Climategate II? 'Science-Settling' Study 'Proving' Global Warming Allegedly Shows None
CRITICAL UPDATE AT END OF POST
A week ago (at BizzyBlog; at NewsBusters), I noted how Charleston Daily Mail blogger Don Surber quickly determined through all of a few minutes of Internet research that Berkeley professor Robert Muller, who convinced Washington Post Plumline blogger Brad Plumer that he was a "climate skeptic," has been a believer in human-caused global warming since the early 1980s.
Muller's pretense to have held beliefs differing from his true past may be the least of his problems. A story breaking in the UK contends that results obtained by the prof's BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures) project team, instead of "settling the debate" in favor of warmists, showed that global warming "has stopped." If so, this is potentially as explosive as the "hide the decline" conspiracy uncovered almost two years ago when the Climategate emails surfaced.
The bombshell arrives via David Rose at the UK Daily Mail (HT to Benny Peiser's indispensable daily CCNet email from the Global Warming Policy Foundation [GWPF]; internal BBC link added by me; bolds are mine):
Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague
Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually.
Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it.
It was cited uncritically by, among others, reporters and commentators from the BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, The Economist and numerous media outlets in America.
The Washington Post said the BEST study had ‘settled the climate change debate’ and showed that anyone who remained a sceptic was committing a ‘cynical fraud’.
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.
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.
David Whitehouse at the GWPF ("BEST Confirms Global Temperature Standstill") elaborates:
Professor Richard Muller, leader of the initiative, said (to the BBC) that the global temperature standstill of the past decade was not present in their data.
“In our data, which is only on the land we see no evidence of it having slowed down. Now the evidence which shows that it has been stopped is a combination of land and ocean data. The oceans do not heat as much as the land because it absorbs more of the heat and when the data are combined with the land data then the other groups have shown that when it does seem to be leveling off. We have not seen that in the land data.”
My first though would be that it would be remarkable if it was. 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. (Click on the graphic to enlarge it in a new tab or window -- Ed.)
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.
Read the whole thing.
So what will come first -- Christmas Day or the "numerous media outlets in America" noting that, at a minimum, Muller's work "settles" nothing, and at worst is a fraudulent as the "hide the decline" enterprise known as Climategate?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
***** Editor's update: Curry has responded at her blog denying some of what was relayed in the Daily Mail piece. We await more information from both sides before offering further comment.
Tom Blumer's Update: Curry's post appears to have gone up Sunday morning just before I drafted this post. Excerpts --
“Hiding the truth” in the title is definitely misleading, I made it pretty clear that there was uncertainty in the data itself, but the bigger issues are to analyze the data and interpret it. I made it clear that this was not a straightforward and simple thing to do.
I told Rose that I was puzzled my Muller’s statements, particularly about “end of skepticism” and also “We see no evidence of global warming slowing down.”
I did not say that “the affair had to be compared to the notorious Climategate scandal two years ago,” this is indirectly attributed to me. ... There is NO comparison of this situation to Climategate. Muller et al. have been very transparent in their methods and in making their data publicly available, which is highly commendable.
That still leaves Whitehouse's assertion above: "It is impossible to reconcile this (graph of the past decade above) with Professor Muller’s statement ('we see no evidence of it having slowed down')."
No, it's not "hide the decline," but it's definitely "obscure the lack of increase."
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments

















Comments
That's a nice career you got there Prof. Curry....
Submitted by NeoKong on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 9:22am.
It'd be a shame if something happened to it.
She will be treated like a heretic. In their eyes it will be as if she was claiming cigarette smoking was healthy and large amounts of butter can actually help you lose weight.
They won't tolerate it.
WSJ Correction requested
Submitted by kiwikit on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 10:26am.
I read this earlier in DAILY MAIL: first Science story, and passed the link on to
the WSJ asking a correction. I hope for as big a play for the update as they gave to the lying professor.
We'll see....
You think they'd call Judith Curry a "Heretic." LOL
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 1:11pm.
Exactly - They'll do it again:
This would seem to be the key sentence in the piece:
Remember - there is no scientific debate out there - none. There will be no scientific debate allowed out there - none. Move along.
Oh, one more, for those who missed this very unusual article - well, it was in the NY Times Sunday magazine, and it's about an esteemed brilliant physicist, who otherwise is adored by the elitist left for his socialist economic views and his life long advocacy for the abolition of nuclear weapons:
One quote from Dyson:
(;~> gary
Thanks Gary Hall*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 1:37pm.
Good post. Add this one to your list.
The photos would be funny if they were not so revealing
(un)Scientific (un)American magazine, a left rag
Submitted by wizardjr on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 3:54pm.
