BEST: What I agree with and what I disagree with – plus a call for additional transparency to prevent “pal” review

There’s lots of hay being made by the usual romminesque flaming bloggers, some news outlets and the like, over my disagreement with the way data was handled in one of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) papers, the only one I got to review before yesterday’s media blitz. Apparently I’m not allowed to point out errors, and BEST isn’t allowed to correct any before release, such as the six incorrectly spelled citations of the Fall et al 2011 paper I pointed out to BEST a week earlier, which they couldn’t be bothered to fix.

And then there’s the issue of doing a 60 year study on siting, when we only guaranteed 30. Even NOAA’s Menne et al paper knew not to make such a stupid mistake. Making up data where there isn’t any is what got Steig et al into trouble in Antarctica and they got called on it by Jeff Id, Steve McIntyre, and Ryan O’Donnell in a follow on peer-reviewed paper.

But I think it’s useful to note here (since I know some other bloggers will just say “denier” and be done with it) what I do in fact agree with and accept, and what I don’t. They wanted an instant answer, before I had a chance even to read the other three papers. Media outlets were asking for my opinion even before the release of these papers, and I stated clearly that I had only seen one and I couldn’t yet comment on the others. That didn’t matter, they lumped that opinion on one I had seen into an opinion on all four.

What I agree with:

  1. The Earth is warmer than it was 100-150 years ago. But that was never in contention –  it is a straw man argument. The magnitude and causes are what skeptics question.
  2. From the BEST press release “Global Warming is real”  …see point one. Notably, “man-made global warming” was not mentioned by BEST, and in their findings they point out explicitly they didn’t address this issue as they state in this screencap from the press release:
  3. As David Whitehouse wrote: “The researchers find a strong correlation between North Atlantic temperature cycles lasting decades, and the global land surface temperature. They admit that the influence in recent decades of oceanic temperature cycles has been unappreciated and may explain most, if not all, of the global warming that has taken place, stating the possibility that the “human component of global warming may be somewhat overstated.”. Here’s a screencap from that paper:
  4. The unique BEST methodology has promise. The scalpel method used to deal with station discontinuity was a good idea and I’ve said so before.
  5. The findings of the BEST global surface analysis match the finding of other global temperature metrics. This isn’t surprising, as much of the same base raw data was used. There’s a myth that NASA GISS, HadCRUT, NOAA’s, and now Berkeley’s source data are independent of one another. That’s not completely true. They share a lot of common data from GHCN, administered by NOAA’s National Climatic Data. So it isn’t surprising at all they would match.

What I disagree with:

1. The way they dealt with my surfacestation data in analysis was flat-out wrong, and I told them so days ahead of this release. They offered no correction, nor even an acknowledgement of the issue. The issue has to do with the 60 year period they used. Both peer-reviewed papers on the subject, Menne et al 2010, and Fall et al 2011 used 30 year periods. This is a key point because nobody knows (not me, not NOAA, not BEST) what the siting quality of weather stations was 30-60 years ago. Basically they did an analysis on a time period for which metadata doesn’t exist. I’ve asked simply for them to do it on 30 years as the two peer reviewed papers did, an apples-to-apples comparison. If they do that and the result is the same, I’m satisfied. OTOH, they may find something new when done correctly, we all deserve that opportunity.

Willis Eschenbach points out this quote from the paper:

We evaluate the effect of very-rural station siting on the global average by applying the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature averaging procedure to the very-rural stations. By comparing the resulting average to that obtained by using all the stations we can quantify the impact of selecting sites not subject to urbanization on the estimated average land temperature.

He adds: That seems crazy to me. Why compare the worst stations to all stations? Why not compare them to the best stations?

2. The UHI study seems a bit strange in its approach. They write in their press release that:

They didn’t adequately deal with that 1% in my opinion, by doing a proper area weighting. And what percentage of weather stations were in that 1%? While they do have some evidence of the use of a “kriging” technique, I’m not certain is has been done properly. The fact that 33% of the sites show a cooling is certainly cause for a much harder look at this. That’s not something you can easily dismiss, though they attempt to. This will hopefully get sorted out in peer review.

3. The release method they chose, of having a media blitzkrieg of press release and writers at major MSM outlets lined up beforehand is beyond the pale. While I agree with Dr. Muller’s contention that circulating papers among colleagues for wider peer review is an excellent idea, what they did with the planned and coordinated (and make no mistake it was coordinated for October 20th, Liz Muller told me this herself) is not only self-serving grandiosity, but quite risky if peer review comes up with a different answer.

The rush to judgment they fomented before science had a chance to speak is worse than anything I’ve ever seen, and from my early dealings with them, I can say that I had no idea they would do this, otherwise I would not have embraced them so openly. A lie of omission is still a lie, and I feel that I was not given the true intentions of the BEST group when I met with them.

So there you have it, I accept their papers, and many of their findings, but disagree with some methods and results as is my right. It will be interesting to see if these survive peer review significantly unchanged.

One thing we can count on that WON’T normally be transparent is the peer review process, and if that process includes members of the “team” who are well versed enough to but already embracing the results such as Phil Jones has done, then the peer review will turn into “pal review”.

