For the clueless or cynical diehards who deny global warming, it’s getting awfully cold out there.
The latest icy blast of reality comes from an eminent scientist whom the climate-change skeptics once lauded as one of their own. Richard Muller, a respected physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, used to dismiss alarmist climate research as being “polluted by political and activist frenzy.” Frustrated at what he considered shoddy science, Muller launched his own comprehensive study to set the record straight. Instead, the record set him straight.
As so often happens, the celebration may be premature as Britain's Daily Mail reported Sunday:
But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.
Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.
Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.
Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago.
Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming.
In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.
‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’
However, Prof Muller denied warming was at a standstill.
Support of her claim that global warming has stopped and that Muller's data appear to refute what he wrote in the Journal was actually reported by Dr. David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation Saturday:
The global temperature standstill of the past decade is obvious in HadCrut3 data which is a combination of land and sea surface data. Best is only land data from nearly 40,000 weather stations. Professor Muller says they “really get a good coverage of the globe.” The land is expected to have a fast response to the warming of the lower atmosphere caused by greenhouse gas forcing, unlike the oceans with their high thermal capacity and their decadal timescales for heating and cooling, though not forgetting the ENSO and la Nina.
Fig 1 shows the past ten years plotted from the monthly data from Best’s archives.
It is a statistically perfect straight line of zero gradient. Indeed, most of the largest variations in it can be attributed to ENSO and la Nina effects. 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.
Turns out that's exactly what Curry is accusing Muller of.
With this in mind, it should be truly fascinating to see how Gore, Plumer, Robinson, and any of the other media members that heralded Muller's study will report this new revelation.
One quite imagines given how the press went kicking and screaming to report the original ClimateGate scandal two years ago that Curry's charge will likely go ignored.
One possible example of this is the Associated Press's Seth Borenstein who started his celebration at 10:25 PM Saturday:
A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.
The timestamp in the piece is somewhat irrelevant. LexisNexis shows this went out on AP's wire late Saturday evening.
As I received an email from Climate Depot's Marc Morano at 12:05 Sunday morning containing a link to the Daily Mail piece, this mean Borenstein was celebrating Muller's findings within hours of them being accused by a colleague of being falsified.
Was he oblivious to these allegations or trying to provide a smokescreen?
On another interesting front, the government researcher involved in that now debunked report concerning dead polar bears in the Arctic was asked recently by a federal agent to take a lie detector test.
Maybe all of the folks on both sides of this debate - including Curry, Gore, Muller as well as people like James Hansen et al - should be required to do the same thing.
Possibly only then would the public know who's telling the truth concerning this controversial subject.
Knowing the players as I do, I imagine every skeptic in the nation would gladly agree to this while every single alarmist declined.
The debate's over, you know.
*****Update: Curry has responded at her blog denying some of what was relayed in the Daily Mail piece. I await more information from both sides before offering further comment.















Comments
Joe Romm has responded
Submitted by muckdog on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 9:07pm.
Joe Romm at ThinkProgress has already responded to Curry's analysis. Joe routinely attacks anyone who questions his Global Warming religioius views.
How will Al Gore and his global warming-loving media respond?
Submitted by shooter on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 9:17pm.
That's easy...he and they will say, "The science is settled."
_________________________________________
"An armed society is a polite society" -- Robert A. Heinlein
That's right, shooter
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 10:34pm.
The Gore-istas accept as 'science' all 'studies' that substantiate their global warming claim, and ignore or openly reject all counter-studies and science.
I expect the reputation of the professor who blew the whistle on Muller to get a brutal lynching in the MSM.
If...
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 9:32pm.
If a flat or minimal temperature rise for over a decade is true then the tie to CO2 is not valid.
Even if it is untrue, and
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 2:15am.
Even if it is untrue, and temperatures are rising, it doesn't mean temperatures are rising because of CO2.
When will Al Gore and most of the media respond?
Submitted by zenman1661 on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 9:42pm.
The same year that Halley's comet returns to Earth
The lib response...
Submitted by KC Beach on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 9:44pm.
