweazle666,
“I prefer to draw my own conclusions, generally from empirical instrumental data, such as is produced by the Met Office amongst others, rather than from discredited climate models.”
Great then please return to the topic at hand and not your own interpretation of CRU data which was not asked for.
Please explain how Delingpole’s statement after BEST’s publication can be honestly resolved with his previous commentary on the surface temperature record. They appear to be in conflict to me and to many other observers.
That you attempted to immediately change topic is not a point in your favour.
“due to oceanic oscillations (a surmise borne out by the BEST paper, incidentally),”
Incidentally no that’s not the case assuming you read it rather than uncritically accepted what the gwpf told you it said.
By the way, catweazle666 talks about “transparency”, so perhaps he can help us investigate the following:
(1) Is the OMSJ, which he quotes above, funded directly or indirectly by fossil fuel interests?
(2) Is James Delingpole funded directly or indirectly by fossil fuel interests?
(3) Is Anthony Watts funded directly or indirectly by fossil fuel interests?
(4) Is the Heartland Institute funded directly or indirectly by fossil fuel interests?
(5) Is the International Climate Science Coalition funded directly or indirectly by fossil fuel interests?
(6) Is the Australian Climate Science Coalition funded directly or indirectly by fossil fuel interests?
(7) Is the Friends of Science group funded directly or indirectly by fossil fuel interests?
…
— frank
Is the The Global Warming Policy Foundation, founded by Nigel Lawson, father-in-Law of Christopher Lord Bunkum, funded directly or indirectly by fossil fuel interests?
That is rubbish. Even today there are skeptics on the net continually saying that it hasn’t warmed. Not only that, but a number of more prominent skeptics have stated that the Muller results should be treated with caution because it hasn’t yet been through the normal peer review process. As usual, skeptics can not agree, although individual skeptics claim they represent all skeptics and that there is a unity that does not exist.
Incidentally, I find it curious that, contrary to your usual derision for enterprises funded by the Koch brothers, you appear to welcome their funding of this endeavour.
Some inconsistency there, perhaps?
catweazle666, we welcome funding of good science, and we criticize funding of bullshit.
For a prime example of actual inconsistency, you need look no further than Anthony Watts’s brave promise that
…of course, that was before BEST actually did prove his premise wrong.
By the way, that above quote should be included in every thread mentioning the BEST study, for maximum embarrassment:
— frank
Here is wattshisname’s reply to someone who brought this up on Watt’s blog:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/25/singers-letter-to-wapo-on-best/#comment-778150
What a hypocrite.
Oh wow, that reply by Watts is a masterpiece of fractal stupid.
— frank
I never placed any importance on the Koch Brothers thing. Their funded the funders, so it was a bit of a fluke.
But it is interesting that deniers were talking up the Muller sudy until he produced a shock by outlining his preliminary results last March. Deniers like Watts and McIntyre were BEST would vindicate them. Certainly, no reason for the Koch Twins to get concerned up until March, and the money is already handed over.
It will be interesting is the Koch Brothers funding continues. They are well known for demanding a good return for thier money – this is one case where they may rue the chicken feed they put in.
catweazle666 said:
“Incidentally, I find it curious that, contrary to your usual derision for enterprises funded by the Koch brothers, you appear to welcome their funding of this endeavour.
Some inconsistency there, perhaps?”
Actually if someone can see that science has been correctly conducted then who funded it isn’t a problem. That is science. What is a problem is the distortions that might come about from the politics that decide what to do with the science.
It depends whether you are interested in the science or the politics that results from it. It is consistent to respect good science.
[…] […]
Judy Curry attacks her co-authors:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
And claims it isn’t so:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/
But makes herself sound like the typical tool in the comments (she references a ‘paper’ from EIKE, for example, while she considers Tim Lambert not trustworthy when it comes to comments about David Rose, the journalist who she claims made a story that wasn’t there).
She’s disgusting.
The catweazle hypocrite hasn’t stumped-up any rock-solid evidence to support its claims which are presumably bogus.
Why am I not surprised?
Ironic to be accused of failing to have supplied evidence by a Warmist.