The solution is to make the names of the reviewers known. Since Dr. Muller and BEST wish to upset the apple cart of scientific procedure, putting public review before peer review, and because they make this self-assured and most extraordinary claim in their press release:

That’s some claim. Four papers that have not been peer-reviewed yet, and they KNOW they’ll pass peer review and will be in the next IPCC report? Is it just me or does that sound rigged? Or, is it just the product of an overactive ego on the part of the BEST group?

I say, if BEST and Dr. Muller truly believes in a transparent approach, as they state on the front page of their website…

…let’s make the peer review process transparent so that there is no possibility of “pal review” to ramrod this through without proper science being done.

Since Dr. Muller claims this is “one of the most important questions ever”, let’s deal with it in an open a manner as possible. Ensuring that these four papers get a thorough and non-partisan peer review is the best way to get the question answered.

Had they not made the claim I highlighted above of it passing peer review and being in the next IPCC report before any of that even is decided, I would never think to ask for this. That overconfident claim is a real cause for concern, especially when the media blitzkrieg they launched makes it difficult for any potential review scientists to not notice and read these studies and news stories ahead of time, thus becoming biased by media coverage.

We can’t just move the “jury pool” of scientists to the next county to ensure a fair trial now that is been blathered worldwide can we?

Vote on it:

About these ads
This entry was posted in Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature, Peer review and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

171 Responses to BEST: What I agree with and what I disagree with – plus a call for additional transparency to prevent “pal” review

  1. Nick Stokes says:

    Are the reviews of Fall et al 2011 open?

    REPLY: I have no objection. You are welcome to go ask the editor, Joost Degouw at JGR, who is also handling the BEST reviews.I’d like to know myself who reviewed Fall et al. I’ve suspected somebody at NCDC was involved, so I’m glad you want to find out. Go for it Nick!. – Anthony

  2. mopedchi says:

    Thanks.

    Point 3 of what you disagree with: should that say October 20th?

  3. JT says:

    I nominate Steve McIntyre and William M. Briggs as peer reviewers.

  4. JohnWho says:

    Third line:

    ” they only one I got to review”

    should be “the only one…”

    What I disagree with, Item #1:

    “This is a key point because we nobody knows …”

    should be “This is a key point because nobody knows…”

    Just tryin’ to help.

  5. Russ Steele says:

    Why does the data in the graphic stop at 2006? Anyone know why?

  6. Jay Currie says:

    Willis is onto something vis a vis the UHI work.

    ———

    “Willis Eschenbach points out this quote from the paper:

    We evaluate the effect of very-rural station siting on the global average by applying the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature averaging procedure to the very-rural stations. By comparing the resulting average to that obtained by using all the stations we can quantify the impact of selecting sites not subject to urbanization on the estimated average land temperature.

    He adds: That seems crazy to me. Why compare the worst stations to all stations? Why not compare them to the best stations?

    ——–
    Crazy like a fox…I posted this at Bishop Hill’s. Like many moves in this game the comparison may very well show the butcher’s thumb on the scale:

    “I read through the UHI paper and was more than a little surprised that Muller et al apparently compared these two sets of stations:

    “very rural” and “all (including very rural)”. This procedure, comparing something to itself plus other stuff seemed odd.

    How odd? Well, consider the following:

    Imagine 5 “very rural” stations with average temps of +1,0,0,-1,1 for an average temp of 1/5=.2

    Now consider 5 “not rural” stations with average temps of +2,+1,+3,0,-1 for an average 5/5=1.0

    Quite a difference.

    However that difference is reduced if you calculate the average of the “Not rural” plus the “very rural” which would be 6/10=.6

    Now, obviously these are simplified made up values; but the point is that there was no need to add the “very rural” stations back into “the rest” if you are trying to compare trends. And, in fact, it appears to be a logical error.

  7. Ric Werme says:

    > Since Dr. Muller claims this is “one of the most important questions ever”, …

    I get the strong sense that the BEST team “knows” they’re good, knows they’re right, and knows they are addressing “one of the most important questions ever.” Therefore it’s logical that they announce their results far and wide as soon as they’re available. And probably didn’t even consider someone might refer to their study as “non-peer reviewed.”

    At least Pons & Fleischman held their press conference in large part to establish primacy after getting with that Steven Jones at BYU (I think that’s right) was working on an interesting cold fusion paper himself. (It turned out to be interesting and orthogonal – about tritium in volcanic gases. I forget where that research ended up.)

    Perhaps BEST just likes the attention, perhaps they’re trying to lead the hype to Durban (Nov 28 to Dec 9). Perhaps they’ll learn that pride goeth before the fall.

  8. HB says:

    Anthony, I truly admire your ethical and dignified stance in the midst of this farce!

    Surely any editor who has received these BEST papers should resign now and apologise to Kevin Trenberth, given the precedent caused by Wagner?

    ROFL

  9. Toto says:

    BEST got $623,097 funding for this.

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/20/berkeley-surface-temperatures-released/#comment-125004

    Imagine what Anthony and his volunteers could have done with that amount of funding.

    Imagine if that amount was spent on actually fixing the bad sites.

  10. Kasuha says:

    “The fact that 33% of the sites show a cooling is certainly cause for a much harder look at this. That’s not something you can easily dismiss, though they attempt to.”

    I was taking a look at that thing some time ago (it’s not new information that 1/3 of stations shows cooling) and my conclusion was, it’s caused by the fact that the amplitude of global warming is comparable with (actually about half of) amplitude of statistical error. Or in other words, amplitude of chaotic temperature changes is about two times the amplitude of deterministic temperature changes (i.e. warming).

