Surprise! No warming in last 11 years

posted at 6:45 pm on October 30, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Last week, a research team at Berkeley led by a former climate change skeptic released a study of global temperatures that intended to set the record straight on controversial data collected by the East Anglia Project, NASA, and other organizations that have acted as advocates for action based on anthropogenic global warming.  Professor Richard Muller put together a graph of the data that supposedly showed warming from 1800 (roughly the beginning of the Industrial Era in Europe) through 1975, and then a steeper rise in temperatures that appears unstopped.  When this data was released, newspapers and other media proclaimed it the end of AGW skepticism and demanded capitulation from the “deniers.”

This led to an interesting e-mail exchange between myself and one of my blogging friends, whom I won’t name because (a) the e-mails weren’t really intended for publication, and (b) he’s a good guy who is passionate about doing what’s right.  I got an e-mail from him challenging me on this point, saying the correlation between rising temperatures and mass release of CO2 was undeniable. I explained to him that AGW skepticism doesn’t rest on the notion that global temperatures aren’t rising, but that the AGW crowd has yet to show causation between CO2 release and actual warming.  He replied that correlation was enough to prompt action, but that’s neither scientific or wise.  Correlation only shows that two trends parallel each other; if one isn’t the cause of the other, then “solutions” designed to change one trend won’t impact the other anyway — and it will waste time, money, and perhaps lives while the perceived problem continues unabated.

As it turns out, the correlation isn’t exactly equal, either.  A closer look at the data and a Daily Mail interview with one of Muller’s team shows that the chart hides the fact that no warming has occurred in the last 11 years, as has been repeatedly pointed out:

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.

‘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.’

Let’s take a look at Muller’s chart, and then compare it to the chart for the last 13 years — which the Daily Mail labels an “inconvenient truth”:

global warming, climate change, AGW, BEST, Al Gore

First, let’s look at the top chart.  A closer reading of the top chart shows that, relative to the 1950-1980 average baseline BEST uses, temperatures didn’t actually warm at all until sometime during the Great Depression, so the entire first century of the Industrial Era apparently had no impact — in a period where the dirtiest of mass energy production processes was in widest use (coal).  Temperatures then started to slowly rise during an era of significantly reduced industrial output, thanks to a lengthy economic depression that gripped the entire world.    What we end up with is a 30-year spike that also includes a few years of reduced industrial output, starting in the stagnating 1970s where oil production also got restricted thanks to onerous government policies and trade wars.

In climate terms, a 30-year spike is as significant as a surprisingly warm afternoon in late October.  Man, I wish we were going to have one of those today.

But then look what happens in the past 11 years in the bottom chart.  Despite the fact that the world’s nations continue to spew CO2 with no significant decline (except perhaps in the Great Recession period of 2008-9), the temperature record is remarkably stable.  In fact, it looks similar to the period between 1945 and 1970 on the top chart.  If global temperature increases really correlated directly to CO2 emissions, we wouldn’t see this at all; we’d see ever-escalating rates of increase in global temperatures, which is exactly what the AGW climate models predicted at the turn of the century.  They were proven wrong.

And in fact, Curry explains that the failure of those models finally has some scientists going back to the drawing board:

‘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.’ …

‘Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism,’ she said. ‘To say that is the biggest mistake he [Prof Muller] has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought, “Oh my God”.’

In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics’ arguments were now taking them much more seriously.

They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation – as they should have done, she said, a long time ago.

And what of Muller?  When confronted by the Daily Mail about the data from the past 11 years, he denied that temperatures had plateaued, and then admitted that the data shows exactly that:

Yesterday Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its  website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.

However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’,  although, he added, it was equally  possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.

‘I am baffled as to what he’s trying to do,’ Prof Curry said.

Even perfect correlation doesn’t prove causation, and this is far from being perfect correlation.  AGW scientists have still failed to prove that CO2 is responsible for the moderate rise in temperatures, nor have they proven their hypothesis that the rise is irreversible, or even bad.  As I pointed out to my friend, Greenland hosted a farming community for over 200 years before getting swallowed in ice in a global-cooling period that helped spread disease, death, and starvation throughout Europe.  If Greenland once again becomes farmland, then we might be entering a somewhat more remarkable climate period in human history, but until then this is more properly referred to as weather.

BEST did help settle the temperature record, an important step in climate research and a necessary corrective to the manipulations discovered in Climategate.  But they didn’t “prove” anthropogenic global warming or any kind of causation, and even their correlation proves rather weak.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

They needed to go back to the drawing boards in the early 1990′s when their models couldn’t accurately predict past climate regimes. Those pesky geologists shot holes in their pretty little theories and that taught them the wrong lesson about science, and the climatologists ran away.

Science is a full-body contact sport.

No padding allowed.