Perhaps when you Watermelons produce some empirical instrumental evidence that the “Enhanced Greenhouse Effect” is actually causing any discernible change in the Earth’s temperature – which I note the BEST report indicates has been static for over a decade, despite the ongoing increase in the CO2, seriously damaging the credibility of the computer models….
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:2001/plot/best/from:2001/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/trend/normalise
By the way, seems Hansen and Trenberth, to name but two, believe the climate has shown no stat sig warming since the late 1990s either.
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1
They seem to be getting quite upset about it, theories being revised right, left and centre.
Catweazle, your response here is a prime example of an attempt to move the goalposts.
Why do you think that will work? We’re not as stupid as the Wattsians…
Catweasel,
Still no evidence, just a dishonest attempt to change the subject.
Why am I not surprised?
If I’m a ‘warmist’,then you’re a denier.
>>If I’m a ‘warmist’,then you’re a denier.<<
I sure am, son, I wear it like a badge of honour..
What else can one do to fake science except deny it?
Face it, before Climategate, you were riding high, thought you had it made.
Since Climategate, it's been downhill all the way for you and your dodgy scam, not a day goes by now it seems without a fresh setback for you.
Now Hockey Schtick Mann and Travesty Trenberh are arguing over why it hasn't warmed since 1996, CERN have discovered vital new information on cosmic ray influence that casts considerable doubt on all the science that has gone before, the Sun is recognised as a serious player (surprise, surprise!), NASA have revised their sensitivity down to 1.67 deg C per doubling of CO2, Saint Al Gore (who, it must be remembered, invented the Interwebs) appears to have lost his last remaining marble, "investment" in so-called renewable energy is dwindling like the morning mist, Your credibility with the public at large will take another big hit when thousands of AGW aficionados descend on Durban in their swarms of private jets and fleets of limousines – to pontificate on how they can stop normal people taking foreign holidays so as to lessen their "carbon footprint" would you believe, all in all, your faux religion is on the skids.
Oh yes, I'm a denier, all right!
Here's a little song, just for you!
“Oh yes, I’m a denier, all right!”
You managed to not get a single sentence in the preceding paragraph correct and you appear unable to respond to any argument except by introducing a new and irrelevant topic.
Whatever you like to call yourself you not only lack an understanding of both science and climate, you lack an understanding of knowledge itself. You will invariably feel satisfied that nobody is able to meet the challenge of your hit-and-run attacks but you should at least consider the possibility that the topic is more complex than that represented by people who like to talk about “watermelons”.
Really.
Thing is, Hansen and Trenberth – inter alia – seem to believe warming stalled 1996-1998.
Here you go, educate yourselves.
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1
Are they deniers too?
Oh, by the way, did you like the video clip?
“Really.
Thing is, Hansen and Trenberth – inter alia – seem to believe warming stalled 1996-1998.”
Yes really. Who knows where you’re even getting 1996 from because it’s not mentioned anywhere in the article and I don’t know anyone except you that claims it hasn’t warmed since 1996.
A useful hint is that if you a discussion concerning warming which is limited to discussion of maximum and exceeding that maximum then it’s a fairly shallow treatment of the topic.
As an example, if there was a cool year in 1974 of negative X, then in the 80s 3 years came close to or matched but did not exceed that minimum, then in 90s 5 years came close to or matched but did not exceed that minimum. The years in the 80s which did not approach the minimum were still cooler than almost any year in the 70s except for 1974, the years in the 90s were cooler than any year in the 80s.
From the vantage point of 1999 you would not say “Cooling ceased 25 years ago”. If someone plotted you a graph starting in 1990 with a slight upwards trend you wouldn’t be terribly convinced. If you noticed a few years ago people were saying “It’s been warming since 1987!” and now they were saying “It’s been warming since 1991!” you’d wonder why the year keeps changing if there really is a warming trend.
You’re not going to educate yourself or me on climate by reading a media article. Go read Trenberth and Hansen’s work. Start by understanding their views in their own words, not the words of Delingpole or journalists. Understand how they think the Earth’s climate works and how their viewpoints stem from that. Compare their understanding to that of others with different viewpoints and see who has the best understanding, not who has the most comforting viewpoint.