  11. Bill Illis says:

    There is something strange about how this was all rushed out before it was ready – spelling mistakes, unusual errors such as the 60 year time-line, open and transparent database that noone can download yet – the complete 39,000 dataset trend is only produced on their website versus included in the papers – peer review not done yet.

    Judith Curry comments that they didn’t want to get scooped. Scooped by who, scooped how exactly. I note the NCDC has done some scooping before. What is the back-story to how this was rolled-out in such an unplanned way? I understand BEST was trying to get this out earlier in the year and maybe deadlines crept up faster that expected but there is something about this that we don’t know yet.

  12. Louis says:

    Here’s their stated goal according to the BEST project website:

    “Our aim is to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions…”

    It sounds like they set out to vindicate analyses of the current temperature data and blunt any future criticism. Am I misreading their intentions?

  13. DavidK says:

    Did not Roy Spencer pre-publish for PAL review on this very site?

  14. Stephen Singer says:

    I just watched the video clip of temp anomalies since the early 1800’s thru 2009. Does it strike anyone else as rather odd that that there is plenty of variation from the blues to the reds till roughly 2000 when everything became mostly red to very red.?

  15. The approach to the UHI work seems reasonable to me. The question that we want the answer to is “what is the impact of UHI on the global trend?” By attempting to remove urban station from the dataset (about 1/2 of the stations) and the comparing the resulting rural subset with the entire set you get a good idea of the impact on the overall trend.

    Since the overall effect of the UHI on the dataset is basically 0, confirming other studies, it really wasn’t worth looking at any further. However, the code and data is all available, knock your socks off. Just remember that the important question is not the absolute temperature effects, but only the effect of the UHI on temperature anomaly trends. Urban heat islands have a large effect of absolute temperature, the question is whether there is much effect on the trend.

  16. barry says:

    Thanks for laying out your PsOV, Anthony.

    “Since Dr. Muller and BEST wish to upset the apple cart of scientific procedure, putting public review before peer review..”

    You will therefore recommend upsetting the apple cart of peer-review even further by removing the anonymity of reviewers? An alternative reading here is that we get to see the papers before and after review, and be witness to how they are corrected. They will let their mistakes be aired to the public also. In purely scientific terms, this is much more open than the usual process.

    There’s no doubt in my mind that the media blitz of their pre-reviewed papers is wrong. It appears to have forced you, unfortunately, to call for a further abandoning of the proper process. This may be good politics, but puts you in opposition to the normal peer-review process, which you have otherwise maintained should be upheld – having learned to your cost the perils of circumventing it (per your comments in the other thread).

    I propose an alternative. The papers should pass through two peer-review processes. One should be the normal anonymous review, satisfying the journal’s obligations, and the other should be an open peer-review, Care should be taken that they are not created or seen as competitive, but complimentary.

    Because scientific imprimatur is given if the journal selects its reviewers, the journal should choose all six reviewers, three anonymous, and three open. This not only satisfies Wattians and mainstreamers, it also lends twice the assistance to strengthening the papers.

    Does this seem equitable?

    REPLY: Interesting, but only if the journal would be bound by the idea that the paper has to pass both reviews to be published, otherwise they just walk right by it while thumbing their nose at open public review. – Anthony

  17. Jeremy says:

    Their behavior thus far is actually the same method of dealing with the media that the IPCC uses. They release the (pre-review conclusions) SPM before the full report so that the masses see the conclusions. After that, who cares what is found in the actual report by experts, everyone already believes them, right? After all, they’re some of the experts and they wouldn’t let their work be misrepresented in the media? The killer is the fact that they can actually say that with a straight face, since an un-reviewed paper isn’t their final work.

  18. Jeremy says:

    Stephen Singer says:
    October 21, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    I just watched the video clip of temp anomalies since the early 1800′s thru 2009. Does it strike anyone else as rather odd that that there is plenty of variation from the blues to the reds till roughly 2000 when everything became mostly red to very red.?

    Actually, what struck me was the absurd amount of smearing early on. I mean, 1/3rd of the U.S. is covered by their first thermometer? Did they adjust their resolution later? If so, what determines their resolution, do they have a function wrt to time for it?

  19. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Rattus Norvegicus says:
    October 21, 2011 at 6:28 pm (Edit)

    … Urban heat islands have a large effect of absolute temperature, the question is whether there is much effect on the trend.

    Surely you see the logical problem with that claim, Rattus? Hint. There was a time before the urban temperature rose …

    w.

  20. CTD says:

    The UHI paper shows the “very-rural” sections with a significantly greater warming trend. Obviously global warming must be thwarted by paving those areas.

  21. JohnWho says:

    CTD says:
    October 21, 2011 at 7:05 pm
    The UHI paper shows the “very-rural” sections with a significantly greater warming trend. Obviously global warming must be thwarted by paving those areas.

    So, to prevent CAGW, all we need to do is

    pave paradise and put up a parking lot.

  22. Nicanuk says:

    Frank Lasner has developed a world wide, unadjusted, rural temperature index.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/messages-from-the-global-raw-rural-data-warnings-gotchas-and-tree-ring-divergence-explained/#more-18275

    A guest post at Jo Nova with implications for the rural/UHI question. I know this should be in TIPs but I feel it is relevant to your argument if you have not had a chance to see it yet.

