It's been a bad week for deniers

oh don't worry. Mojo is gonna post another Vostok Ice cores post, and then quote Roy Spencer multiple times. It wouldn't make much difference even if Spencer comes out and admits he falsified his data.

 

I saw this article earlier today. It looks very promising. I'm looking forward to the pier-reviews supporting the findings of this article; thus, ending the debate for good this time.

THE VIDEO IS A REAL EYE OPENER !

.

 

The debate will not end.

You have to realize that denier-science/debate is funded by oil monopoly money. It has little to do with with actual scientific curiosity.

 

I was going to post the BBC article thismorning but PC was down.

BBC News - Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study

But it was close to 30C today, so obviously climate change is wrong.

 

That's an oxymoron.

 

Hooray ,the debate is over about whether the Earth was warming or not.
Not that there was actually anyone arguing that the Earth wasnt warming before 2000.
What I find questionable is how Mueller accepts
the inaccuracy of poorly sited thermometers .
I gather that ,"Poor" is accurate enough for climate science .
By the way ,Mueller wasnt ever"one of the biggest skeptics".
I dont think he was ever a skeptic.
He said Manns hockeystick was BS science.This study wouldnt alter his previous opinion of Mann.

 

"It is surprising, however, that the authors believe that this news is so significant that they can't wait for peer review, especially when their conclusions aren't exactly revolutionary."

 

I love it when people without a background in a particular field try to argue over data that they are not trained to review.

Are you really going to argue against Muller, Perlmutter, Cox, Curry and Hansen? Wow you have balls. lol

 

There is no debate. There is only denial. While most of the idiots will fade into the background until the next conspiracy theory or nonsense strikes their fancy, a few will entrench and become ever more recalcitrant to simple reasoning. This is just another flat earth society. The unfortunate part is their stupidity has delayed action and will cause extreme additional duress that might have been avoided.

Will they take responsibility ?

 

When I see bullsh!t I dont eat it like many here do.
Thermometers next to landing strips is bad data.
It doesnt take much expertise to figure that out.
Btw I made 3 separate correct diagnoses in the past year that over 10 MDs missed.
Go figure, Im not a physician so I shouldnt have been able to figure out something they all missed.They have the expertise and degrees but they were all wrong.According to your lame nice person attitude I shouldnt even bother.

 

Are you trying to compare diagnosis accuracy with statistical analysis? Seriously? With billions of data points?

You're right. You shouldn't even bother. You've been shut down often enough on this forum that it's time to throw in the towel. lol

 

Your point was that people cant have valid opinions outside of their line of expertise.
Im just pointing out that you are a fool.

 

I wonder if anybody else thinks Mojo is right besides Mojo LOL

Anyway, probability suggests that idiots will be right on occasion. They are still idiots.

 

Let's look what BEST was trying to do

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth_Surface_Temperature]Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Given the CRUs lack of transparency and Phil Jones' dog ate my homework excuse for not providing methodology for the CRUs temperature record, there is definitely a need for such analysis. Jones even angrily challenged people to create another temperature reconstruction. Note there were already two more GISS and NCDC, but these did rely on some of the CRUs analysis.

Now, is where the political blogs prove themselves to be political. Before any results came in, Think Progress proved they don't care about the science.

Exclusive: Richard Muller, Charles Koch, Judith Curry and the implosion of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study | ThinkProgress

So we can't trust BEST

Until it agreed with the data. Now Wattsup with that says BEST is wrong. What have we learned?

These blogs with twist anything for their political ends.

Then the question is, is this news? No not at all. The BEST project made news in March or April with this preliminary information. The important thing is when the data is out, published, and peer reviewed. Will this change public opinion and undo the damage done by climate gate, and misinformation in the blogisphere and on the 24 hour news channels? Its unlikely IMHO

Americans Still Split on Global Warming, Poll Shows - NYTimes.com

Drilling down to older more full data

Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop

 

Polling idiots about what they think of a subject makes no difference to the subject.

