It's been a bad week for deniers

Well, you just have to say it loud enough and long enough and it becomes true. Isn't the interweb a wonderful thing?

 

How many denialists does it take to ignore the truth ?

Answer: One if the person only listens to himself, two for moral support.

 

It is a powerful tool that can be used for good or evil.... It's kind of like the power of voting. Ohh wait, that isn't powerful since no matter who you vote for it's business as usual. lol

LOL with Sage!

 

AG, I can't quite figure out the point you are making. Did BEST did something other than their stated mission?

They rexamined the US temperature data and their conclusions correspond with another previous re-examination, that focused on the stations that Watt said were well sited.

Frm my chair the odd thing here is publicising the manuscript before completion of the journal review. Odd, not illegal, probably won't come back to bite them (science wise) because it is a confirmatory result not a contrary one.

Ice dynamics, ocean temps, boreholes, animal migrations, plant phenology, atmospheric temps from satellite IR spectra, all agree with...surface-station thermometer records.

So, realistically, one would have anticipated a confirmatory result. But that's just realism. Free citizens are under no obligation to partake.

Since you are all seem focused on this er unpublished manuscript, you might not notice the first study from the big Chinese glacial dynamics project. Oh well, suit yourselves. Don't look = don't see.

Or, get the raw station data (except Poland) from CRU and analyze it yourself. Now all free all online. Imagine all that dangling in front of a sincere sceptic..

 

No absolutely not. They haven't done anything wrong. They are good scientists.

I was commenting on the media and blogasphere coverage not the science. Given the congressional testamony 6 months ago, and all that you mentioned, this was the expected result, but.... well, you can look back at my post.

 

He no doubt meant "denier versus science".

As for denier reaction to the BEST report, my first thought was, as Jonathan Swift wrote, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." But seeing the conversion of someone like Muller who was perceived by deniers as denier-friendly could be a non-reasoning emotional kick that will sway some deniers.

The week before we learned that Texas Gub'ner Rick Perry's hand-picked official deniers have been hard at work:
Perry Officials Censored Climate Change Report | Mother Jones

 

The BEST team analysed the readings of the "poorly" sited thermometers versus those without urban heat island effect. These "poor" sites were generated by watts and others that noticed how they might not be accurate. The findings are that the urban heat island effect is there, but these readings do not meaningfully move the average global temperature.

Mueller was skeptical that these readings might exaggerate the warming, but not that it would show that warming was not there. The main purpose was to provide full open methodology for review.

Mueller's critism of the hockey stick had to do with smoothing away the medieval warming period and little ice age without good statistical methodology. This mainly attacks temperature proxies older than 400 years. Mann has since modified his proxies and now includes the little ice age and MWP.

I normally object to the term denier, but it does actually apply to shaw and perry. Here is the houston chronical's take Professor says state agency censored article - Houston Chronicle

Didn't you see that in my references. It was funded by us taxpayers through univerisities and labs as well as koch foundation, the gates foundation, and other sources. The funding should not be an issue of the science and the CS Monitor changed their title to be less like a political blog.

 

naah I meant what I meant.

denier-science, christian science.. all those pseudo-sciences created solely to support faith-based views. meh.

 

That is a good video. If people think climate gate had no implications, or that hide the decline and keeping data out of public hands to protect it was good, they need to watch these things. It also debunks the climate progress story line.

But you asked about the hockey stick, which I took to mean the one in mbh 1999. Mann had made all the data public by 2006, and I was giving muller's opinion about that. Here is one of his earlier criticisms.

Global Warming Bombshell - Technology Review

From his book, pretty much what I had paraphrased
Physics for Future Presidents: The ... - Richard A. Muller - Google Books

 

Just a little from the horses mouth, or maybe the other end if you are on the watts up instead of the scientific side.

Richard A. Muller: The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism - WSJ.com

Now this is on the WSJ editorial page, not a scientific or even factual place for reporting. From the other side we have the criticism.

Befuddled Warmist Richard Muller Declares Skeptics Should Convert to Believers Because His Study Shows the Earth Has Warmed Since the 1950s! -- Climate Depot Responds | Climate Depot

I find the arguments here quite political like those on climate progress and not very scientific. But the piece does point out the limits of this study, and why "deniers" like inhofe and watts, and skeptics with legitimate issues will still be skeptical about the A in GW and predictions, even if the GW is well established.

BEST does provide good estimates of the temperature records, which is what global warming should be based on. It does not explore causes or mitigation, that is for other groups. It does provide some good visualization tools to help us understand some of the regional winners and losers if warming continues.

 

WaPo’s “skeptic” actually has backed global warming for 30 years « Don Surber
"Richard Muller of Berkeley — embraced the theory of man-made global warming 30 years ago"

 

Uh oh: It was the BEST of times, it was the worst of times | Watts Up With That?

"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.
‘To say this is the end of scepticism is misleading, as is the statement that warming hasn’t paused. It is also misleading to say, as he has, that the issue of heat islands has been settled.’"



" 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."

 

Hm, let's see.

A long time ago, carbon was taken from the atmosphere and sequestered inside the Earth, and the temperature came down.

Now we're taking it back out of the Earth and putting it into the atmosphere.

Thing is, it's been darn chilly in my town this last week or so!

 

Thats a total fantasy and completely incorrect factually.
CO2 has never determined temperatures.CO2 levels were many times higher in the past .
And San Francisco has had beautiful weather lately.
Geesh.

"Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times,our present atmosphere,like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm."
Climate during the Carboniferous Period

 

Well, I'm headed out back to light something on fire.

 

Isn't "watts up with that" the tome of a TV weather man? His credentials are not really very good, except for self promotion.

Icarus

 

Speaking of self promotion,Im beginning to think Muller is a little wacko.
He lies about his position on AGW.His current PR campaign clearly misrepresents his former and current positions,and use that fake irony to gain publicity.
Then he misrepresents the outcome of BEST by hiding the decline, after chastising Mann for hiding the decline.