    No surprises, coastal stations match GISS ocean data.
    However, inland, rural stations have behaved very differently over the instrument record (1880 to date) and Lasner correlates them with terrestrial glacier advance and retreat, greenland glacier melt rates and seal level variation over the instrument period . With a tip to Willis vs Grinsted Lasner’s correlation goes up and down with the sea level unlike that naughy trace gas.

  23. HaroldW says:

    Russ Steele asked, “Why does the data in the graphic stop at 2006?”

    I’m assuming you’re referring to this graphic; there was a similar one published with The Economist article. The curves are 10-year moving averages, which are plotted at the midpoint of the 10-year interval. The BEST results (here) include monthly data up to and including May 2010. The last 10-year sliding window is centered at May 2005.

  24. Nicanuk says:

    Ooops, typo but I guess if sea level is changing then so is the seal level.

  25. carrot eater says:

    “The rush to judgment they fomented before science had a chance to speak is worse than anything I’ve ever seen”

    Consider the conclusion of Watts, 2009, in a well-publicised but not-peer-reviewed publication,

    “The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the
    U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows that the global database is
    likely similarly compromised and unreliable.”

    Looks to me like a rush to judgment, combined with publicity-seeking, before “science had a chance to speak.”; in fact, before there was much of any mathematical testing to support the conclusion. Care to comment?

    REPLY: Sure, the booklet wasn’t destined for peer review and the conclusions weren’t supposed to be mathematical for it, but qualitative, and the recent GAO report agrees with my conclusions in that booklet.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/30/gao-report-on-the-poor-quality-of-the-us-climate-monitoring-network/

    Clearly, THEY took it seriously, even if you and your rabbet friends do not.

    Of course people like yourself that operate in the shadows behind fake names would much rather just ignore such problems and sweep them under the rug and not deal with them. The fact that NOAA has also systemically followed our survey and closed dozens of stations (or removed the thermometer while retaining the rain gauge) also shows that they know the station(s) are unreliable. I recall Tom Peterson of NCDC writing a big hullaballoo report claiming how Marysville (the station that started this all) was just fine. Guess what? Yep NOAA closed it: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/10/an-old-friend-put-out-to-pasture-marysville-is-no-longer-a-climate-station-of-record/

    Finally, the biggest proof of the USHCN network being unreliable is the fact that NCDC commissioned and built the Climate Reference Network, so that they would have a truly accurate network. In their own words from the Climate Reference Network Handbook in 2002:

    The research community, government agencies, and private businesses have identified
    significant shortcomings in understanding and examining long-term climate trends and change
    over the U.S. and surrounding regions. Some of these shortcomings are due to the lack of
    adequate documentation of operations and changes regarding the existing and earlier observing
    networks, the observing sites, and the instrumentation over the life of the network. These
    include inadequate overlapping observations when new instruments were installed and not using
    well-maintained, calibrated high-quality instruments.

    Source: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf

    You don’t build a second independent network if the primary is doing just fine, now do you? Read some of the money pleadings for that one and you’ll see why NCDC knew there was a real problem, they just hoped nobody would notice. Too late.

    So not only does the GAO think there’s a problem, but so does NOAA and NCDC, where their actions speak louder than words. Oh, and we’ve already surveyed part of GHCN, and it has even worse problems. Now scurry off to the hole you live in, rodent.
    – Anthony

  26. Sun Spot says:

    Why does the “Decadel land-surface average temperature” graph stop at 2005 ??
    This is almost 2012 why have they dropped 7 years of data ???

  27. Jeremy says:

    Rattus Norvegicus says:
    October 21, 2011 at 6:28 pm

    Urban heat islands have a large effect of absolute temperature, the question is whether there is much effect on the trend.

    Yeah, I’m with Willis on that one. This is fairly silly to put in the same sentence considering there was a time when urban centers did not contribute to the overall temperature, and our urban centers have been growing.

  28. KenB says:

    This sounds very much like an issue I discussed some time ago with a friend (a scientific technician) who was involved in setting up experiments scientists at a certain major Australian University. It was a quite common response when the :”first run” of the experiment gave favourable results they would say “that’s enough stop” but as the technician explained to them, there was little cost in actually running the the process repeatedly over the next 48 hours as the main cost had been absorbed in the set up, therefore it would be silly to abandon after one run. As he explained to them, the ability to repeat the result would give their paper much more credibility, so they reluctantly yielded and waited anxiously for the confirmed results.

    Of course some “scientists of worth” might consider themselves sufficient authority and excellence above all else to ignore technical or mathematical advice, after all they know what they want!!

    We were discussing the mad rush to get poor results into the media and the sloppy work that can result.

    Perhaps nervous desire dominated this research?

  29. Willis,

    Quite frankly, I don’t see a problem with the approach. Increasing urbanization is accounted for by not including sites ranked as urban in the “very-rural” set. This means that the trend due to increasing urbanization is included in the full dataset and factored out in the subset.

  30. jimmi_the_dalek says:

    Why on earth do you think that ‘peer review’ consists only of getting comments from the journal referees? It is a much wider process that continues after publication, and it is not confined to the initial referees’ comments. These papers are undergoing ‘peer review’ right here right now, and clearly some of you do not like them. The ultimate ‘peer review’ however consists of those subsequent papers which are published commenting, favorably or unfavorably, on the original. So go publish something.