And you can’t play it from the locker room, either.

ajacksonian on October 30, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Who cares if the data is right or wrong, we still need to raise taxes, shutter all energy plants, and put the U.S. economy under control of the United Nations. Why? Because, that’s why.

Bishop on October 30, 2011 at 6:52 PM

I take it that Surprise! was offered in jest?

abobo on October 30, 2011 at 6:52 PM

Yeah but this very early winter storm is because of our cars. You see, they changed the term from “global warming” into “climate change”. That way they don’t have to defend the extreme cold and wintery weather. They can just say it is because of man and his impact on the world.
Liberals.

carbon_footprint on October 30, 2011 at 6:54 PM

Another fact. This chart starts at 1811 in the middle of the Little Ice Age, when the Thames freezed over and temperatures were historically low, officially framed as being between 1550 and 1850. This chart just points out that the Little Ice Age was over, and temperatures returned to normal.

itsspideyman on October 30, 2011 at 6:55 PM

Correlation only shows that two trends parallel each other; if one isn’t the cause of the other, then “solutions” designed to change one trend won’t impact the other anyway — and it will waste time, money, and perhaps lives while the perceived problem continues unabated.

Why do elephants wear purple sneakers? Because it helps them hide in trees. Ever see an elephant in a tree? No? See, it works!

rbj on October 30, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Unexpectedly…

BocaJuniors on October 30, 2011 at 6:57 PM

I’m really dismayed at the number of conservative sites using the Daily Mail as a source (yeah, I know…including Fox, the NY Post and Drudge). It really is a dreadful rag. Been caught making stuff up many times.

Not that I disagree with anything in this article. But, sooner or later, the Mail is going to embarrass us. Just wanted to point that out.

S. Weasel on October 30, 2011 at 6:57 PM

Has anyone told Mitt Romney?

Knucklehead on October 30, 2011 at 6:57 PM

By the way, thanks to whomever it was that linked the Occupy San Diego livestream link last night. I had more fun watching those stupid libs shout at the police then I have had in quite some time. Some highlights: “We love you. Not homo! We love you, not homo!”
“We are college citizens, yo. We are Americans. We are on your side, yo.”

“Is that a shotgun, yo?”

T. Foreman, write down that name, dox! dox! Write down the sergeant’s name, yo!!”

“Why do you wanna hurt us? We love you, not homo!”

carbon_footprint on October 30, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Has anyone told Mitt Romney?

Knucklehead on October 30, 2011 at 6:57 PM

Um, Mitt the Windsock has changed his opinion on AGW during the primaries. It is safe to say it will change back once he receives the nomination.

carbon_footprint on October 30, 2011 at 6:59 PM

What’s funny is that right now one of Yahoo!’s main articles is about global warming and cites Muller’s research.

theperfecteconomist on October 30, 2011 at 7:00 PM

Last week, a research team at Berkeley led by a former climate change skeptic

Um, no. Muller is not and has never been a skeptic.

single stack on October 30, 2011 at 7:02 PM

That’s it buddy… you just made the list…

The ATTAAAAAAACCCCKKKKK WWWWWAAAAAAAAATCH list…

JohnGalt23 on October 30, 2011 at 7:03 PM

C’mon now, everyone knows that when the NE gets a foot or two of snow before Halloween, it’s clear proof of AGW.

petefrt on October 30, 2011 at 7:06 PM

Mitt Romney hardest hit.

HondaV65 on October 30, 2011 at 7:06 PM

But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.

So, the last 13 years are “not statistically significant,” but we have to make large fundamental changes based on a previous 13 year peraiod?

cobrakai99 on October 30, 2011 at 7:08 PM

Simple university research logic…when someone is funding global warming research then one finds global warming to research.

Anyone out there funding global cooling or global temperature staying about the same research??? Doubt it.

albill on October 30, 2011 at 7:08 PM

peraiod = period

Noted as send button pressed.

cobrakai99 on October 30, 2011 at 7:09 PM

I’m really dismayed at the number of conservative sites using the Daily Mail as a source (yeah, I know…including Fox, the NY Post and Drudge). It really is a dreadful rag. Been caught making stuff up many times.

Not that I disagree with anything in this article. But, sooner or later, the Mail is going to embarrass us. Just wanted to point that out.

S. Weasel on October 30, 2011 at 6:57 PM

A newspaper making stuff up? You can’t be serious.

SlaveDog on October 30, 2011 at 7:12 PM

BEST did help settle the temperature record, an important step in climate research and a necessary corrective to the manipulations discovered in Climategate.

I do not buy this. I think they manipulated a bunch of prominent skeptics into thinking they were going to get an unbiased and corrected temperature record, and then proceeded to use the skeptics credibility on climate change to further the global warming propaganda.

Seriously, over 1 deg C that is Celsius increase in temperatures since the heat of the dust bowl era? Every other study before this indicated about half of that and was shown to have a significant warming bias from station selection to improper adjustment for heat island effects.

