Back in 2010, Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist and self-proclaimed climate skeptic, decided to launch the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project to review the temperature data that underpinned global-warming claims…
Muller’s stated aims were simple. He and his team would scour and re-analyze the climate data, putting all their calculations and methods online. Skeptics cheered the effort. “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong,” wrote Anthony Watts, a blogger who has criticized the quality of the weather stations in the United States that provide temperature data. The Charles G. Koch Foundation even gave Muller’s project $150,000 — and the Koch brothers, recall, are hardly fans of mainstream climate science.
So what are the end results? Muller’s team appears to have confirmed the basic tenets of climate science. Back in March, Muller told the House Science and Technology Committee that, contrary to what he expected, the existing temperature data was “excellent.” He went on: “We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.” And, now, the BEST team has released a flurry of new papers that confirm that the planet is getting hotter. As the team’s two-page summary flatly concludes, “Global warming is real…”
The best chuckle is the study being funded by the Koch brothers.
Republicans and science remind me of 4th grade boys and sex. They know it exists, they talk about it a lot, but they are not really sure what it is!
Re: “The last figure I have in mind was something like a 96% consensus.”
Do you have any evidence of that? Where is the list?
Here are a few skeptics of AGM and there are many more!
• Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
• Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists
• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
• George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
• Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
• William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada
• Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide
• Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University,
• Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
• Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa
• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks
• Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)
• Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports
• Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma
… Just for a start.
Don’t forget Paris Hilton.
97-98% of most active climate scientists support the tenants of the IPCC report, the paper is here (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract) its public access, so take your time and read it.
“Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC ”
LOL. Paid climate researchers, most actively funded to agree with IPCC, whereas negative papers have been turned down, or altered to agree before publication.
There are thousands of qualified scientists without their head in the trough, that disagree for various scientific reasons. more are coming forward all the time… usually older and wiser because they get blackballed from funding and ridiculed. They are as bad as Goldman Sachs in their own way.
You challenged me to support my statement: “…that isn’t what has been observed of climate scientists by many of their peers, after hours and days and months and years of thinking really hard about every conceivable source of error or hypothesis about other sources (than AGM) of climate change,”
I gave you a long list of names and could give you a thousand more. You in return have shown me nothing but an unsubstantiated opinion! And THAT’S what AGW or ACC or whatever the flavour is today, is what is wrong with the prostitution of good science for money these days!
There are different reasons and different levels of skepticism, and AGW pundits don’t know the differences… just lump them all together like they are all the same. Scientific method my ass!
Profound stuff man.
“LOL. Paid climate researchers,” yes they are paid by diffident universities and institutes because they are researchers, professors and scientists and they receive a salary. or you mean the wind-turbine industry is paying them to lie?
“There are thousands of qualified scientists…” the paper takes into account the credentials of each researcher, do you claim that the AGW mafia prevented them to publish their papers in any journal? right.
“They are as bad as Goldman Sachs in their own way…” no comment to that.
“I gave you a long list of names” look at the link i sent you, many of them are investigated for the background and funding. you will find the answer. Meanwhile, i will wait for your “thousand more”.
If a peer reviewed paper in PNAS is an “unsubstantiated opinion!” to you, i wonder what do you actually count as substantiated?
“Scientific method my ass!” indeed. I wish for you to one day experience living without the fruits of the scientific method. will be fun.
There is no list of individual scientists.
There are institutions that gave official statement as to their position, but no individual scientist signed anything. If you have 100 scientists in an institution, they are automatically counted as pro AGM. That’s not science, that’s speculation.
You are a typical AGW alarmist. I show you proof of qualified, well known skeptics, and you ignore them. I’ll leave you with one more whom you can claim superiority over, in your delusion.
Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winner in physics.
Skeptic–always interested in the opposing view, I googled Ivar Giaever. A quick read from this site: http://climatedepot.com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming is very instructive.
Poor old man has lost his mojo. Imagine actually saying that he’s from Norway and a little warming would be a good thing?
Christ!!! If a Nobel Physicist and crap that big a load in his pants, what’s going to happen to us?
The 98 per cent consensus figure is actually correct. Even when you list the dissenter votes.
So what? Well you have to make comment on those who voted. It is blatantly obvious who and why these voters vote.
The lack of critic on this vote is yet another of the stinking heap of lies that the ruling class think they can get away with.
They are correct. There are too many religious hoomans out and about (the non-god type).
Here is some info to argue over.The amount of sunlight energy that reaches the earths surface has dropped 1-2 % per decade since the 1950’s because of air pollution. During the 9/11 air traffic groundings temps went up 2 degrees F per day. If the air pollution was eliminated how much would temps spike?
Where the hell do you get this nonsense from?
Mankind is a funny beast.
Believes thingd about himself that he is so powerful. At the center of everything, First the center of the universe with religious nonsense, lord over all animals by more religious BS.