    REPLY: Why on Earth do you think it is OK to list conclusions to the media prior to the papers being released to the public for that “extra review” you claim, and prior to publishing peer review? That’s what they did. Papers went out to MSM days before October 20th, and I got calls to comment on 3 papers I had not seen.

    Explain how that is OK. Of course if it were “I” that had “published something” and done it that way, I’d be excoriated for doing so because we all know there are two sets of rules for:

    People saving the planet rule: “end justifies the means”
    Those rotten anti-science skeptics rule: “Peer review with impossibly high bar”

    So go get a box of scruples or something – Anthony

  31. Rattus.

    The data is actually not all available. To assess their categorization of urban and rural you need access to modis 500 data and you need a list of stations they categorized as rural.

    It takes some doing but the dataset is available but you have to do some footwork to get it. I’m pretty sure, given what I went through to get it that most people would not be able to.

    There are some other points to be made here. i’ll save them for now

  32. Legatus says:

    Anthony:
    Apparently, you are not aware of this:
    Muller & Associates
    Richard Muller , President and Chief Scientist

    GreenGov is a service offered by Muller & Associates
    Helping governments build energy strategies that are right for them
    Government energy policy is increasingly confounded by the complex interplay of international treaties, fluctuating prices, declining reserves, and a rapidly growing array of technological developments. Energy policy involves economics, energy security, and climate change. For some initiatives, these issues may be addressed simultaneously. For others the potential solutions might be in direct conflict. Coal, as one example, is abundant in some countries, but it is also a strong emitter of carbon dioxide
    Clean Energy – demystifying emerging technologies and avoiding costly “misinvestments
    We know that in order to be effective, solutions must be sustainable.

    Hats what they say, here is what you said:

    3. The release method they chose, of having a media blitzkrieg of press release and writers at major MSM outlets lined up beforehand is beyond the pale. While I agree with Dr. Muller’s contention that circulating papers among colleagues for wider peer review is an excellent idea, what they did with the planned and coordinated (and make no mistake it was coordinated for March 20th, Liz Muller told me this herself) is not only self-serving grandiosity, but quite risky if peer review comes up with a different answer.
    The rush to judgment they fomented before science had a chance to speak is worse than anything I’ve ever seen, and from my early dealings with them, I can say that I had no idea they would do this, otherwise I would not have embraced them so openly. A lie of omission is still a lie, and I feel that I was not given the true intentions of the BEST group when I met with them.

    That’s some claim. Four papers that have not been peer-reviewed yet, and they KNOW they’ll pass peer review and will be in the next IPCC report? Is it just me or does that sound rigged? Or, is it just the product of an overactive ego on the part of the BEST group?

    Now do you begin to understand? Look above, their website, they call it greenGov, sounds like a mixture of green and government to me, sound like skeptics to you? They want to “help” you avoid “climate change” (their words) to avoid “carbon dioxide” (their words), sound like skeptics? They want to help you with “clean energy” and to be “sustainable”, (their words”, sound like skeptics? They have a prior agreement to appear in the IPCC report (that’s sure what it sounds like), sound like skeptics to you?

    Sooo, why might they have a media blitz? It’s rather obvious, actually, Muller & Associates wants business, and the BEST project assures that they will get it. Having a media blitz, and actually being in the IPCC report, sets them up as “the experts”, you know, the ones to call if you need “help” (P.S., bring cash). Does it begin to make sense now?

    And they want you associated with them, you and Judith Curry, and as many other bigger name skeptics as they can get. That way they can say, “see, even the skeptics agree with us, we are that good”. That way, they can even get business with people who are somewhat skeptical, which is at least half of them now. Hey, double the business of all those other companies, who wouldn”t want that?

    You say that some people are going overboard (“There’s lots of hay being made by the usual romminesque flaming bloggers”), suspecting the BEST people of bad motives, then you come here and provide practically definitive proof that, yes, they are doing exactly that. Look at their own website, figure it out for yourself.

    Well, thats what it looks like to me, I would sure love to be proven wrong, but if this thing gets pal reviewed, and gets into the next IPCC report, that’s pretty much an open and shut case.

  33. Jeremy says:

    As soon as someone has their dataset for how they classified temp sensors in Southern California, let me know, I’ve got a couple good GPS units and a thomas guide. I’ll do what they were unwilling to do, photograph the sites they chose as “rural”. Based on that map in one of their papers, I’m nearly certain there’s some good candidates for questioning.

  34. jimmi_the_dalek says:

    Anthony, Did I say that I approved of the way the BEST papers were pre-published? No? Then do not make assumptions please.

    The simplest way to publish something is as a comment to the same journal. As soon as the papers officially appear, submit a criticism. You actually have an advantage – you have already seen these papers.

  35. Septic Matthew says:

    Anthony,

    I have a favor to ask: I have been following up on Willis Eschenbach’s work presented here:

    I am getting results that are unexpected. Could you please send him my email and ask if he would be willing to send me his data and R code. Alternatively, I could send him my data, SAS code, and results, but most likely I can read his R code better than he can read my SAS code. Actually, anything he would care to communicate to me I would be willing to read. I thought that he had put up his data and R code for that post, but in searching I have not found it.

    yours truly,

    Matthew R. Marler, PhD (statistics, Carnegie-Mellon University)

    most of my work has been in nonstationary behavioral and biological time series.

