Spin, spin, spin…
Has Muller even listened to a skeptic? ‘As we all know,skeptical arguments revolve around the causes of warming,not the simple fact of warming’email@example.com
- ‘Muller either does not grasp this concept (begging the question;has he even listened to a skeptic?), or is being deliberately dishonest’
- A mathematician’s response to Muller’s BEST temperature study
- Confused warmist Muller: You shouldn’t be a skeptic of anthropogenic global warming; by the way, we didn’t assess the anthropogenic component of global warming
- Muller: ‘How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that’Skeptical Scientist Matt Briggs: ‘Somebody has to remind Muller that skeptics aren’t skeptical of that some warming (and some cooling) has occurred. We are skeptics about our ability to explain this warming (and cooling), and to predict skillfully future warming (and cooling)’
Scientist reveals Muller’s impact: ‘Richard Muller Gives Permission To Be Climate Skeptic, Shows Why’ — He even ‘admits that it has not been growing stormier’
- Scientist Dr. Briggs: ‘Muller concedes what many skeptics have claimed for years: that our temp record is poor, especially over oceans, that it is limited, filled with errors & biases, & when used as a basis for judgment, leads to over-certainty…If you look at say 1945 & compare it to 2010, you find warming of a certain size. But if you begin at 1940, just 5 years earlier, you find much less warming. Temp increases (or decreases) are always relative’
- Meteorologist D’Aleo: ‘Muller’s results are predictable, since he appears to have worked with much of the same raw data all 3 global data centers used or started with’
- The long pause in warming confirmed: ‘Global warming real? Not recently, folks. The black curve in graph confirms what experts have known for years, that warming stopped in mid-1990s’
- Media claims Warmist Richard Muller is a skeptic — But Muller lustily uses the word ‘denier’ to describe skepticsMuller: ‘The deniers pay no attention to science’
- Say What?! Wash. Post: ‘Muller’s team appears to have confirmed the basic tenets of climate science’
- Climate Depot Response: Of my, what a con this whole project was. The media thinks showing that we have warmed since the 1950s is the crux of the AGW debate?! Warming now equals human causation?! Muller should be ashamed of himself for promoting media spin like this.
- Muller & his Berkeley team’s analysis: Global temp correlates more closely with the state of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index – a measure of sea surface temps in the N. Atlantic’
- ‘The team suggests it is worth investigating whether the long-term AMO cycles, which are thought to last 65-70 years, may play a part in the temperature rise, fall and rise again seen during the 20th Century ‘Muller: ‘Had we found no global warming, then that would have ruled
- UK Telegraph’s Delingpole calls Muller’s WSJ OPED a ‘ramblingly disingenuous piece…implying utterly reprehensible dishonesty and trickery’
- ‘Richard Muller has crassly fudged the distinction [between man-made warming and warming] to make a point which has nothing to do with science and everything to do with gutter politics…Climate Depot’s Morano also, incidentally, has links to scientists pouring cold water on Muller’s ludicrous claims. I don’t think I’ve heard Morano sound quite so angry or contemptuous. And I don’t blame him’
UK Telegraph Cites Climate Depot: ‘ The case for AGW theory has been getting weaker by the minute, as Marc Morano notes in his characteristically feisty summary of the current state of play’
- ‘The Warmists lost the battle over ‘the science’ long ago; that’s why the best they can do now is resort to the kind of risible semantic ruse like this deliberate conflation of ‘global warming’ with ‘man made global warming’
- Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl Rips Muller’s Temperature Study: ‘It is not true that the Berkeley group has found relevant evidence for the core questions in the AGW debate’
- ‘Some people including Marc Morano were predicting that this outcome was the very point of the project…all the people in the ‘BEST’ project were just puppets used in a bigger, pre-planned propaganda game…the newest events seem to confirm the predictions by Morano that the Berkeley project was pre-engineered to get misinterpreted exactly in the way that the Guardian shows today: ‘a skeptic shows that skeptics were wrong’…Muller is not a real skeptic’
- Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl: ‘Muller is just being dishonest if he allows the journalists to misinterpret the results of his work in this way’
- Physicist Motl mocks Muller for ‘hoping [his research] will win over those people who are properly skeptical’ Response: ‘Muller does suggest that it’s not only the journalists but it’s himself who has had and still has an agenda…My views on the core climate change issues can’t be ‘won’ by your research because the research has nothing to do with them’
- NYT’s Andrew Revkin claims Muller is a ‘skeptic’ because he criticized Michael Mann: Physicist Rebuts Revkin’s Claim: ‘Muller is no skeptic’
- Physicist: Just because Muller ‘realized that Michael Mann has made things that can’t be tolerated in science is nice and it may make you a heretic among some hardcore believers but it’s not enough for you to be a genuine climate skeptic’ — ‘Richard Muller’s ultimate goal and the basic features of the not-quite-honest methods to achieve it are analogous to those of Michael Mann’
- Scientist Mocks Muller’s claims: ‘The Doubt Is Over – Temperatures Rising Almost As Fast As James Hansen’s Zero Emissions Scenario’
- ‘Temperatures are lower than that [Hansen’s] scenario,which would imply that increasing CO2 has essentially no effect on the global temperature. Richard Muller believes that Hansen’s temperature record is accurate,which would mean that Muller’s headline [in WSJ] is exactly wrong. [Muller should instead declare he has made] ‘The Case Against For Global-Warming Skepticism’
- Climatologist Dr. Pielke Sr. On Muller’s study: ‘Unless, Muller pulls from a significantly different set of raw data, it is no surprise that his [temp] trends are the same’
- Pielke Sr. on NCDC, GISS & CRU: ‘The raw surface temperature data from which those 3 analyses of the different global surface temperature trend analyses are derived are essentially the same…The new Muller et al study has a very major unanswered question — as to the degree of independence of their raw data from NCDC,CRU & GISS. I have asked it on [Curry’s] weblog since she is a co-author of these studies [& Muller never replied to my request to answer this question]’
Oh no, not Richard Muller’s confused world again! The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project puts PR before peer review… making a ‘pre-peer review’ media blitz despite errors
- Flashback: Climate Depot Round Up on Richard Muller: Scientists trashing Muller”s work…Muller stands accused of being ‘front man for geoengineering org.’– Muller”s Temp Project called ‘The Berkeley Scam’ — Muller makes ””contradictory statements” — His ‘Transparency Becomes Vaporware
Doug Keenan, Mathematician, finds Muller’s statistics mean absolutely nothing, should not be used.
Doug Keenan has posted up his correspondence with the Economist and Richard Muller about the BEST paper. I reproduce it here with permission.
- Decadal variations in the global atmospheric land temperatures
- Influence of urban heating on the global temperature land average using rural sites identified from MODIS classifications
- Berkeley Earth temperature averaging process
- Earth atmospheric land surface temperature and station quality
Below is some of the correspondence that we had. (Note: my comments were written under time pressure, and are unpolished.)
David Whitehouse has done a round up of press coverage of the BEST paper. He doesn’t reckon they’ve done a good job.
And Bishop Hill adds:
I’ve been enjoying the back and forth on the BEST thread about the way the publicity for the team’s papers was handled, with some people concerned about the team going to the press before peer review had taken place.
Circulating drafts of a paper seems unobjectionable to me – this is surely an everyday occurrence in the academy. Going to the press before those drafts have been examined seems somewhat more questionable. That said, given my own views on peer review – namely that it’s not worth a whole lot – then some interesting questions are raised.