Thousands of us have dropped our life long subscriptions to that rag years ago. Especially since the current editor in chief joined it. It has become a broadside for any and every libtard silliness to come along. They even started printing 'economic' papers pimping for redistributionist theory. Good grief!
It's a shame too as it was truly a great general science magazine covering so many fields very nicely.
Just look around.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 9:24am.
The countries that have their panties in a wad over "global warming" are what we like to refer to as the "free world."
Most all of the known communist countries and other such flavors of totalitarian rule couldn't give less of a damn about the subject. That's because it is a scheme they cooked up (pardon the pun) after the Cold War failed to topple the USA, that involved leveraging our bleeding heart stupidity.
They started the "green movement" to convince us that we had to revert to windmills and clothes lines and forsake all forms of fossil fuel and nuclear energy if the world was to be saved. It wasn't hard for them to get academia behind their effort since the majority of that world are socialists at heart to begin with. I have a sneaky feeling that it is our scientists and professors who cooked up the whole idea, being the good little commies that they are.
Then they could enlist the "minority" victims of the world with the likes of Van Jones and some of his friends like, oh, Barack Obama, and BINGO, they had a way for us to destroy our own civilization!
Ain't it great when a plan comes together? Shiite, I love it!!!
OWS hipocrosy
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 10:35am.
The anti-corporatist OWS movement in the Northeast are huddled down trying to keep warm and dry by using (gasp!) plastic and modern synthetic outdoor gear produced by ....corporations!
An amusing aspect of the Luddite Green movement is that in order for humans to survive extreme elements, especially cold, animals and the use of animal parts has always been necessary. Many Green adherents hold two contradictory sentiments, they don't want to use modern products but they also don't want to kill animals or even pen them up. But they must make a choice. So when I see the protesters have brought in sheep and goats and the people are busy at their looms producing 'natural' clothing then i will believe they are serious anti-corporatists.
That's the best part of this whole commie scam, MA.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 10:57am.
They don't really believe in any of the crap they're trying to sell us!
They fully intend to someday rule over all of us, turn us into modern day serfs who will be forced to live like pigs and work the soil and the environment to death for THEM to enjoy!
I'm telling you, this is a GREAT plan, and there are enough fools in this country who are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker (am I allowed to say that around fish?) so it could actually work!
fresh air and unicorns
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 11:17am.
I am a contemporary of the 60's-70's hippies and being a country boy myself I could evaluate the efforts of the commune back-to-the-land movement that is an ideological cousin to the OWS protesters. The hippies found that commune(ism) life is hard, both to live personally and to sustain as a viable enterprise, just as a whole country (Soviet Union) found out. Even in China, in order to break out of grinding poverty they had to 'modernize'. That is, move towards capitalism. China today is merely a military dictatorship not communism.
Luddites unite
Submitted by Blorg on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 12:43pm.
But wait! The principal objection of the original Luddites was to the introduction of new automated looms that could be operated by relatively unskilled laborers. I doubt if the modern Luddites could stop using twitter long enough to learn to use a loom.
They don't need no stinking
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 9:38am.
They don't need no stinking proof!
They have a "consensus."
Global Warming???
Submitted by NVRAT on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 9:52am.
I think that it is the Globalists "HOT AIR" that caused the problem in the first place. Since they have been quite for awhile our atmosphere is cooling off now but, just wait they will start up again and ZAP...there goes the temp rising again.
Fools and idiots all ride in the same Hot Air Balloon.
An obvious media event
Submitted by spepper on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 9:54am.
The whole "Muller is a skeptic who proved manmade global warming is REAL" is one huge media event cooked up after the disastrous attempt by ALGORE last month to hold a "climate-thon" online to "settle the science once and for all"-- they will continue to cook up these various shenanigans as long as they have a glimmer of hope of getting politicians onboard to force their huge tax-and-grab scheme on the public--
STAY VIGILANT
Manipulating data is the default position of climate scientists
Submitted by dbo on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 9:55am.
Climategate 2? More like Climategate 95.
Follow the Money!
Submitted by Wildcatter1980 on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 1:29pm.
I will often say that the most simple of explanations are, in fact, the most accurate ones. In this case, as in so many others, all anyone should really do is follow the money.
It is reasonable to think that a statement like “After analyzing the trends in the data, we conclude that the future will not be much different from what we have seen in the past,” will not generate much excitement. And, if there is no excitement, it is logical to assume that there will not be much reason for someone to provide “research grant moneys” to “confirm” that things won’t be changing much in the future.
My conclusion is that Muller fears losing grant money to conduct further research if he was to admit that the temperature data has not shown any rises for the past 10 years. In fact, it is reasonable to conclude that many climate alarmists only come to their alarmist conclusions so as to help them secure more money to continue their research.
--
If you want to know what liberal secular progressives are really doing, just listen to what they are accusing others of.
Recommended reading: Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg
Ask a warmist this...
Submitted by donnyvee on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 10:56am.