    REPLY: Done – Anthony

  36. u.k.(us) says:

    Ummm,
    Let’s not lose our focus here.
    Temperatures are not, in the U.S., (or as measured in the developing world, with their long and accurate data), rising at a rate exceeding natural variability.
    There are political and capitalistic forces looking to expand their reach, by exploiting any method to drive opinion.
    The thing they fear most, is the voter.

  37. juanslayton says:

    Mosher,
    I’d be happy to see that list of rural stations. Is it possible for someone to provide a list or a link to the list?

  38. juanslayton says:

    Jeremy: I’ll do what they were unwilling to do, photograph the sites they chose as “rural”.

    You’ll have to get in line….
    : < )

  39. Theo Goodwin says:

    “The rush to judgment they fomented before science had a chance to speak is worse than anything I’ve ever seen, and from my early dealings with them, I can say that I had no idea they would do this, otherwise I would not have embraced them so openly.”

    I think that last word, ‘openly’, is not what you want. I think you mean “innocently” or “fully.”

  40. Bernie McCune says:

    I realize that the discussion on this thread is very focused but I think that eventually we must finally look at these issues in a wider view. I did a presentation last year that looked at the land use of the earth and found some interesting land use information about forests-32%, pastures-26%, arable land-10.6%, urban areas-2.4% and other-29% (of which deserts make up the more than half of this “other” category).

    I’ve lifted the few slides from the Urban part of the presentation. It mostly shows that the definition of urban areas is still in flux and is often controversial. I wanted to see if we used a fairly liberal definition of an urban area what percent of the earth would be represented. I suspect that historical surface temperature measurement sites might be encompassed or very near these urban areas especially as these areas have been spreading out to surround the older sites. As controversial as definitions might be, I suspect that defining 1% of earth’s land area as urban is too low and does not represent the present reality.

    •Surface of the Earth is water 70.8% (361.132 million km2 ) and land 29.2% (148.94 million km2 )

    DISCUSSION OF URBAN ISSUES

    •Until recently most studies have used 1.5% of global land as urban (CIA Factbook included)

    •The definition of urban seems to wander between the use of population density (preferred), light pixels at night, and/or surface disruption characterizations

    •With the advent of more detailed satellite image analysis new values of land use seem to favor a higher value of perhaps 3%

    •Some reliable sources claim that 3% has been fudged too high and that 2.4% is probably closer to the correct number

    •2.4% = 3.575 million km2

    •There is some controversy on this point but I expect to see more effort and greater accuracy of this value in the next few years

    •In 2010 about half the world’s population lived in urban areas (3.5 billion) while about 3.4 billion lived in rural areas

    •I found a study that estimated that roads and parking lots covered between 1.5 to 2% of the world’s land surface

    •I am assuming that a significant portion of roads and parking lots are already included in the 2.4% value of urban land use

    CONCLUSION (Relating to the Urban part of the presentation)

    •Land use questions grew out of climate issues and questions about where surface temperatures were being measured (mostly in urban areas?)

    •Does surface temperature measurement (especially if it is mostly done in cities) tell us much about global climate?

    Bernie

  41. Theo Goodwin says:

    “They didn’t adequately deal with that 1% [Earth's urban regions] in my opinion, by doing a proper area weighting. And what percentage of weather stations were in that 1%?”

    On this question, Warmista have done nothing but duck, weave, and, if necessary, sit down on the mat. There is a crucial ambiguity in the claim that UHI does not contribute to average land temperature rise.

    One interpretation of the claim is that the heat generated by urban regions does not contribute to average land temperature rise. That claim is most likely true but is logically independent of the other interpretation.

    The other interpretation is the claim that UHI does not disproportionately affect the thermometers that are used to measure the temperatures that are raw data for calculations of average land temperature rise.

    That second claim about the impact of urban growth on thermometers has not been investigated except in Anthony’s work and the data for it stretches back only 30 years. That claim defies the highly educated and focused common sense of a multitude of sceptics who are residents of metropolitan areas.

    For example, the claim that thermometers in the Atlanta area have not been overwhelmed by UHI is preposterous. Thermometers in Douglas, Paulding, Cobb, Forsyth, and Gwinnett counties were all rural 30 years ago but are all urban now. All those counties are north or west of Fulton and Dekalb counties which made up the Atlanta metropolitan area in 1968. In addition, the claim that encroaching urban areas cause a one-time jump in the record of each thermometer is preposterous. The growth of urban areas is incremental and continues for decades. Cobb County has warmed incrementally from urbanization since I first moved there in 1968.

    In summary, the claim that the percentage of weather stations found in urban areas has grown greatly in the last 30 years and caused there to be a disproportionate number of all weather stations in urban areas has not been investigated. The only evidence relevant to the claim is the evidence that Anthony has collected over the last 30 years. BEST simply blew off the question entirely.

  42. barry says:

    Anthony, you state that the GAO agreed with your conclusions that “The U.S. temperature record is unreliable.” But GAO did not assess that.

    This is from the conclusions in the GAO report.

    NOAA also stated that it understood that, given the scope of our review, we did not assess the effect of stations not meeting siting standards on the reliability of the agency’s analysis of temperature trends. Nevertheless, NOAA added that it was important for our findings to include a discussion of the published peer-reviewed studies that have explicitly examined the USHCN’s data quality and its effects on the reliability of NOAA’s temperature trend data. We did not include such a discussion in our report because this issue was outside the scope of our work.

