Colleagues challenge climate change scientist
By David Rose, Daily Mail
It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, “proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer”.
Professor Richard Muller of UC Berkeley 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 month ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, this month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilization as we know it.
It was cited uncritically by, among others, reporters and commentators from the BBC, the Independent, the Guardian, the Economist and numerous media outlets in America.
The Washington Post said the BEST study had “settled the climate change debate” and showed that anyone who remained a skeptic was committing a “cynical fraud”.
But the Mail can reveal that a leading member of 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.
Just started giggling, Kae. Last time you published news on “Global Warming” the responses were numerous and heated. Are you trying to start a ruckus here? ;-)
Nice! Thanks for the update.
I think we all would agree that research on the climate and mans potential impact needs to continue.
Further, I think we all agree that respecting and caring for our environment is important as is a healthy economy with sound energy policies.
Well whaddya know!! Yes LTN, thanks for the update! And hopefully Mr. Eugene Robinson will update his column?!
As previously stated, it would be great to not send pollutants into the air, or anywhere else! We’re a better Nation and State for having reduced what goes into the air, water & ground! And we would be even much better off if we could eliminate our dependence on foreign oil!
But even with all the mixed data and evidence, if someone is an unequivocal believer in Human Activity Caused Global Warming/Climate Change, what is the plan to get every Nation on the Planet to go along with, and enforce, a plan or program?
I’m a little ashamed of LTN for contributing to the trend of skepticism. 97% of climate scientists agree the climate is changing due to anthropogenic forcing. However, due to disproportionate representation by the media of the climate skeptic’s argument, public consensus on climate change hovers only around 50%.
This article from the Daily Mail might be interesting if if actually carried some weight, but it’s a little hard to take seriously when their main graphic is an obvious statistical fallacy. The top graph contains climate data from the last 150+ years displaying 25 year increments as reference points. The bottom graph, labeled “The Inconvenient Truth” only displays the last 10 years with one year increments as references. While visually this appears to be a huge slam to scientific consensus, it is completely fallacious. Besides the overall trend in warming that we can see over the last 150 years, another trend validated by climate scientists is that of visible peaks and valleys in temperatures attributed to a sort of global respiration. It is completely invalid to only look at the last 10 years of temperature data and declare that warming is at a standstill.
It would be nice if LTN would actually do some of their own research into the climate change data, instead of just hiding behind the veil of reporting “news.”
And really? The Daily Mail? Nothing more reliable floating across the news wire today?
I think we can all agree that the corporations will poison your children for profit if they can get away with it. It’s what they are, what they do. It’s also no big surprise that they will buy the “scientists”, “public servants”, “media”, and “courts” necessary to achieve their goal.
I think most would agree Smedly lives up to our low expectations of him
Another Step Back, LTN should get a pat on the back for publishing this after publishing the WaPo piece. It’s called balance. Chill bro.
Dear skeptics.
Post links to your research.
Thanks ‘Another Step’ for clarifying what those so-called comparison graphs actually show. Placed one above the other, it’s pretty misleading regarding long term trends.
All you “Gore sheeple”
In the article Muller himself admitted that the temperatures have remained flat for 13 years… HELLO!
read it for yourself- right here copied word for word –
However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.
“might not be ‘statistically significant’”
From 1950 – 2010, his original time-frame, thirteen years is over 20 percent of his sample time.
The guy is a fraud – read what he said. Can you justify it,???
He admitted real scientists might be “mystified”.
What the he11 is he talking about??? That is STUPID, not mystifying, just STUPID!
“Against stupidity, the gods themselves, contend in vain”. . . ‘Anonymous’ – from the 10th century. . .
Al Gore at least did something in getting us talking about “global warming” (in quotes as to the internal debate about whether the Report would call it ‘global warming’ or “climate change” [which won out due to concerns about panic] after his own 30 years of concern about CO2 (since his college days).
However, he did a disservice in not pointing out how many other of Earth’s life systems are in very real jeopardy, again due to the ways Man operates.
Forest health is a good example, as they are also the best natural “absorber” of CO 2 (carbon being the building block oxygen being emitted – for ‘fresh’ walks in the woods). We are in the Sierras as one of 10 western states, which all have serious detriment due to occurring climate change, making catastrophic fire danger not only a Tahoe issue.
Another example would be the renowned Dr. Edward O. Wilson, the famous Harvard biologist, who laments that we are, at the moment, very close to losing at least half of the amphibians in the world if temperature is altered just another part of a degree – again due to changing climate systems (they have smaller systems than ours)
The point is that there are now many other indicators than these silly re-hashing of obsolete “global warming” debates – just because a couple of billionaire’s dollars were used to correct a former skeptic into a believer.
(That was the real news that triggered comments about Eugene Robinson earlier)
Instead of winning specious arguments, people should begin serious learning about what’s at stake not to be sustainable, with a focus on their own quality of life, as a good start . . .
That appears to be too much to ask for, hence the quotation at the top. . .
Here is another example of a skeptic, who does not understand the definition of climate:
“However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.”