Bob Spearica posted this link at Tamino’s:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1970/plot/best/from:1980/to:1988/trend/plot/best/from:1987/to:1995/trend/plot/best/from:1998/to:2005/trend/plot/best/from:2002/to:2011/trend/plot/best/from:1973/to:1980/trend/plot/best/from:1995/to:2001/trend
You can find overlapping “cooling periods” of at least 6 years in length from 1973 onward. And yet, the overall trend over that same period is very positive!
Catweazle you seem to confuse American internal politics (extreme polarisation) with the reality of the rest of the world.
You also confuse politics with science. The science on this issue hasn’t changed,
catweazle666 said “CERN have discovered vital new information on cosmic ray influence that casts considerable doubt on all the science that has gone before”
The CLOUD experiment hasn’t come to any definite conclusions and BTW is funded by governments that accept humans are responsible. What is interesting is that if the experiment was designed humans were responsible, then skeptics would be saying that it was a waste of public money. What you reveal here is the typical skeptic tactic of spreading confusion and to contradict their own ideas. eg. spending public money is OK as long as the results support the outcome you are looking for.
For me the CLOUD experiment adds to knowledge and it is funded by those that believe humans are responsible for todays climate change.
The experiments chief scientist and designer has publicly stated that the results would not result in cloud formation.
Jasper Kirkby:
“It was a big surprise to find that aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere isn’t due to sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone,” said Kirkby. “Now it’s vitally important to discover which additional vapours are involved, whether they are largely natural or of human origin, and how they influence clouds. This will be our next job.”
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/pressreleases/Releases2011/PR15.11E.html
Basically you seem to be presuming an outcome which is in advance of the knowledge of the lead scientist on the experiment.
I Stated “The experiments chief scientist and designer has publicly stated that the results would not result in cloud formation.” in my last comment.
I should have said that the scientist was unclear about cosmic rays creating clouds.
I gather the particles produced in the experiment were to small to form water droplets in a cloud. Which is why they need to try other things. There is no guarantee they will succeed. Any information obtained form this can be incorporated into climate models.
catweazel always weaseling-out of giving a relevant answer.
Dishonesty befits a denier.
You have repeatedly shown yourself to be untrustworthy and rather pathetic.
>>You have repeatedly shown yourself to be untrustworthy<<
Yeah, bit like the climate then. Funny how you thought you could bribe Mother Nature by redistributing wealth, silly Watermelons.
Prof. Phil Jones at UEA CRU says no stat sig warming since 1996.
The BEST figures are flat since 2001.
Met Office Hadcrut3 data shows flat since 1998 and dropping since 2001.
Hansen, Trenberth et al are hunting the missing heat.
You can call me all the names you want, the data speaks for itself.
Sorry, it's now you lot that are deniers now, not me.
Funny how what goes around, comes round, isn't it?
Do not feed the troll
catweazle666 “Prof. Phil Jones at UEA CRU says no stat sig warming since 1996.”
That is a mis-representation of a BBC interview with him.
Again the issue is whether there is any statistical relevance, Phil Jones clearly states in the interview that there isn’t.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html
catweazle666 said:
“You can call me all the names you want, the data speaks for itself.”
There are ways to use the data to mislead, which is what you are doing in your short sentences, and there are ways of using the data based on genuine knowledge of science. One liners do not equate to ‘the data speaks for itself’.
It requires skill and true knowledge to interpret data correctly. All you seem to do is contradict your own ideals.
Earlier you stated Climategate was a problem, yet you quote the key scientist behind the problem to support your case. If you have doubts about him, why use him to qualify your stance??
Only an idiot or a troublemaker would do that.
If you want respect, then think before touching the keyboard.
catweazle666 said: “which I note the BEST report indicates has been static for over a decade…”
10 years is statistically insignificant, choose any 10 years over the last 100 and for some the trend is up, others would show an upward trend. So what you note is something that you need to prove defies the increase in temperature between that 100 years ago and that of today.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/baked-curry-the-best-way-to-hide-the-incline.html
While it is good to see confirmation like this, it is exhausting that we are still at the first stage of the logical argument: climate change is real -> it is a problem -> we should do something about it.