    It is unscientific to assume NOAA has failed to winnow a reliable temperature record from problematic data. This is where quantitative analysis must be done, not qualitative. You also cite NOAA’s own 2002 directive on the USCRN. Here again, this points to shortcomings with the data and siting, but is not a ‘conclusion’ that NOAA’s temperature record, which tries to overcome problems with the data, is unreliable. The latest quantitative assessment shows that there is very close agreement between USHCN and USCRN. This is not proof positive that the temp record is reliable – although it does corroborate – but certainly there is little evidence from proper quantitative analyses that the record is unreliable.

    It is important not to forgo accuracy in the heat of this debate. GAO does not support your conclusion on the (non)reliability of the US temp record. It does support your observations on siting issues. You were right in the other thread to say that your previous, non-peer reviewed conclusions were hasty. Don’t let your enemies, real or imagined, encourage you to muddy objective analysis with politics.

    (I have offered the same advice to the ‘other side’, most recently at Deltoid. If this game of tribes is to abate it will require discipline from all participants, whatever the extenuating circumstances)

  43. Jerry says:

    In my view, Richard Muller has lost all credibility. In fact, I’d go so far as to call him a vile hypocrite.

    To quote him,

    “Some people lump the properly sceptical in with the deniers and that makes it easy to dismiss them, because the deniers pay no attention to science. But there have been people out there who have raised legitimate issues.”

    Deniers pay no attention to science? Really? In this case, he has deliberately, consciously chosen to circumvent the scientific process, and yet he has the nerve to claim that a “denier” such as me ignores the science. Bunk. Well, if he has the audacity to label me a denier and claim that I ignore the science, I think I certainly ought to be able to label him a vile hypocrite. And, I’d like to point out, he did a lot more than ignore the science. He deliberately, knowingly, and very consciously circumvented the scientific process.

    My speculation is that he ignored the scientific process simply because he knows that he can get away with it. He knows the global warming true believers will never call him on it. He knows the news media certainly won’t call him on it. He knows that his university’s administration will never call him on it (and will very likely reward him, as this will no doubt bring in research money and good publicity). He knows that his fellow physics faculty will absolutely never call him on it. He knows that he’s been tenured a very long time, so the usual standards and rules don’t apply to him. (Just imagine what would happen to a younger, freshly-minted Ph.D. in his department, who deliberately circumvented peer review! His career would be over instantly.) He knows he’s privileged, and he’s using his status to deliberately destroy the scientific process.

    I used to respect this man, and I enjoyed his first book. No longer.

  44. steven mosher says:

    Juanslayton.

    I would like to see the list as well. The problem is we dont have the list of stations they counted as rural. While I have the Modis500 data I would need their complete list and the ones they counted as very rural to double check.

    There are NON TRIVIAL issues working with Modis data. Its very good data. In fact its the best at doing this work. However, there are two tricky issues

  45. Theo Goodwin says:

    “That’s some claim. Four papers that have not been peer-reviewed yet, and they KNOW they’ll pass peer review and will be in the next IPCC report? Is it just me or does that sound rigged? Or, is it just the product of an overactive ego on the part of the BEST group?”

    Yes, it is now incumbent upon BEST to ask that the names of their reviewers be revealed. BEST has given us reason to believe that they are receiving PAL review. They should be willing to go on record asking the editor to reveal the names.

  46. Theo Goodwin says:

    jimmi_the_dalek says:
    October 21, 2011 at 8:05 pm
    “Why on earth do you think that ‘peer review’ consists only of getting comments from the journal referees? It is a much wider process that continues after publication, and it is not confined to the initial referees’ comments.”

    You are making up your own meanings on the fly. Peer Review is managed by a journal editor to serve the purposes of the journal editor. The journal editor will usually accept the recommendations of his peer reviewers though he is not obligated to do so. Once the journal editor has decided that peer review is finished for a particular submission then it is. There is nothing else in the world of scientific journals that qualifies as “peer review.”

    Once an article has been published, the authors have received all professional benefits that can flow from that article. Most authors will not read published replies to an article unless it is written by someone who is prominent in the field. To talk of “peer review” after publication is silly romanticism.

  47. Dennis Dunton says:

    I really hate to say this….but given your experience with NOAA were you not…..never mind. “First time…shame on you….second time ….shame on me.

    Third time will be the previously mentioned association with Kevin Trenberth which, unless I’m mistaken, will yield you nothing but more heartache.

    REPLY: It has been cancelled, see the thread on it – Anthony

  48. Nick Stokes says:
    October 21, 2011 at 5:23 pm
    Are the reviews of Fall et al 2011 open?
    REPLY: I have no objection. You are welcome to go ask the editor, Joost Degouw at JGR, who is also handling the BEST reviews.I’d like to know myself who reviewed Fall et al. I’ve suspected somebody at NCDC was involved, so I’m glad you want to find out. Go for it Nick!. – Anthony

    Not only should the names be public, but the text of the review as well, and that text you do have, so in the name of transparency, publish it here. I do not buy the lame argument that the text is the property of the reviewers and cannot be published without their consent.

  49. steven mosher says:

    barry, good advice.