By the definition of climate, 13 years is NOT statistically significant.
How many ‘weathers’ does it take to make a ‘climate’?
‘What the he11 is he talking about??? That is STUPID, not mystifying, just STUPID!’
Oh so ironic…
it is no longer global warming, it is climate change- now where did i put those curley cue light bulbs made in china……..hmmmmm
I know I said I was no longer responding to the robot, BUT:
How many times does he have to repeat that STUPID question, “How many ‘weathers’ does it take to make a ‘climate’?”
I wasn’t aware that “weather” was quantifiable.
Yes, it’s agreed by all, those who believe in the Global Warming cause, and those who are skeptical, that Professor Muller doesn’t make any sense! His belief that certain facts may matter, or may not, shows that Eugene Robinson should not use him a source and he should retract his opinion column!
Now there are well-accredited scientists who believe in Human Caused Global Warming, and well-accredited ones who do not! There are studies that support the former, and those that support the latter. And there are those studies such as this, one where the data is being interpreted both ways. Plus, both sides can always question the funding sources and motives of certain studies and scientists!
But to those who proclaim the bulk of the data supports Human Caused Global Warming, what is your plan or idea to get the World (because it’s not U.S. Warming, it’s Global Warming) behind a plan to deal with it?
“There are studies that support the former, and those that support the latter.”
I ask you…. link to one
You never do. And when you do, it is rubbish.
“Plus, both sides can always question the funding sources and motives of certain studies and scientists!”
Yes, but everyone is working with the same data and all of the statistical tests, null hypothesis, model parameters, etc are unquestionable.
Skeptics have yet to prove the null hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. Every time more satellite data, ice core data, sediment data, is collected and analyzed, it never proves the null hypothesis….
I don’t have a plan. I stand up for science and fact whenever it is misrepresented in support of a political cause. Especially when the confirmation bias is so strong.
I ask you again….
Post links to research.
Put up or shut up.
In that question that no one can seem to answer, the words ‘weathers’ and ‘climate’ are in quotes for a reason. To be snarky.
And from the verbal definition of climate… “The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.” Weather isn’t quantifiable….
sigh…..
seriously?
that is a joke right?
har har har
If you would read, for starters THIS STUDY, the one the comments are based on! Didn’t know you knew more than a college professor? Are you one? Ivy League Phd.’s refute Global Warming. Are you one?
Don’t read what’s said and create you’re own reality, fine! Because actually, since there is no plan to deal with Global Warming, why worry about it? So there’s Global Warming. Let’s just whine about it because people are getting government funding because of it!
What…..
Actually… it doesn’t.
Do you understand why 13 years is not statistically significant?
I was asking for data that proves the null hypothesis…
Fail.
PS nice ad hominem attack. You wouldn’t know a legit research paper if it came to your house and took all of your money.
I ask for research and data, and you post this. This is a matter of science, you want to discuss it, speak the language. Which is research and data and statistics.
Post some research. Data. Statistics.
And please tell us how many years of weather data define 1 unit of climate.
If the ignorance in the comments here is representative of the whole population, I don’t want to live in this world anymore.
PS your over use of the exclamation point is comical.
Your name calling and bizarre self-proclamations of superiority illustrate the intellectual insecurities you have in your arguments! Now to just totally disregard data from even Ivy League Phd.’s, shows you just disregard facts that don’t support your pre-conceived notions!
But best of all, that you don’t have a plan, you just want the pipeline of taxpayer money to keep pouring in, because that’s right, you’re a govt. worker and aren’t expected to produce results, explains your perspective!
I think Parker has the robot pegged down!
He’s so stuck on stupid he doesn’t even realize how obnoxious he comes across.
A Gore sheep to the core.
I’d add duffus to the robot assessment.
Make that “Obnoxious DUFFUS”
Waiting for the research…
And for you to tell us all how many years of weather data define 1 unit of climate.
Which you will never do because it would prove you to be grossly misinformed.
This is a discussion of science.
Also Prof Curry isn’t from an Ivy League school.
Also, what about NASA?
Post your research. This is a matter of science.
Oh wait the Ivy League researcher is the one you referred to earlier, who later retracted the conclusions of her own paper what you cited.
See you don’t read-I referred to multiple Ivy League researchers, plus other researchers and studies! And so have individuals here on LTN. Yet I could refer to even more! But as I said, I commend how you create your own reality, and just go, ‘Oh it’s not legit, take a test.’
(Which if I didn’t know the answer, and I do even though you phrase it poorly, I’d look it up. You just don’t get it, again as others have said, the flawed way you go about things! I’m not going to jump because some name-calling blogger wants me to!)
Now I wasn’t aware you’re a Phd. or some other sort of published scientist? But as I’ve said from the get go, if someone is so sure about Human Caused/Global Warming/Climate Change, what’s the plan to get the World behind a unified program? Since there isn’t one, personal attacks and the disregarding of research that doesn’t confirm pre-conceived notions, is clearly an attempt to silence anything that may cut off the trough of govt. funded research!!