Because deniers and delayers make such exceptional efforts to make climate scientists and advocates of mitigation prove and re-prove the first links in the chain, they delay the progression to action which is so sorely needed.
>>climate change is real <>It is a problem <>we should do something about it<<
The probability that we can have any effect on the climate is IMO around the same as our ability to alter the time the sun sets.
That sounds like the argument "we must do something about XXXX. YYY is "something", so we must do YYY".
Utterly fallacious.
More goalpost-moving inactivist bluster.
— frank
I think you’ll find the debate is effectively pointless now anyway.
We’re doing something all right, the Parliamentary enquiry into shale gas has given Cuadrilla the go-ahead, and lust look what the Chinese and the Indians have got their hooks into.
Good luck getting them to ignore all that lovely cheap energy!
Of course that’s what a habitual goalpost mover like yourself would say.
First it’s ‘there’s no global warming’, then it’s ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault’, then it’s ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway’, and next day it’s ‘there’s no global warming’ and the cycle of bull starts all over again.
So what’s your next stupid excuse to ignore the BEST study findings?
– frank
You mean the BEST data that showed no warming since 2000?
Time will tell.
In fact, I think you’ll find it has.
Wait till April.
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s no global warming.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s no global warming.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s no global warming.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s no global warming.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s no global warming.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s no global warming.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s no global warming.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s no global warming.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s no global warming.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s no global warming.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s no global warming.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s no global warming.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s no global warming.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s no global warming.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s no global warming.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s no global warming.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s no global warming.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s no global warming.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s no global warming.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s no global warming.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming but it’s not our fault.’
catweazle666 argues, ‘there’s global warming and it’s our fault but it’s all moot anyway.’
…
— frank
Tosh.
catweazle666 said “You mean the BEST data that showed no warming since 2000?”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html
Statistically insignificant. That means cutting emissions until proven otherwise (some 30 years to go before any statistically proven cooling could be accepted). Basically you have a long time to wait before you could say emissions should not be cut. The ball is in your court.
>>Basically you have a long time to wait before you could say emissions should not be cut. The ball is in your court.<<
Really.
Kyoto is dead, and will not be resurrected.
Obama has stated that the US will not continue to fund the IPCC, has de-fanged the EPA and is not opposing the pipeline from Canada.
The EU Energy Commissioner has stated that the EU will only take action against CO2 if that action is matched by other countries, such as China.
China is opening between one and four new coal fired power stations every week.
Germany is building nineteen – perhaps more – coal fired power stations, mostly to burn lignite. No carbon sequestration facilities are planned.
Solar panel companies are failing in Europe, China and the USA, as are wind turbine manufacturers.
KPMG, who advise the British Government on energy policy, report that wind is too expensive, and recommend a shift to gas and nuclear.
Carbon dioxide emissions increased by 6% last year, and will certainly increase by more next year. And the year after….
Sorry, gentlemen, you've been rumbled,
catweazle666 moves his goalposts so often that the goalposts are starting to look like hockey sticks.
It’s clear that he doesn’t actually want to address the science; he just wants to blow lots smoke to create confusion and obfuscation.
— frank
Catweazle you haven’t addressed the issue I stated. What you have (incorrectly) addressed, is politics.
Based on current science, emissions have to be cut. To change that requirement skeptics have to prove that there will be cooling for at least 30 years or more to meet accepted statistical standards. According to many skeptics that shouldn’t even be tried because you can’t predict the future. So a lot of skeptics are saying that they shouldn’t be trying to prove that emissions don’t need cutting. They are all over the place and in normal science, they would be arguing with each other. The reason they don’t argue is that politics is more important to them than the science.
Most of your comment is off topic and should probably be deleted IMO.
“The probability that we can have any effect on the climate is IMO around the same as our ability to alter the time the sun sets.”