Even if 90% of idiots say the sun will rise in the west tomorrow, doesn't make it more true.

So pointing out that fewer and fewer americans "believe" is just pointing out what the rest of the world already knows. The american "education" system is anything but.

 

I assumed that the OP was saying that this "news" would help the public understand that science showed the earth has been warming. In other words, change public opinion which are measured by polls. It certainly was not going to change the science. I was showing changing polling about a factual statement whether most scientists agreed the earth was warming. This is factually correct but the number answering correctly has been declining. Part of the problem is news and blogs confusing this consensus with other issues, especially when information is shown to be exaggerated or misleading on these issues. I'm including the wikipedia reference not because it is authoritative, but because it is fairly neutral.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_skeptic[/ame]

The BEST project is trying to remove doubt and provide peer reviewed open information on one of these topics, temperature measurement error. If the papers provide some greater certainty on the matter, which we have every reason to believe they will, it will be a good thing. If only media and blogs would report the science accurately, but this is boring, so they are unlikely to do it.

I grow tired of your ignorant anti-americanism. Pick your country and if it allows a free press, I am sure I can find a poll that has the majority in than country answer badly. What is the purpose of continuously bashing people in this country?

 

Using 2nd person view not to you directly but as it relates to people in general:

If you think you are #1 at something, you have no motivation or desire to be better not to mention a model to go off of. Since we outsiders know that the american system is consistently behind the majority of the civilized world, it will take some "tough love" before americans "get it" and once again try to climb to the top.

If you love your country, then you should fight to make it the best. If that means accepting you are not currently the best and then making strides to become the best, then so be it. But sticking your head in the sand is not how you become great. You must accept and acknowledge failure before making it better.

 

From the Muir Russel report, 2010, below. I believe it took their programmer all of a day and half to replicate the CRU temperature series from publicly-available data. There's nothing hidden, withheld, or mysterious about this, for people who understand what they are doing.

Maybe the basics are worth repeating. Oceans cover 70% of the earth's surface. Oceans are warming, and there's no urban heat bias there. Satellites show the same trend. No cities in space. The US Climate Reference Network shows the same trend (for the past decade) as the historical climate network -- no cities where the Climate Reference Network sites are located. Borehole composites show the same warming rate as the thermometers.

The thermometer-based system is robust because it has huge levels of redundancy. It only takes about 50 thermometers to measure US temperature trends reasonably well, while there are about 1200 reporting stations in the US historical climate network. The results are area-weighted, so differential loss of any one class of station does not matter. The redundancy is used with some skill to filter out spurious variation in temperature trends. And some series, (e.g., NASA GISS) simply do not use urban temperature data at all.

Anyway, here's what the Muir Russel report said.

http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf

"The exercise and comparison of all figures demonstrates that:
1. Any independent researcher may freely obtain the primary station data. It is impossible for any group to withhold data.
2. It is impossible for any group to tamper improperly with data unless they have done so to the GHCN and NCAR (and presumably the NMO) sources themselves.
3. The steps needed to create a temperature trend are straightforward to implement.
4. The computer code necessary is straightforward to write from scratch and could easily be done by any competent programmer.
5. The shape obtained in all cases is very similar: in other words if one does the same thing with the same data one gets very similar results.
6. The result does not depend significantly on the exact list of stations.
7. Adjustments make little difference.
By performing this simple test one determines easily that the results of the CRUTEM analysis follow directly from the published description of the method, and that the resultant temperature trend is not significantly different from the other results regardless of stations used or adjustments made. The test is therefore sufficient to demonstrate that, with respect to the declared method, the CRUTEM analysis does not contain either error or adjustments which are responsible for the shape of the resultant temperature trend.

A researcher can evidently produce a study which would test the CRUTEM analysis quite precisely, without let or hindrance from CRU."

 

If you were giving me your opinion on the best way to fold a hospital gown or the proper way to dispose of a sharps container I would value your opinion. I do not, however, value opinions that are simply a regurgitated version of something read on a skeptic website.