Science then comes along and says that is not right. That the center of the universe is nowhere near Earth. Not even the center of the galaxy. And that human is no more than an animal as well. And says that religious people over reached their importance/
Then goes on to only class extra-solar planets as having life on it IF it has the elements needed to support Earth life. And says that mankind has thrown enough carbon into the atmosphere to cause climate change to accelerate and then ONLY man can fix that issue. All the wild producing papers on ancient geological data that show the amount of CO2 and carbon was much higher when mankind wasn’t even around.
Myself. I think BOTH camps are self-important egotists. Because they are both still human and have a funnt issue with humility.
What a piece of work is a man!
How noble in Reason!
How infinite in faculties!
In form and moving.
How express and admirable!
In action how like an Angel!
in apprehension how like a god!
The beauty of the world!
The paragon of animals!
And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust?
Man delights not me; no, nor Woman neither;
though by your smiling you seem to say so.
– The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (Act II, Scene ii)
I miss you Bill.
Cursor_
I wonder how this data correlates to the ever increasing amount of ASPHALT used on roads, roofs, and parking lots?
This stuff is a wonderful absorber of light (and hence a radiator of heat), even in the wintertime.
I guess nature never figured we’d paint the green earth black. Check Google Earth and see for yourself.
First off Pascal said it first if your not sure, choose the option with less to loose. In this case it would be to stop polluting just in case it (polluting) is causing climate change. But to debate wether or not humans are causing climate change is actually the wrong debate.
The debate should be “does society have a moral obligation to clean up after itself?” When my mother taught me to clean my room, that ended the debate for me.
Bahram, what makes you think I am kidding? If it warms 2.5C, I would expect Antarctica to end up with more ice. It would still be too cold for the ice to melt but the warmer ocean would evaporate and drop more snow on the island.
Let me take credit/blame here. Its been a year or so since I dipped into this climate issue and my fact recall is getting fuzzy.
I googled (“When will all the ice melt”) and got this interesting readable site: http://countercurrents.org/orlov250710.htm
As usual–I was not exactly correct, but in the ball park. Seems even with 4 Degrees C increase there will still be a little bit of ice in Antarctica. That doesn’t sound like glaciers traveling to the sea, more like left over one year old ice in the valleys?
How do you know what you know and how do you change your mind? Interesting stuff.
This “counting scientists who disagree” nonsense is reminiscent of the arguments from the creationists. Yes you can find people with science or engineering degrees who don’t support it. (There is after all some 2% who don’t: 100% – 98% = 2%.) So what? There are tens of thousands who do. Secondly, don’t you think it would be a good idea to filter out the folks who don’t work in the field and hence are unlikely to have current and comprehensive knowledge of the subject? I am an actual scientist, but I can’t help you with treatment options for renal failure and you would be a fool to listen to me. The world is full of crackpots and incompetents — we generally don’t allow them to drive the train.
Temperatures rose in the middle ages too, doesn’t really mean anything. Cycles come and go.
Remember the real issue here people – this is all leading toward the mentality of turning the very air we breath (or exhale in this particular case) into a commodity people can make money on. Don’t fall into their hype.
Do you think we can keep it warm when the next ‘ice-age” cold cycle begins?
I hope so.
I think that this just proves that getting enough grant money, can change any skeptic’s mind. Money has tainted too much scientific research. You get zip, if you buck the mainstream. And tons, if you go along with everyone else’s notions. Which is odd here, because it’s always claimed that Big Oil and Coal’s money funds the AGW skeptics. But the Pro-AGW side gets far more funding, and even some industry grants. And the skeptics tell you they wish they were getting paid, but aren’t. They probably will, just as soon as they change their tune.
BTW, I don’t know what temperture gauges they consider “official” and “accurate”. But it can’t be any of the ones that I see on my local Tv stations. Much of the time, they’re 5 degrees warmer, than the three I have measuring the air temp. outside my house. And I took pains to be sure they weren’t subject to heat radiating from walls, or heat leaks from windows, etc. But I have to wonder if these stations, the local weather “experts” setup, bother to avoid heat sources, at all? And is there sloppy measuring made a part of the official record? Or is it just for the general public’s use?
And also, being 45 miles from Wash. DC, I have to put up with the Tv weather radar being centered mainly over the nation’s capital. And the forecasters virtually ignoring the city and counties, to the northeast. We’re not rich enough, so we don’t count. This fall, the only 24/7 doppler radar channel for our city, when off the air (Tv). Leaving us just the two for (you guess it) , Washington DC. Which covers more of Virginia, than it does Maryland. Even though the District gets a bigger chunk of its land from Maryland. The Baltimore doppler scan is available for smart phones. Just not free, anymore, to the public without a data plan or ISP. So why does DC and Va. rate the free scans? Politics.
“Climate change” is natural and has happened since the dawn of time.
“Human Made Global Warming” is STILL A SCAM !!!!!!!!!!!!!
In the paper it says the human impact of global warming may be overestimated. Somehow that was not the headline of this post.