Anyone who gives this study any credibility deserves the gulag loving government that this kind of propaganda helps come to power.

astonerii on October 30, 2011 at 7:13 PM

Is this the same Muller who wrote a book for future presidents back in the mid 90′s where he stated:

“… Muller estimates 2 in 3 odds that humans are causing global warming…”
and
“back in the early ’80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.”

Yeah he sure sounds like a skeptic to me… Too bad we’ve lost such a leading light of warming skepticism. Wherever will we find a replacement?

Sluf

kksluf on October 30, 2011 at 7:13 PM

First it was AGW and then climate change. First it was raising taxes and then raising revenue. First it was water boarding is torture and then it was kill our CAPTURED enemies on the spot. Same group different subjects.

inspectorudy on October 30, 2011 at 7:13 PM

But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.

‘I am baffled as to what he’s trying to do,’ Prof Curry said.

He’s trying to do the same thing all these AGW hysterics have been doing for years now: blow smoke up everybody’s butt, in the hope that they can keep making money off this scam. It’s how we went from “global warming” to “climate change” when the temperatures dropped instead of rising. Everything proves their theory, even when it doesn’t.

AZCoyote on October 30, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Um, Mitt the Windsock has changed his opinion on AGW during the primaries. It is safe to say it will change back once he receives the nomination.

carbon_footprint on October 30, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Hey, what happened to the “pledge”? I’m not going to be that guy standing in the middle of the circle when they turn the lights on am I?

SlaveDog on October 30, 2011 at 7:15 PM

The Warmists are entitled to their own facts. Just ask them, all you Deniers that should be arrested and killed for destroying life on earth.

This is good news if it is only stable temperatures.

I thought the Temps were falling fast until Sheep in New Zealand ( too close to Antarctica) were dying and crops were not growing as long in the sudden cooler weather.

Pray for sunspots to shelter us from cosmic rays which form cloud seeds that cause more clouds to shade the earth from the warmth we really need.

Or we can do human sacrifice like the pagans love to do.

jimw on October 30, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Hey, what happened to the “pledge”? I’m not going to be that guy standing in the middle of the circle when they turn the lights on am I?

SlaveDog on October 30, 2011 at 7:15 PM

Lol. Yeah, well, I excepted Mitt the Windsock and Don Huntsman. Other than those two, the pledge stands man!

carbon_footprint on October 30, 2011 at 7:17 PM

AGW isn’t $cience, it’s a religion.

GarandFan on October 30, 2011 at 7:18 PM

OT: How do the Steelers beat the Patriots? By keeping the ball out of their hands and crushing them when they do have it.

Safety at the end and game over.

Bishop on October 30, 2011 at 7:19 PM

AGW isn’t $cience, it’s a religion.

GarandFan on October 30, 2011 at 7:18 PM

Yep, some people who do not believe in God, put way too much emphasis upon man and man’s effect on the world.

carbon_footprint on October 30, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Einstein wondered what kept the universe from collapsing on itself from gravity. He called the medium preventing a collapse, the “Cosmological Constant”. Einstein later refuted this theory as the biggest blunder of his life. Every scientist in the world “knew” that there was no such thing as a “Cosmological Constant”. Any “fool” who argued with this notion might be called a “denier”.

And then scientists discovered evidence of Dark Energy/Matter.

Suddenly, every scientist in the world was wrong. Einstein was essentially correct.

Fortunately trillions of dollars were not on the line with that theory.

scotash on October 30, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Now is the summer of our misintnet made glorious winter by these sons of b… [CENSORED]

karl9000 on October 30, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Lol. Yeah, well, I excepted Mitt the Windsock and Don Huntsman. Other than those two, the pledge stands man!

carbon_footprint on October 30, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Well, that’s a point. I excluded Ron Paul and Hal Huntsman. But I’ve made a new pledge to say nothing but good things about Hal’s daughters.

SlaveDog on October 30, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Well, that’s a point. I excluded Ron Paul and Hal Huntsman. But I’ve made a new pledge to say nothing but good things about Hal’s daughters.

SlaveDog on October 30, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Whoa, Steve’s seven children are all girls?

carbon_footprint on October 30, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Romney hardest hit.

csdeven on October 30, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Whoa, Steve’s seven children are all girls?

carbon_footprint on October 30, 2011 at 7:24 PM

I don’t know about all 8, but 3 of them are.

SlaveDog on October 30, 2011 at 7:30 PM

He replied that correlation was enough to prompt action, but that’s neither scientific or wise.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Basic principle in any Intro to Logic course.