Quite easy then – just change from GMT to BST (YMMV)
Paul D:
>>What you have (incorrectly) addressed, is politics.<>Based on current science, emissions have to be cut.<<
Clearly, that is not going to happen. Emissions rose 6% last year, all accounted for by developing countries, primarily China and India who (along with Russia) are becoming increasingly sceptical of the AGW hypothesis.
And China and India are working on methane hydrates right now, there is an order of magnitude more energy there than in all known reserves of oil, gas and coal put together. And recovery appears to cheap and straightforward.
How are you going to stop them utilising a resource as beneficent as that?
Here you go again, http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1046027,00.jpg
I repeat: evidence for anthropogenic warming is increasingly under attack, as there is evidence for an unexpected hiatus in the warming; economics dictate that, realistically, many of the alternative energy initiatives are, at this moment closing down; technology has revealed cheap, accessible energy resources, that will be exploited.
Simply put, AGW as a cause is dead.
Further, I pride myself that I personally may possibly have played a very small part in the destruction of the biggest scientific hoax since Piltdown man, and that has caused more suffering and distress than Lysenko's crazy theory.
AGW is now sooooo Twentieth Century.
Live with it.
(And you might want to give some thought as to how you are going to rescue the shattered reputation – not just of climate science, but science in general – when the World at large realises just how badly it has been misled by a theory that never existed outside the "mind" of a computer model. Good luck with that).
Stop feeding the troll
>>Stop feeding the troll<<
THE troll? Singular? Oh, I thought there was more than one of you.
catweazle666….your links don’t say what you say they say. More accurately they say “Scientists say X”, then you go and see if the scientist actually did say that, then you find that they didn’t actually say that and someone has misread/misunderstood/lied about what they really did say (sort of like you when you said about Jones and warming, which by the way, you haven’t admitted to being wrong when you said it). Your posts are the usual mish-mash of logical fallacies and unsubstantiated nonsense. E.g.
Not unexpected. Expected–it is discussed in the peer-reviewed literature, it is even simulated in climate models. And it is under attack from people who neither have the science nor the expertise…and apparently who would rather make things up than actually crack open a journal or use Google Scholar. I won’t get into 10-year noise vs. signal, significant vs. not significant, etc. btw, you might like Dr. Ben Santer’s video (4 minutes) contradicting what you claim he said in an earlier post
(climatecrocks.com/2011/11/08/ben-santer-crushing-the-myth-of-global-cooling/)
Irrelevant to the science behind AGW. Red herring fallacy.
AGW is a prediction, a consequence of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, put forth over a hundred years ago using pencil and paper mathematics and indisputable physical properties inherent in CO2.
Haven’t seen your name in Nature yet. More hand-waving (and delusions of actual influence, sort of along the lines of Delingpole who is the interpreter of interpretations, not actual science).
Sorry. Will do. Just couldn’t resist. I may use his posts in a class dealing with critical reasoning—give the students his list of posts and then see how many logical fallacies they can identify. They’ll pick up on moving goalposts, strawmen, red herring easily enough.
Time will tell.
Another couple of years should do it.
>>put forth over a hundred years ago using pencil and paper mathematics<>indisputable physical properties inherent in CO2.<>Haven’t seen your name in Nature yet.<<
You won't find my name in Nature, as I'm an engineer, so my achievements are somewhat more concrete than the kind of ephemera found in Nature, which bye-the-bye is somewhat less reputable these days than it was in its heyday, mostly courtesy of your heroes the "Hockey Team" and their "pal review" shennigans.
What percentage of published, peer reviewed papers stand the test of time – say, one hundred years, incidentally? Is it as high as 1%? I doubt it.
My point stands. The high sensitivity positive feedback Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis is dead in the water.
That’s the trouble when Trolls are fed, they keep on coming back for more!
Don’t feed it.
Indeed, it even thinks serial liar John O’Sullivan has found something (“Oh, look at that picture! What, that’s only of the growth season of the northern hemisphere? Pah, I’ll promote it and make it into a huge conspiracy anyway!”)
Any comments on this?
