ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Climate change deniers thought they had an ally in Richard Muller, a popular physics professor at UC Berkeley.
Muller didn’t reject climate science per se, but he was a skeptic, and a convenient one for big polluters and conservative anti-environmentalists — until Muller put their money where his mouth was, and launched the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, in part with a grant from the Charles G. Koch foundation.
“When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find,” Muller wrote in a Friday Wall Street Journal op-ed. “Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections. Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate.”
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
I'll have to re-read this section in his book. I didn't think he was a skeptic of global warming. (Of course, the real issue is the influence of man on global warming. I don't think many scientists reject the premise that warming exists, though I'm sure many loons do.)
Well the author of the article is certainly a good propagandist if a lousy journalist.
He appears to have not read the preliminary paper abstract (since the paper is under peer review)
I know of no skeptics that don't believe that the Earth has warmed since the Dalton minimum which marked the end of the Little Ice Age, if there hadn't been warming we wouldn't have the sort of crop production we see today.
Muller has not been a 'climate skeptic' to the best of my knowledge and I follow the issue rather closely. It is interesting he went forward with a media blitz before the review has been done. Watts is concerned with this since he was one of the people consulted on this project due to his work with weather station siting.
The temp data is derived from one source not multiple sources as the article you cite implies, again hard to say whether it is ignorance or political intent on the part of the author Roger Pelke Sr comments on this with links to his comments on other sites (inc Wattsupwiththis):
To summarize, most research on global warming relies on a statistical model that should not be used. This invalidates much of the analysis done on global warming. I published an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal to explain these issues, in plain English, this year.
The largest center for global-warming research in the UK is the Hadley Centre. The Hadley Centre employs a statistician, Doug McNeall. After my op-ed piece appeared, Doug McNeall and I had an e-mail discussion about it. A copy of one of his messages is attached. In the message, he states that the statistical model—a straight line with AR(1) noise—is “simply inadequate”. (He still believes that the world is warming, primarily due to computer simulations of the global climate system.)
Although the AR(1)-based model is known to be inadequate, no one knows what statistical model should be used. There have been various papers in the peer-reviewed literature that suggest possible resolutions, but so far no alternative model has found much acceptance.
When I heard about the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, I got the impression that it was going to address the statistical issues. So I was extremely curious to see what statistical model would be adopted. I assumed that strong statistical expertise would be brought to the project, and I was trusting that, at a minimum, there would be a big improvement on the AR(1)-based model. Indeed, I said this in an interview with The Register last June.
Judith Curry one of the authors of the 4 papers gives her summary she say work remains to be don, mentions that she thinks this is helping to develop a better data set for land based data and NOTHING more, this study doesn't have anything to do with the thesis that Humans are affeting the ongoing continious climate change that has been occuring for billions of years on earth.
Here are my summary comments on the papers. I think the most significant paper is the Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process, where Rohde et al. have introduced a new method for analyzing the data that appears to me to be a substantial improvement over existing methods. That said, I suspect there is still considerable research still to be done in this area. The Urban Heat Island effect paper is a nice study, and based upon the reporters’ questions, seems to be the primary paper of interest. Is this paper the final word on the UHI issue? Probably not. I will be interested in the reactions to this paper, since UHI is a contentious issue. The decadal variability study is very provocative (this is the paper for which I had the greatest input), but IMO the study needs to be extended back further in time. The Surface Station quality paper shows nothing surprising, but I understand that Anthony Watts is raising a concern over the paper.
Watts comments on hos agreements and disagreements with the paper (something that is normally part of the peer review and comment process for published papers in science). The reason for these comments is that the process was bypassed because of the publicity blitz in the media:
One thing we can count on that WON’T normally be transparent is the peer review process, and if that process includes members of the “team” who are well versed enough to but already embracing the results such as Phil Jones has done, then the peer review will turn into “pal review”.
The solution is to make the names of the reviewers known. Since Dr. Muller and BEST wish to upset the apple cart of scientific procedure, putting public review before peer review, and because they make this self-assured and most extraordinary claim in their press release:
That’s some claim. Four papers that have not been peer-reviewed yet, and they KNOW they’ll pass peer review and will be in the next IPCC report? Is it just me or does that sound rigged? Or, is it just the product of an overactive ego on the part of the BEST group?
I say, if BEST and Dr. Muller truly believes in a transparent approach, as they state on the front page of their website…
There is a lot of political jockeying going on right now why? Well the next iteration IPCC report is going to be put together soon. There is a deadline for peer reviewed papers to be included/excluded. So some papers are being rushed in and others are being delayed. This is because of all the hits the warmist have been taking as the data comes in from various papers sources and their predictions made in previous IPCC reports are diverging from measurement in ways that show Humans are the drivers of climate.
Comments on the media coverage of the papers and what the papers actually say from Dr Peyser (a skeptic) who has read the papers in question.
The most interesting quote from the papers abstract that the media like the article Patters cites is being ignored:
The findings of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project are important because they emphasise the growing realisation that science has underplayed the unknowns and uncertainties in the attribution of the causes of recent climate change. Without doubt, the data compiled and the analysis undertaken, by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project is unambiguous evidence that the root causes of global warming are poorly understood.
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.”
There is the headline missed by all: Scientists say human component of global warming may be overstated.
The article in the OP is crap however it is informative to show how the media mislead the public about what the science is and what is saying.
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."