Same as their response to "saving" the economy.
"But... but ... but... just think of how bad it would have been without everything we have done to save it."
Cold shoulder
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 10:05pm.
Respond?
To what? ;-)
Yahoo....
Submitted by GregE on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 10:29pm.
......has just put on their homepage. The "skeptic turned believer" part of the situation.
How will Al Gore and his ilk respond?
Submitted by Cactus Kurt on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 10:32pm.
The same idiots that predicted an "ice age" in the 1970s will respond with a lot of expletives and rebranding it as "climate change".
"For the clueless or cynical
Submitted by GregE on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 10:51pm.
"For the clueless or cynical diehards who deny global warming, it’s getting awfully cold out there." - Eugene Robinson, Climatologist.
How will Al Gore respond...While Shivering It Is Cold.
Submitted by Avitar on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 11:03pm.
At some point the MSM will have to pick up that the Global warming was a hoax.
How will he respond? The same
Submitted by jessieH on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 11:23pm.
How will he respond? The same way he did when he was caught lying about how he invented the internet. He'll hide, till it blows over.
RE:Update
Submitted by dbo on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 5:55am.
Noel,
I've been following the debate closely since the release of the Berkeley papers and data a week ago and the whole thing has just become a total farce and clown show. Muller has always been a hardcore believer in AGW but fell into some degree of favor with the climate realists when he denounced Michael Mann and his hokey stick and said he would no longer recognize any of his scientific work. That's not unlike Judith Curry's position although it now seems Curry has now become a full blown skeptic since Climategate. The Berkeley project was spearheaded by Muller because of doubts with the three existing land based measuring systems (GISS, CRUTEM and NOAA) and in particular the methodologies they use in regards to urban heat island effect and extrapolating data.
The project started with a lot of promise by collecting people from all sides of the argument and by promising an open and transparent methodology. BEST also gained a lot of confidence from skeptics by announcing that they would use an actual statistician (David Brillinger) which was lacking from the other three land based systems. What is important to remember is that BEST is using the same data from the historical global data systems as NOAA, GISS and CRUTEM but they were just using a different statistical way of coming up with a finished project.
So now they have a preliminary release of 4 papers and data and what has ensued is just a total gong show. To start with, none of the 4 papers have yet to be peer reviewed. As we all know peer review has become a clown show in itself so this is probably just a formality but nevertheless it's something that has yet to be done. Muller is completely making an idiot of himself by going around and saying one stupid thing after another. He's probably going to win some kind of John effing Kerry award for most contradictory statements in a week. Judith Curry has her name as co-author on Muller's papers but it appears she's had almost no involvement in the process. There's some talk that Muller might have just used her as a dupe to get her name on the papers. There is mass confusion everywhere from everyone on the availability and quality of data that has been released and the usual media types (Revkin, Borenstein etc.) have fanned the flames of alarmist drivel.The preliminary results have provided food for fodder for both alarmists and realists alike but the bottom line is it's still way too early for anyone to make a final judgement on this project.
I also might add that I wonder if BEST project will have any real value in the long run at all. The Best project makes no evaluation on attribution of temperature change nor is it designed to. It would also appear at this point in time that they have not seriously addressed the issue of UHI. There is also still no answer why the land based temperature changes have diverged from the sea surface temperatures in the last 40 or 50 years or why there is more warming in the land based temperatures that the UAH satellite measurements. The AGW theory states that we should see more warming in atmosphere than the land surfaces and yet the opposite is happening. Imagine that?!
On target again, dbo
Submitted by deadeyedan on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 12:28pm.
Many thanks for enduring that wretched BEST report, dbo. Genuine scientists ought to have been suspicious of this endeavor from the start just given the location, good ol' Berkeley.
And don't forget about the ORIGINAL ClimateGate, when David Deming received an e-mail exhorting him "to find a way to hide the Medieval Optimum".
GLOBAL WARMING - authoritarian, rather than authoritative, science
CLIMATEGATE - the revelation that the pseudo-scientists at East Anglia University know just as much about the atmosphere as Harvard law professors know about the Constitution