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2009/10/20091030_ibuki_e.html
I think many of you fundamentally misunderstand why people are sceptics/deniers. The environmental movement has also been hijacked by a privileged elite. Prince Charles is a supporter of climate change and a good example of someone who holds a position of power, despite never having actually achieved anything. The British Royal family are the biggest benefit scroungers of all. He lives off tax payers money while elderly people die every winter because they cannot afford to heat their homes. Then he tells everyone to shower less to save the planet.
No wonder people don’t trust this information, especially when many of the movers and shakers are getting rich off carbon trading. People are already being taxed to the eyeballs, they struggle to buy petrol to get to work, so that they can pay the bills and feed their families. Then they see people going to environmental summits and being treated like royalty, they get driven around, probably own more than one property, unlike everyday folk.
The system is so corrupt that nobody trusts our leaders (and rightly so). So I can completely understand why people think climate change is a big fat lie.
We need to get rid of the greedy few at the top if we ever want to change things.
Before you jump on me, I would like to add that I have not denied anything in this post. I have merely pointed out that our leaders and media are corrupt, so why would anyone trust them? Why are these issues seldom addressed in debates about climate change denial? I think it is the elephant in the room.
bexcobham whines:
That is a blatant lie. You have denied that climate scientists and leaders are honest. You have accused them of being dishonest. That just shows that you are typical of all the rest of AGW deniers, you don’t have a clue about climate science but will use ad hominem after ad hominem to push your dishonest agenda.
If you think that climate science is not correct why didn’t you post some factual data to support your case? Of course the answer is simple, there are no facts which support your case.
You are so simple minded, how on earth do you think anyone will support your case when all you have to offer is:
Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps he has actually done some reading on the subject, something you don’t appear to have done, and understands what we are doing to our climate?
No, I have not denied anything, as I think we are far to dependant upon the oil industry, which incidentally is at the root of many conflicts and untold human suffering as well as pollution. I have done voluntary work for my local Transition Towns group, I choose not to drive a car and refuse to use environmentally harmful products in my house, so please feel free to outline exactly how I am a climate change denier, because I am very confused by your misdirected vitriol???
Why do I need to be an expert on climate change science to support causes that prepare people for what happens after peak oil?
There is a long history of scientific data being bastardised to fit the agendas of politicians. People know this and are now wary of what they read. I don’t see how pointing this out amounts to denial. It’s just indicative of the sad state of the world we live in.
As for Prince Charles, I am not sure where you are based, but the UK’s class system is abhorrentabborent and the Royal Family is certainly nothing to be celebrated.
I was merely pointing out that people have lost faith in what they are told by their leaders and the media. This needs to be addressed when discussing the real reasons for climate change denial.
Some of our leaders are dishonest and I don’t see how you can deny the fact that they are. We don’t need climate change data debate that fact! I chipped in because I wanted to try and shed light on the reasons I have gathered for climate change denial, based on discussions with people I meet out and about.
People have been lied to so much that they find it hard to trust anything. I also think many people are too scared to accept that their way of life has to change. These days everyone feels entitled to the big house, the new car, the big TV and holidays abroad. Perhaps we need to engage in a friendly dialogue with these people?
>>That is a blatant lie. You have denied that climate scientists and leaders are honest. You have accused them of being dishonest. That just shows that you are typical of all the rest of AGW deniers, you don’t have a clue about climate science but will use ad hominem after ad hominem to push your dishonest agenda. <<
So you assert that climate scientists are above criticism, do you Ian?
It seems your posterboy Professor Richard Muller – who I believe has done a great deal of reading on the subject – has some comments on that matter in an interview that can be found here.
http://prn.fm/2012/08/01/green-front-dr-richard-muller-080112/#ixzz22nkSzW84
Here are some excerpts from the interview, which are revealing.
Interviewer: ”…now that you have validated the information that was in dispute, supposedly, in the Climategate matter, is it fair to say, once and for all, that that is a settled matter, that should be all be [inaudible] and set aside?”
Prof Richard Muller: “No, no, no. Just the opposite. Actually, that’s not really accurate at all. The data they used in Climategate was proxy data. I wrote a book on the using of that.
What they did was, I think, shameful. And it was scientific malpractice. If they were licensed scientists, they should have to lose their licence.”