Wethal on October 30, 2011 at 7:30 PM

Waiting comment from Al (ManBearPig) Gore in 5… 4… 3…

Khun Joe on October 30, 2011 at 7:32 PM

Whoa, Steve’s seven children are all girls?

carbon_footprint on October 30, 2011 at 7:24 PM

I don’t know about all 8, but 3 of them are.

SlaveDog on October 30, 2011 at 7:30 PM

Wow! Going to have to rethink my attacks on Rod Huntsman. His daughters are cute. Except for the one imitating John Bolton. However, if Lance Huntsman chose John Bolton as Sec. of State, that would be most awesome.

carbon_footprint on October 30, 2011 at 7:33 PM

YAHOO NEWS is carrying a AP–Associated Press American Pravda article today that highlights a “scientist” that now believes Global Warming.

He is being hailed by the Progressive Media and Soundbyte Americans will see that blurb and think “I guess it really is true?”.

Conservatives have lost the Universities, the public schools, the Unions, the media, both parties and where do we go to fight back?

PappyD61 on October 30, 2011 at 7:35 PM

good post…and an extra couple of points

the climate scientists have considered changing the null hypothesis to ‘there is no change in the rate of warming’…or words to that effect. So that is the piece that explains Muller.

He is basically saying that the period from 2000 is not sufficient to invalidate the overall trend. Pretty slick huh? And of course in some sense he’s right. the 0.2C/decade trend might not be visible in and one decade.

So if this were science i’d say the jury is still out. But sadly, no. The press release was hurried no doubt because of this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference

The durbin conference where all the wise heads get together to plan our future. We wouldn’t want to have any doubts surface before the meeting now would we?

r keller on October 30, 2011 at 7:37 PM

But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified

But behold the statistical significance of carbon dioxide, a mere 0.04% of the earth’s atmosphere, and our contribution to it, a whopping 3%. The science of the AGW grant receiving community is as valid as the investment advice of Bernie Madhof, and motivated by the same thing.

Basilsbest on October 30, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Here is the linky.

And he is listed as a physicist.

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html

PappyD61 on October 30, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Can we go back to calling it “the weather” ?

ooonaughtykitty on October 30, 2011 at 7:38 PM

So, how exactly did they hide the peak in temperature around 1950?
I remember seeing a graph that had it nearly as high as the 1998 peak (as well as one that showed North American temperatures higher in the 1950′s than in the 1990′s).

Count to 10 on October 30, 2011 at 7:39 PM

I blame Bush.

viking01 on October 30, 2011 at 7:40 PM

He replied that correlation was enough to prompt action, but that’s neither scientific nor wise.

fify

Also, it shouldn’t prompt meaningless action under any circumstance. Which is what the left proposes, even if you assume the validity of their position.

besser tot als rot on October 30, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Does anyone know what Newt’s latest position is?

a capella on October 30, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Does anyone know what Newt’s latest position is?

a capella on October 30, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Anxiously waiting for him to get together with Pelosi and tell me …

besser tot als rot on October 30, 2011 at 7:47 PM

Also, the better question is: does anyone know what Mitt’s latest position is? It used to be – let’s choke the economy on a meaningless capital destroying program, that wouldn’t do anything to AGW even if it did exist.

besser tot als rot on October 30, 2011 at 7:49 PM

dont leave mittens out of this, he believes in “climate change” also

chasdal on October 30, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Last week, a research team at Berkeley led by a former climate change skeptic

Um, no. Muller is not and has never been a skeptic.

single stack on October 30, 2011 at 7:02 PM

That’s right. One of the few AGW promoters who still thought that scientists should stick to the scientific method. Crazy.

besser tot als rot on October 30, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Danny Glover hit hardest.

Electrongod on October 30, 2011 at 7:50 PM

On days that are odd, Mitt is pro-AGW. When it is an even day, Mitt is anti-AGW.

carbon_footprint on October 30, 2011 at 7:50 PM

I doubt Joe Romm will take this column seriously.

muckdog on October 30, 2011 at 7:52 PM

OK, now Ed you know that emails are very important in the AGW story, so we all may need to see those emails…/jk

d1carter on October 30, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Danny Glover Government grants chasers hit hardest.

Electrongod on October 30, 2011 at 7:50 PM

FIFY

viking01 on October 30, 2011 at 7:56 PM

Come on, Ed, you’re wasting your time. Everyone knows that lack of evidence of global warming is solid proof that global warming exists. Resistance is futile. /s

joejm65 on October 30, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Surprise! No warming in last 11 years

NO SURPRISE HERE!!!

When the data is fake, the science has already been thrown out (regardless of how many people you can get to ‘vote it true’)….and there is no hope of any predictive validity from the resulting crackpot theories.

landlines on October 30, 2011 at 8:02 PM

AGW scientists have still failed to prove that CO2 is responsible for the moderate rise in temperatures, nor have they proven their hypothesis that the rise is irreversible, or even bad.