...and watch their head begin to twitch. Ask them to explain the mid evil warming period. You know, the one they left out of the hockey stick temperature graph.
follow-up question -
Submitted by wizardjr on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 3:57pm.
ask them to explain the Little Ice Age, how it started and how it ended
Science in the 21st century
Submitted by dbo on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 5:08pm.
The rent-seekers don't need science or evidence to explain the MWP or the LIA. They've got a "gut feeling".
"Bottom line - their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility." Phil Jones-November 2004
And there it is.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 11:00am.
As per Mr. Blumer's link ---
This graph shows that the trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.
‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’
It is all about the models. There still is no hot spot that the models predicted not in the coming decades but within a matter of years. There is no increase in warming as a result of the increase in CO2. The predictions of continued warming are not panning out. And the models underestimae the impact of the sun.
Further, AGW skeptics have not been denying temperatures have increased over the last 150, or 100 years. They have been skeptical that man (anthropogenic, meaning caused by man, the A in AGW) is responsible for all or even most of the rise in temperatures. And AGW skeptics are skeptical that temperatures will run away, that is at some point the temperatures will continue to increase no matter what we do and will end up killing all life on earth. They have pointed out that temperatures have been higher many times in earth's history and came down without the actions of man.
"And AGW skeptics are
Submitted by dzejk113 on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 12:38pm.
"And AGW skeptics are skeptical that temperatures will run away, that is at some point the temperatures will continue to increase no matter what we do and will end up killing all life on earth. They have pointed out that temperatures have been higher many times in earth's history and came down without the actions of man."
Not only have temperatures been significantly higher in the past, but life flourished when they were. If the temperatures keep going up, it won't destroy all life on earth, just the life that flourishes in the cold, including alot, but not necessarily all people. Besides, aren't the global warming nuts generally the same people who say the earth would be better off without humans? Just goes to show even further that it isn't about "saving" the planet, it's about subjugating it.
there ya go again....
Submitted by wizardjr on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 3:59pm.
bringing up those historical events and such,
don't you know that my computer model trumps your historical data? [/sarc]
Global Warming …
Submitted by jmigyanka@msn.com on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 11:23am.
................the true ‘other side’ of science: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/08/26/lawrence-solomon-science-now...
"So what will come first --
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 11:36am.
"So what will come first -- Christmas Day or the "numerous media outlets in America" noting that, at a minimum, Muller's work "settles" nothing, and at worst is a fraudulent as the "hide the decline" enterprise known as Climategate?"
How about Hell freezing over? You can't stop a religion with facts.
All liberal, socialists want
Submitted by jessieH on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 11:57am.
All liberal, socialists want to start a ponzi scheme but none of them want the prison time.
Those 'stringent measures' to reduce CO2 will destroy...
Submitted by Phryj1 on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 12:25pm.
...our country and our society. Costs-of-living will skyrocket while standards-of-living will plummet. Western civilization will cease to exist, and all so that fat, lying, stupid PIG algore and his commufascist comrade Soros can get richer.
This is why the AGW scaremongers keep lying to us. They know we're onto their scam, and we're willing to do what it takes to defend our way of life from them.
Progressives seem to be completely averse to facts and logic. Apparently, reality has a conservative bias.
You're right, dbo
Submitted by deadeyedan on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 12:42pm.
And add to that the ORIGINAL Climategate, when University of Oklahoma's David Deming got an e-mail from one of his colleagues proclaiming that "we have to get rid of the Medieval Optimum" way back in 1995.
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
a double caught liar
Submitted by wizardjr on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 3:31pm.
Most of the land stations in the world's coldest places like Siberia have gone 'off the air' at the collapse of the USSR and it's slave states. JunkScience.com and others have posted scientific papers and references taking very serious note of this issue in the land temperature data as it skews to the warm side. duh. One also has to control for the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE) which skews the data to the warm side because the greatest number of reporting stations are in or very near to population centers. There are also very few (but growing) reporting stations on the three-quarters of the planet surface covered by water. Satellite data is useful but only about 30 years worth.
Just more hacks with an agenda bending the data to fit. I'm shocked! Shocked I tell ya. *sigh*
no amount of science and technology...
Submitted by wizardjr on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 4:01pm.
will ever overcome fear and superstition - anon.
Why I'm a "climate skeptic"............
Submitted by big.league.slider on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 9:12pm.
Unlike most AGW proponents, I don't mix my science and my politics. The reason I'm a "climate skeptic" is because I'm a believer in thorough, rigorous scientific process. Thankfully, history is full of examples where a skeptical minority of the scientific community overcame the prevailing consensus.
If the political elites and their "scientific consensus" had prevailed 500 years ago, the public schools of today would be teaching that global temperatures have nothing to do with established fact that the earth is flat and is orbited by the sun.