Deception Exposed in Latest Global Temperature Analysis: No Warming Since 1998!

[Destiny's Soldier]

It seems a recent analysis of global temperatures which supposedly proves man-made global warming has been exposed as a deception by none other than the named Co-Author of the Study.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...colleague.html

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.

The usual way a high-profile project such as BEST would publish its results would be in a scientific journal, following a rigorous ‘peer review’ by other experts in the field.

The more eminent journals that publish climate research, such as Nature And Science, insist there must be no leaks to the media until this review is complete and if such leaks occur, they will automatically reject the research.

Earlier this year, the project completed four research papers.

As well as trends in world temperatures, they looked at the extent to which temperature readings can be distorted by urban ‘heat islands’ and the influence of long-term temperature cycles in the oceans. The papers were submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research.

But although Prof Curry is the second named author of all four papers, Prof Muller failed to consult her before deciding to put them on the internet earlier this month, when the peer review process had barely started, and to issue a detailed press release at the same time.

He also briefed selected journalists individually. ‘It is not how I would have played it,’ Prof Curry said. ‘I was informed only when I got a group email. I think they have made errors and I distance myself from what they did.

‘It would have been smart to consult me.’ She said it was unfortunate that although the Journal of Geophysical Research had allowed Prof Muller to issue the papers, the reviewers were, under the journal’s policy, forbidden from public comment.

Prof McKittrick added: ‘The fact is that many of the people who are in a position to provide informed criticism of this work are currently bound by confidentiality agreements.

‘For the Berkeley team to have chosen this particular moment to launch a major international publicity blitz is a highly unethical sabotage of the peer review process.’

In Prof Curry’s view, two of the papers were not ready to be published, in part because they did not properly address the arguments of climate sceptics.

As for the graph disseminated to the media, she said: ‘This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.

[Analyzer]

Just wondering......where is Al Gore these days ?????

Anybody attending any powerpoint presentations by the man who helped guide Slick Willy Clinton's repeal of Glass Steagal through the US Senate ?

(Admittedly, it was easy, there was a Dumbocrat majority in the Senate when all the subprime legislation went through).

[owedtojoy]

This stinks of desperation.

The BEST study was the last, final hopes of denialists to demonstrate doubt in the climate temperature record. So much so that arch-denier Anthony Watts declared he was willing to accept its results, no matter what they were. BEST leader Dr Robert Muller even struck up a friendship with Watts and other deniers like McKittrick. Muller went so far as to repeat denialist talking points and apprear on Gleen Beck as a "skeptic".

First shock came last April with Dr Muller told the US Congress in special hearings that the BEST preliminary results confirmed the climate record. Second shock came last week when Muller announced the latest results ... global warming is real. He posted online four papers being submitted for peer review - these may not reach publication in their final form, especially the fourth one on natural variability. but the others probably - they all confirm what was well known to climate science, and even corroborated Anthony Watts' one and only peer-reviewed publication.

Read Muller's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, once a stronghold of denialism, and decide for yourself. You can follow up by looking at the papers themselves.

Richard A. Muller: The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism - WSJ.com

The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism
There were good reasons for doubt, until now.

Notice the Daily Mail only publishes a few years data in its chart. One of the oldest cons in the art of charting ... ignore the full data set.
Here is the full set of BEST results:



Climate science deniers have put themselves in the same boat as creationists ... denying the reality of the empirical results for political or cultish reasons.

[PAD1OH]

Mail on BEST | Climate Etc.

[owedtojoy]

Mail on BEST | Climate Etc.

Looks like Curry, the co-author, is backpedalling furiously, and the Daily Mail has gone back to its old denier scamming ways.

To set the record straight, some of the other sentiments attributed to me are not quite right, I will discuss these here.

“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. When asked specifically about the graph that apparently uses a 10 year running mean and ends in 2006, we discussed “hide the decline,” but I honestly can’t recall if Rose or I said it first. I agree that the way the data is presented in the graph “hides the decline.” 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.

My most important statement IMO is this: ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’ My main point was that this is a very good data set, the best we currently have available for land surface temperatures.

[owedtojoy]

Incidentally, the person who wrote the Daily Mail article has a proven record of misattributing quotes when it comes to climate science.

Rosegate: David Rose caught misrepresenting another scientist : Deltoid

[Ultan Murphy]

Whatever of the accuracy or the interpretation of Prof. Judith Curry's comments by The Daily Mail, one thing we can be sure of is that Global Temperatures have been flat for the past 13 years from BEST's data set.

Best Confirms Global Temperature Standstill

Contrary to claims being made by the leader of the Best global temperature initiative their data confirms, and places on a firmer statistical basis, the global temperature standstill of the past ten years as seen by other groups.

Many people have now had some time to read the papers issued in preprint form from the Best project. My strong impression is that they are mostly poorly written, badly argued and at this stage unfit for submission to a major journal. Whilst I have made some comments about Best’s PR and data release strategy, I want to now look at some aspects of the data.

To construe the study as being proof of man made global warming is totally incorrect according to the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

What amazes me is that we know temperatures cooled globally from 1940 - 1975 and then between 1979 - 2011 we have very little to alarmed about when we look at Satellite Data. Wouldn't you think the likes of NASA would be monitoring Global Temperatures from Satellites instead of surface stations?





Man Made Global Warming is scare mongering, rubbish of the highest order.

[Mossy Heneberry]

Just wondering......where is Al Gore these days ?????

Anybody attending any powerpoint presentations by the man who helped guide Slick Willy Clinton's repeal of Glass Steagal through the US Senate ?

(Admittedly, it was easy, there was a Dumbocrat majority in the Senate when all the subprime legislation went through).

I saw him on Futurama the other day. Apparently he's gone to Pluto to collect cans.

[owedtojoy]

Whatever of the accuracy or the interpretation of Prof. Judith Curry's comments by The Daily Mail, one thing we can be sure of is that Global Temperatures have been flat for the past 13 years from BEST's data set.

To construe the study as being proof of man made global warming is totally incorrect according to the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

What amazes me is that we know temperatures cooled globally from 1940 - 1975 and then between 1979 - 2011 we have very little to alarmed about when we look at Satellite Data. Wouldn't you think the likes of NASA would be monitoring Global Temperatures from Satellites instead of surface stations?

Man Made Global Warming is scare mongering, rubbish of the highest order.

Amazing how the gross misrepresenation of the BEST study, written by a "journalist" already notorious for misquoting climate scientists, in a British tabloid newspaper, brings climate science deniers out of the holes in which they have hidden since the embarrassment of the confirmation of global warming by a former "sceptic" ally.

Just go straight to the lead-author who published the Berkeley results. Contrary to the lying Daily Mail article, the co-author mentioned supports the findings, as is now clear.

Richard A. Muller: The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism - WSJ.com

The big denial con, repeated in the newspaper, is to just look at the last 10 years, ignoring the fact that 2010 was a record warm year. They also carefully forget all the denialist "predictions" that global temperature would be back at 1970 levels by now.

e.g. McClean 2011



9 Months After McLean

Even poor Ultan is reduced to ex-cathedra declarations without evidence. As you might gather, the Global WArming Policy Foundation is a fossil fuel front manned by "scientists" of dubious repute.

[owedtojoy]

To claim (as Ultan Murphy does) that the temperature satellite record contradicts the others and the BEST study is pure unadulterated horseshyte of the rankest order.

Here are all the records on the same x and y axis, including the RSS satellite record, which shows higher temeratures than the UAH. But the trend in all is the same.



Compare with the recent independent BEST study (from 1800) (y-scale may be different):