No, indeed, they haven’t. Even as global warmist rhetoric was reaching its crescendo, Canada was calculating the increased revenue from a longer and more productive growing season. And on University of Minnesota experimental farms, they were studying the effects of increased atmospheric CO2 on agriculture. Much to their chagrin and contrary to expectations, the experiments resulted in more robust growth over a shorter period of time (boy, were their faces red).

I have always maintained that slight warming, whatever the reason, would be more advantageous than not. Big money, however, said otherwise.

SukieTawdry on October 30, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Even perfect correlation doesn’t prove causation, and this is far from being perfect correlation. AGW scientists have still failed to prove that CO2 is responsible for the moderate rise in temperatures, nor have they proven their hypothesis that the rise is irreversible, or even bad.

Absolutely right!!!

I think the biggest flaw in the whole Global Warming Hoax is the totally unwarranted assumption that “warming is bad.” Historical records (for example the Medieval Warm Period) prove otherwise: warm periods are good times for both plant and animal life.

Studies of historical records also debunk the “warming will drown coastal cities” meme.

landlines on October 30, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Surprise! No warming in last 11 years

See! That’s what global warming looks like!1!!11 QED!

AUINSC on October 30, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Two points about this BEST thing. 1) These four papers hadn’t (and haven’t) even been through peer review. All this hoopla is just a PR exercise. 2) One of the papers concludes that ubran areas have actually gotten slightly cooler. That is an extraordinary claim and therefore requires extraordinary proof. And, as I mentioned, it hasn’t even been through peer review yet.

edshepp on October 30, 2011 at 8:22 PM

The chart didn’t fool the world. It was a deliberate fraud pushed by people that accept anthropogenic global warming as an article of faith. It was designed to persuade people that aren’t paying close attention. It is a PR exercise.

zmdavid on October 30, 2011 at 8:23 PM

And what of Muller? When confronted by the Daily Mail about the data from the past 11 years, he denied that temperatures had plateaued, and then admitted that the data shows exactly that

When the sad history of this world-wide fraud is written I believe it will show that the reason the temperatures have plateaued for the last 11 years is that 11 years ago the skeptics started monitoring the AGW hucksters.

Knott Buyinit on October 30, 2011 at 8:31 PM

A closer reading of the top chart shows that, relative to the 1950-1980 average baseline BEST uses, temperatures didn’t actually warm at all until sometime during the Great Depression, so the entire first century of the Industrial Era apparently had no impact — in a period where the dirtiest of mass energy production processes was in widest use (coal).

By dirty you are referring to particulate pollution which is not the same as CO2 production. In terms of CO2 production the first 100 years of Industrial Revolution would have been slight compared to what took place from the 60′s onwards according to the Keeling Curve which is the observable concentration at the equator. The study you refer to was funded by and conducted by global warming skeptics. Observations suggest that the greatest increase in average temperatures is occurring in the polar regions despite the flat overall average of the last decade per a range of other studies. In other words, the data you highlight is not hidden or new. Causal and prescriptive theories/policies aside… things are warming where it matters most.

lexhamfox on October 30, 2011 at 8:32 PM

This whole notion is based on silliness. We are debating statistical deviations over the past 211 years of on the order of 1 to 2 degrees F for the average (whatever that means) temperature of the whole world and arguing that this is meaningful data. This notion of reliable instrumentation across the entire world beginning 211 years ago should have been the first thing that sent rational intelligent people into fits of laughter, let alone the notion that such instrumentation, applied to measurements across the entire world, had the precision to measure deviations down to that level of resolution.

Even more recent data calls into question changes around the monitoring stations that could confound and corrupt the measurements through the years. … and no, the vigorous assertions by the AGW zealots does not constitute actual invalidation of those concerns.

More troubling is the whole idea of a “global average temperature” and how that gets computed. Watts has done a good exposition of the chicanery that can go into how the data was interpolated by simple selection or removal of considered stations.

Bottom line, there is not sufficient credibility to the instrumentation, let alone the data to make rational decisions upon which trillions of dollars and peoples’ lives will be affected.

AZfederalist on October 30, 2011 at 8:35 PM

The Associated Press contacted Curry on Sunday afternoon and she said in an email that Muller and colleagues “are not hiding any data or otherwise engaging in any scientifically questionable practice.”

The Muller “results unambiguously show an increase in surface temperature since 1960,” Curry wrote Sunday. She said she disagreed with Muller’s public relations efforts and some public comments from Muller about there no longer being a need for skepticism.

Yes, skepticism is always welcome in true scientific communities. Mr. Muller should know that. But denial-ism is only self-deluding (right, Mr. Morrissey?)

Mr. Morrissey, you should measure your words more carefully, because you may not have to eat so many afterward.

Also, Mr. Muller confirms that two pillars of denial-ism – that weather stations are not reflective of actual temperatures and that heat island effects skew the worldwide temperatures – are completely baseless.

