Sunday, October 30, 2011

Global Warming Science Is Settled?

Not yet it isn't:
Read the whole article, but the real conclusion is this: Judith Curry, a co-author of these four papers, has now gone on record repudiating not the papers themselves, but the press associated with the papers. This will be a black eye for the Berkeley Earth Project, and in all probability for Prof Muller. Worst of all, it means that the integrity and validity of what should have been an important confirmatory study is now questionable.

Instead of a truly useful study, Muller’s use of the press has simply added to the climate food fight.
If it's settled, why do these people repeatedly have to resort to lying and subterfuge to make their point?

Update: Just learned about this site.

Update #2, 10/31/11: More on Muller's paper:
Very few if any skeptics assert that the earth is still in the Little Ice Age. While the Little Ice Age raged from approximately 1300 to 1900 AD, it is pretty well accepted that the Little Ice Age did indeed end by approximately 1900 AD. The mere fact that the Little Ice Age ended a little over 100 years ago, and that temperatures have warmed during the course of recovering from the Little Ice Age, tells us absolutely nothing about the remaining components necessary to support an assertion that humans are creating a global warming crisis.

Muller himself admits, “How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.”

So we have a paper merely claiming that two out of three global temperature stations report the Little Ice Age is over...

Even prominent global warming advocate Eric Steig admits, “Anybody expecting earthshaking news from Berkeley, now that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group being led by Richard Muller has released its results, had to be content with a barely perceptible quiver. As far as the basic science goes, the results could not have been less surprising if the press release had said ‘Man Finds Sun Rises At Dawn.’”
I continue to think we're in a cyclical warming pattern.


Dean Baird said...

Wow. Ignoring the Big Story to spotlight an insignificant triviality.

Sorry, but that's not how science works. Politics, yes. Science, not so much. Lying and subterfuge are the province of the denier crowd.

Muller's Berkley Earth Project was founded on the hunch that surface station data was flawed. The Koch brothers stepped up with big money to support this scientifically-defensible study headed by a full-fledged academic.

But since they restricted themselves to the realm of science and not politics, they found no merit in their initial quibbles.

Adhering to scientific methodology is what turned them into enemies of the ideologues. But for ideologues, there is no scientific evidence that will move them from their fixed, ideological conclusion.

Scientific evidence didn't make anyone into a denier, so scientific evidence can't stop one from being a denier.

There is no climate "food fight" going on among actual climate scientists. My impression is that physicist Muller looked down his nose at climate scientists and was going to step in to set them straight. But he learned humility from the data.

He'll be speaking at the Northern California/Nevada Section of The American Association of Physics Teachers Fall Conference this coming weekend in Berkeley. Should be fun.

Darren said...

When previous warming and cooling periods in recorded history can be explained, I'll listen. Until then, all I hear is Al Gore-types.

Dean Baird said...

When previous warming and cooling periods in recorded history can be explained, I'll listen.

No you won't, and you know it. You'll wave it off as part of the Vast Conspiracy of Science.

Honestly, it's a ridiculous condition to begin with. It's akin to saying, "I will believe in magic until every magician's trick ever performed is explained to me."

Reminds of people who reject science since "science can't explain everything." They typically turn to some form of woo, from clairvoyance to chiropractic, which turns out to be capable of explaining *nothing*. ("Sure, I read my horoscope; science can't explain everything.")

There are times when parody speaks to an issue better than prose. To wit:
"Science: What's It Up To?"

Darren said...

So instead of addressing actual, legitimate concerns, you just attack me personally? I accept your capitulation.