————-
Richard Muller: “… The standards held over there at the University of East Anglia are just not up to what we consider standard scientific methods….”
————-
Richard Muller: “What’s wrong is what they said. The conclusions that Michael Mann drew, that it’s the warmest it’s been in a thousand years – I was on an international academy review panel that looked at that. Our conclusion was: he could not draw those conclusions.”
————-
Richard Muller: “And in global warming theory, you expect the temperature difference to decrease, because the Poles warm more than the Equator. So it’s plausible that storms will go up, plausible that they will go down, but Hurricane Katrina was just – a place – a hurricane that hit a city that was unprepared. It was not an extremely intense storm.”
D.R. Tucker: ”Okay, so from that perspective, I want to bring up a piece that Bill McKibben wrote last fall. “We know that Hurricane Irene’s middle name was Global Warming”. Was that an accurate statement [Richard Muller is laughing] or -”
Richard Muller: “Oh, you know, this is really unfortunate, because right after Katrina, 2005, people said “We can now expect a whole bunch of more storms”. In the next year, not a single hurricane hit the U.S.”
When people exaggerate, they try to come up with dramatic examples to convince the public. That’s the wrong way to go. You have to respect the public. You have to give them the honest truth and not the exaggerated truth. People now feel as if they’ve been misled.”
————–
Richard Muller: “But that doesn’t mean that we’re seeing increased wildfires. It doesn’t mean we’re seeing increased tornadoes. We’re not, we’re not. Yes, the temperature’s going up, yes it’s greenhouse gases. But to exaggerate it, by bringing in all these other things, I think, tends to mislead the public. And when they learn that they’re wrong, when in 2006 there are no hurricanes hitting the U.S. despite predictions, they tend to become somewhat cynical about science. I think that’s really unfortunate.
Betsy Rosenberg: “I don’t think it was so much predicting increased quantity hurricanes, as intense storms, and let’s –
Richard Muller: “Intense storms have not increased! They have not increased.”
Betsy Rosenberg: “What about – do you think that all – we just had an incredible wave of fires, and the droughts are continuing, and cattle are, you know, being slaughtered because they can’t get enough corn -”
Richard Muller: “The greatest drought since 1930, right?”
Betsy Rosenberg: “Is that all something you’d expect to see, you know, in a normal fluctuation?”
Richard Muller: “We saw it in 1930 – was the dustbowl. So yes – these things happen, and they are normal fluctuations, driven primarily by El Nino and the Gulf Stream. And these large changes are not due to two-thirds of one degree Celsius.”
————-
And that's only for starters.
His views on the Koch brothers and opinion on the Climategate whistleblower are very interesting indeed.
A complete transcript can be fund here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/09/a-fascinating-new-interview-with-prof-richard-muller-quote-on-climategate-what-they-did-was-i-think-shameful-and-it-was-scientific-malpractice/
So who is the denier, Ian?
You or bexcobham?
Or are you going to accuse Professor Muller of insufficient reading on the subject?
Hey, I just wanted to discuss the possible socio-economic and cultural reasons behind climate change denial. When I mentioned scientists and leaders I meant scientists and leaders in general (although Ian decided to ignore this for some unknown reason), throughout history. And yes, some of them have purposefully deceived the public. This is an absolute fact and saying this is not tantamount to climate change denial. People rightly feel let down by politicians and people in power, so I think this partially explains why people deny climate change. There is a deep seated mistrust.
Given the fact that the science is real and that people deny this fact anyway, this shows that the science is not at fault, and other factors are at play. So, why not engage in a productive discussion about what the reasons are and how we can make things better.
Anyway, this blog seems to be a place for extremists at both ends of the scale who are unwilling to engage in an objective and rational debate.
Mr Forrester blog couldn’t even be bothered to read my post properly and catweazle666 is misguided.
>>and catweazle666 is misguided.<<
For quoting perfectly valid comments from Professor Richard Muller, who I believe is a very respected scientist, and is attempting to draw attention to matters that can – if not addressed – drastically discredit the cause of the AGW proponents?
If Professor Muller considers "If they were licensed scientists, they should have to lose their licence”, do you think he is misguided too?