You will do well to wait until his entire story comes out before your pathetic attempts to inoculate your very impressionable and uninformed readers.

In fact, worldwide temperatures have dramatically risen over the last thirty years (the accepted time period that constitutes a long-term climatic trend).

Again, this trend was predicted four decades ago or more, based on the known effects of heat-absorbing molecules of carbon dioxide. Of course, you would consider the (predicted) present dramatic temperature rises to be just a co-incidence. Pretty fantastic one, isn’t it?

Once again, Mr. Morrissey can’t seem to exercise any journalistic honesty or responsibility. The thinkers in the Hotair crowd will see the depths of your bias and this episode unfolds in the next few days.

oakland on October 30, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Climate fear mongers lying to promote the stranglehold liberal agenda? Again? And again? And again? And again? Business as usual, the beat goes on.

Speakup on October 30, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Ed, you make a mistake many on the conservative side are making concerning AGW: you concede warming is happening, we just don’t know why.

We do not know if it is happening at all. The earth’s temperature is very hard to read, perhaps impossible. Indeed, several researchers have come right out and said the earth has no temperature. Think of the living room in your home; what is its temperature? It all depends on where you measure it from. It may be 5 – 10 degrees warmer at the ceilng than the floor. And due to convective currents, even measured at exactly the same height you could never get the same readings at the windows, doorways, walls, wherever.

Furthermore, even if you had a thousand thermometers giving you readings which you averaged into “room temperature,” to compare it to “room temperatures” you collected a decade ago with a mere one thermometer (the thermostat, most likely) would be a dicey proposition.

And this is just with a simple box. Trying to measure the earth’s temperature is uber-exponentially more difficult.

We should not accept the hidden premise that the world has warmed. It has not been proven in any way, shape, or form.

MaxMBJ on October 30, 2011 at 8:42 PM

The study you refer to was funded by and conducted by global warming skeptics.

lexhamfox on October 30, 2011 at 8:32 PM

But studies funded by AGW proponents and their adherents in governments who stand to reap great rewards in revenue and power are just okey-dokey with you, right?

/sap

AZfederalist on October 30, 2011 at 8:42 PM

Completely OT, but it is an example of how popular myths become part of accepted (but unexamined) beliefs.

We have dhimmis in our midst. The wife of Jay Leno, who lobbed softballs to our cult-of-personality president had this to say recently:

Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2011 1:18:32 PM by dragonblustar

“Women’s activist Mavis Leno and CNN Muslim producer dialogue in Dallas,” by Dina Malki for the Examiner, October 24:

At the 26th annual Dallas Women’s Foundation’s luncheon, Mavis Leno, wife of talk show’s comedian Jay Leno, shared with the audience accounts about her journey into activism to help empower Afghani women and girls under the Taliban regime….

When asked about the role of Islam in the status of women in Afghanistan, Leno confirmed that “the Quran is more liberal with women than the Bible.”

(Excerpt) Read more at jihadwatch.org …

When celebrities (or their spouses) spout generalities with conviction, not fully understanding what fundamentals of their topic, they influence the easily led into their folly.

onlineanalyst on October 30, 2011 at 8:48 PM

I’m reading the Steve Jobs biography and one that that strongly comes out in the early chapters is Jobs’ view that the West devalues intuition in favor of intellect. Jobs valued both as do I.

For many of us skeptics, it is intuition more than intellect that first aroused our doubts. The whole thing didn’t pass the smell test. In time intellect will catch up to this intuitive knowing that AWG is ideological rather than empirical.

MaxMBJ on October 30, 2011 at 8:48 PM

AGW…nothing but a lot of hot air caused by the bovine output spewed by AGW promoters.

chickasaw42 on October 30, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Danny Glover hit hardest.

Electrongod on October 30, 2011 at 7:50 PM

A list of all the celebrities, politicians, and scientisits who are NOT ‘hardest hit’ would be a very short list.

listens2glenn on October 30, 2011 at 8:51 PM

public comments from Muller about there no longer being a need for skepticism.
oakland on October 30, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Anything you or he said after that means nothing. Journalism is not the same thing as scientific study but apparently you and Muller think they are. Try again.

Deanna on October 30, 2011 at 9:10 PM

MaxMBJ on October 30, 2011 at 8:48 PM

Speaking of Steve Jobs, did anyone else read MoDo’s piece about him, today?
I don’t normally give OpEds a second glance but the title of this one piqued my curiosity.

listens2glenn on October 30, 2011 at 9:13 PM

We are not baffled about what the commie sciencytist was trying to do. He was trying to shut down debate label skeptics as irrational and force the transfer of trillions of dollars to libtard elites who would manage the new world power order and they would have a foot on the throats of the ordinary people. Thank God for cable tv and the internet cause if we just had the former big 3 networks and the lib dailies pushing this hoax we’d really be doomed.

eaglewingz08 on October 30, 2011 at 9:14 PM

I could have told them the more things Change the more they stay The Same….

viking01 on October 30, 2011 at 9:23 PM

And, as I mentioned, it hasn’t even been through peer review yet.

edshepp on October 30, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Not sure what value that will add in this discipline.

besser tot als rot on October 30, 2011 at 9:31 PM

We are not baffled about what the commie sciencytist was trying to do. He was trying to shut down debate label skeptics as irrational and force the transfer of trillions of dollars to libtard elites who would manage the new world power order and they would have a foot on the throats of the ordinary people. Thank God for cable tv and the internet cause if we just had the former big 3 networks and the lib dailies pushing this hoax we’d really be doomed.

eaglewingz08 on October 30, 2011 at 9:14 PM

You really should look at who funded and conducted the study before making comments like that.

lexhamfox on October 30, 2011 at 9:44 PM

“Shut up,” he explained.

John the Libertarian on October 30, 2011 at 9:47 PM

“As I pointed out to my friend, Greenland hosted a farming community for over 200 years before getting swallowed in ice in a global-cooling period that helped spread disease, death, and starvation throughout Europe.”

Oh, don’t go there! Not only did the earth (well, at least the Northern hemisphere) warm without SUV’s centuries ago, it did so to the BENIFIT of humanity! No anthropoligical CO2 and benificial warming to boot? Don’t confuse the poor guy with facts.

Confirmation bias: recognize and process data that backs your assumption, ignore and/or not recognise data which doesn’t, and come to a conclusion when your proof is “overwhelming.” To start out to PROVE AGW really exists is to take the first step towards anti-science, because confirmation bias is destined to lead to whatever conclusion you want it to.

From a purely data-oriented perspective, an attempt to make a hypothesis as to why we have had some warming in the Northern hemisphere over the past few decades, which has now seemed to plateau, certainly doesn’t include runaway global warming triggered by critical CO2 levels, which is the big scare that’s supposed to make us give in to government running our lives for the sake of the planet.

shuzilla on October 30, 2011 at 9:54 PM

AGW supporters want people to freeze and Europe buried under a 2 mile sheet of ice!

Don;t they understand that a slightly warmer world, even if true, is infinitely better than a colder world.

Ask anybody in New England tonight.

profitsbeard on October 30, 2011 at 9:55 PM

To start out to PROVE AGW really exists is to take the first step towards anti-science, because confirmation bias is destined to lead to whatever conclusion you want it to.

shuzilla on October 30, 2011 at 9:54 PM

And that sums up the whole problem. Thank you.

Deanna on October 30, 2011 at 9:57 PM

At least twenty five years ago an emaritus climatologist professor at The University Of Virginia predicted a reversal of the warming trend at the end of the last century. His prediction was based upon the convergence of three known cycles in the dynamics of the solar system. The long term one (centuries) is associated with the precesion of the earth’s apogee. The intermediat one (decades)is the wobble of earths axis of rotation. The short one (thirteen years) is the sunspot cycle. The long and the intermediat influence where solar radiation strikes the earth. Sunspots increase the sun’s luminosity.

This is the only prediction that I am aware of which appears to be true and it was made well before the last few years.

burt on October 30, 2011 at 10:06 PM

lexhamfox on October 30, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Why does it matter who funded the study? If we worried about that we would have to throw out all the warmist research because all of it has been funded – mostly by governments, financial/trading firms and large multinational conglomerates who want to win the rents the govts will be providing to combat CO2.

The only unfunded research has been that which calls into question the notion that global temperatures are impacted by CO2.

Of course the big CERN study might break that mold.

Zomcon JEM on October 30, 2011 at 10:14 PM

‘I am baffled as to what he’s trying to do,’ Prof Curry said.

Hmmm….how about convince the world that AGW exists so that he helps kill thousands of jobs and degrade the USA while assuring his own grants and thus his own job security. Pretty much what I’d expect from Berkeley.

Christian Conservative on October 30, 2011 at 10:23 PM

Well I’m glad that’s out in the open. The sooner environmentalists get over this AGW business, the sooner we can go back to being serious about preventing actual harmful pollution. Don’t think that because CO2 isn’t causing some global catastrophe that coal plants and other industrial practices don’t harm people.

ernesto on October 30, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Hmmm….how about convince the world that AGW exists so that he helps kill thousands of jobs and degrade the USA while assuring his own grants and thus his own job security. Pretty much what I’d expect from Berkeley.

Christian Conservative on October 30, 2011 at 10:23 PM

What’s funny is that he wasn’t trying to prove AGW. At the end of his original article he says that the report doesn’t show that and they only were trying to prove global warming not AGW.

Deanna on October 30, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Also, Mr. Muller confirms that two pillars of denial-ism – that weather stations are not reflective of actual temperatures and that heat island effects skew the worldwide temperatures – are completely baseless.
oakland on October 30, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Oh, you are so right. Every winter I drive along a major highway. After a snowfall – even a heavy snowfall – it isn’t long before I notice that there is no snow in the vicinity of the highway. Yet when I drive a few miles north of the highway I notice that the snow has not melted in the vicinity of the highway. Now, of course, some of my denier friends say it’s because less heat is generated by the lighter traffic as compared with the major highway.

But of course, as you and I both know Oakland, it’s warmer in the area of the major highway not because of the kinetic heat created by the traffic but because of the excess carbon dioxide generated by the traffic. You are a genius Oakland.

Basilsbest on October 30, 2011 at 10:35 PM

You will do well to wait until his entire story comes out before your pathetic attempts to inoculate your very impressionable and uninformed readers.

The snobbery of a liberal front and center. Mr. oakland, the teacher of young minds, might be shocked to learn the actual number of well-educated scientists and engineers that regularly inhabit the HotAir readership. Those who, on the whole, are much more highly educated, better informed and more independent of thought than liberals such as Mr. oakland.

In fact, worldwide temperatures have dramatically risen over the last thirty years (the accepted time period that constitutes a long-term climatic trend).

Accepted by whom? Said thirty year period isn’t even a blink in the total geologic and climatic history of this planet. Links please.

Again, this trend was predicted four decades ago or more, based on the known effects of heat-absorbing molecules of carbon dioxide. Of course, you would consider the (predicted) present dramatic temperature rises to be just a co-incidence. Pretty fantastic one, isn’t it?

oakland on October 30, 2011 at 8:35 PM

“The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term “theory” is hardly applicable.”

Since you, oakland, accept the theory of anthropogenic global warming I have a simple question for you to address. The characteristic that defines a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. What, in your mind, would be the reasonably and easily testable prediction that would falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming, for you?

This was posted to oakland before, with no response. Let’s see if he might offer something this time.

(Since you, oakland, accept the theory of anthropogenic global warming I have a simple question for you to address. The characteristic that defines a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. What, in your mind, would be the most reasonable and easily testable prediction that would falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming, for you?
Yoop on September 1, 2011 at 7:24 AM)

Yoop on October 30, 2011 at 10:36 PM

This graph will show up again and again, just like Mann’s hockey stick is still being used. They never stop, even if you prove them wrong, they continue to spout the same lies over and over again.

I’m really not sure how you win the argument without winning an election and pulling their funding. It’s time we get some real science going and stop the nonsense from these activists posing as scientists.

bflat879 on October 30, 2011 at 10:43 PM

Well I’m glad that’s out in the open. The sooner environmentalists get over this AGW business, the sooner we can go back to being serious about preventing actual harmful pollution. Don’t think that because CO2 isn’t causing some global catastrophe that coal plants and other industrial practices don’t harm people.
ernesto on October 30, 2011 at 10:25 PM

Good for you, ernesto. One out of a hundred isn’t very good, but it’s a start. Are you now going to call for an end to Obama’s class warfare so that we can concentrate on the real reasons people are poor. And it’s not because they are stupid. Look at Sullivan, Maher, Moore, Glover, Penn, Garofalo and Alec Baldwin. Everyone of them is stupid beyond belief. But they all work hard. For most poor people, poverty begins with sloth reinforced by by poor lifestyle choices.

Basilsbest on October 30, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Basilsbest on October 30, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Except, of course, for the children, who with a solid education will have the opportunity to decide for themselves their own lifestyle choices. Y’all accept that a solid education should be had by all (not only those who can afford it), and I’ll accept that most anti-poverty programs are pointless.

ernesto on October 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM

ernesto on October 30, 2011 at 10:54 PM

I obtained 3 University degrees without any financial help from my parents and with easily repaid student loans. Mind you, that was a long time ago before the Universities were taken over by irresponsible liberals who drove up the cost of education.

Basilsbest on October 30, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Basilsbest on October 30, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Well with adequately funded public universities (current levels will do just fine), the debt burden on students is essentially unchanged from what it would have taken you to pursue 3 private degrees however many years ago you went about it. Either way, a high debt burden is not preferable, especially in fields like medicine, you must see that.

But again, we’re talking K-12 as well as advanced degrees: poor kids need access to proper schools, or they won’t be able to reliably lift themselves out of poverty, thus protecting your noble millionaires from the scourge of class warfare politics.

ernesto on October 30, 2011 at 11:08 PM

Haven’t read the comments but I want to correct the post on one thing. Dr Muller is NOT a former skeptic. He’s been misrepresenting himself in these press releases. He has long been a promoter of AGW.

juliesa on October 30, 2011 at 11:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2