  50. barry says:

    I nominate Steve McIntyre and William M. Briggs as peer reviewers.

    Steve Mosher and Nick Stokes.

  51. pat says:

    Muller may be [snip] Crazed with fulfilling his political agenda without any weather facts whatsoever. That is my opinion.

  52. Glenn Tamblyn says:

    This post from Jay Currie earlier sums up so much about the total lack of understanding about the temperature record and how it is calculated.
    ‘Imagine 5 “very rural” stations with average temps of +1,0,0,-1,1 for an average temp of 1/5=.2
    Now consider 5 “not rural” stations with average temps of +2,+1,+3,0,-1 for an average 5/5=1.0
    Quite a difference.
    However that difference is reduced if you calculate the average of the “Not rural” plus the “very rural” which would be 6/10=.6′

    Jay tries to present an example of what the impact of rural vs non-rural temps is based on AVERAGING their temperatures. In this he is reflecting a profund misunderstanding about how the temperature record is calculated. And this has an important bearing on the surfacestations.org results, the ‘march of the thermometers’ argument etc.

    Simple take-home-message.
    The temperature record IS NOT CALCULATED BY AVERAGING TEMPERATURES!!! That would be a mathematical nonsense!

    If you want to understand why, you could read the following series of posts I published at SkS earlier this year.’Of Averages and Anomalies – Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change’, http://www.skepticalscience.com/OfAveragesAndAnomalies_pt_1A.html

    If you are reluctant to read them, ask yourself this question. Do I understand the implicartions of the difference between averaging temperatures and averaging temperature anomalies? Do you really know the difference between the two? If you don’t, how can you be certain that all this kerfuffle isn’t a storm in a thimble.

    An earlier poster commented that they were going to look at some stations in California. Someone else suggested there would be a queue. Simple question. Why? Do you think that looking at a few stations provides any relevent information.

    I repeat my point. Do you think that the temperature record is calculated by averaging temperatures so if a station is warmer for some local reason that biases the average? If so you are wrong! Not because a falsely warm station wouldn’t bias a calculation based on averages of temperatures. Of course it would. But the temp records ARE NOT CALCULATED BY AVERAGING TEMPERATURES. Precisely because averaging temperatures would be a mathematically ‘fragile’ approach – just plain Dumb, NOBODY DOES IT THAT WAY. NOBODY. Not, GISS, Not NOAA, Not HadCRU, Not JMA or the Dutch of the Australian BoM or anyone else. Averaging temperatures is mathematical nonsense!! So nobody does that.

    If you don’t understand why averaging temperatures is a SERIOUSLY dumb way of calculating a temperature record, perhaps doing some research before you comment might be a worthwhile activity.

  53. EFS_Junior says:

    So now we’re back on the Conspiracy Train?

    That didn’t take too long, now did it?

  54. Matt says:

    There is an article mentioning you here

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/21/berkeley_earth_surface_temperature_study/

    and this is what Muller has for your peer review / pre-print criticism:

    ‘When contacted by The Reg, Muller responded in an email that he believes scientific papers should be widely circulated in “preprint” form before their publication. “It has been traditional throughout most of my career to distribute preprints around the world,” he writes. “In fact, most universities and laboratories had ‘preprint libraries’ where you could frequently find colleagues.”

    This preprint system, he told us, is being stifled by major journals. “This traditional peer-review system worked much better than the current Science/Nature system, which in my mind restricts the peer review to 2 or 3 anonymous people who often give a cursory look at the paper.” ‘

  55. KnR says:

    The deals done , come up with the ‘right results ‘ and peer review and IPCC acceptance are in the bag and they get the full resources of the ‘Team’ and friends to support them.

    AGW has long been a dirty game which has more to do with PR than science , BEST has merely joined in under the rules of the game.

  56. Martin Brumby says:

    Anthony, I greatly admire your transparently honest and gentlemanly approach to this. Many other commenters are also trying to engage with the “scientific” basis of BEST’s 4 reports.

    Not being so “gentlemanly”, I suggest that all you need to know is:-
    (1) BEST got $623,097 funding for this.
    (2) 20 October (before Durban) was scheduled for a media storm “demonstrating” that the “deniers” had been decisively trounced and cAGW was “confirmed”.
    (3) Muller used “tarbaby” tactics to try to cover you and other sceptics with the tar of the media storm.
    (4) They have a pre-ordained slot reserved in the IPCC’s AR5 and no doubt the commentary there has already been sketched out by Schmidt, Trenberth, Santer, Jones & Mann.

    Personally, I have no doubt that all this was written into the Contract with Muller before he started work.

    The reports he produced were produced purely to fulfil the agenda set out above.
    If (as seems improbable) Muller ever had any integrity, he sold it for a mess of pottage.

    But, if the “Team” seriously believes that this will solve anything, then they are being very naive indeed. Sooner or later the truth will out.

  57. JohnM says:

    “The thing they fear most, is the voter”

    Not in the UK, where we are ruled by the EU, the decisions of which are made by unelected persons while the elected persons board the gravy train.

  58. Adam Gallon says:

    “Four papers that have not been peer-reviewed yet, and they KNOW they’ll pass peer review and will be in the next IPCC report?”
    Wahl & Amman managed it!

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

  59. Paul says:

    Anthony I do think you are over reacting to BEST, but that aside, for me the real story of BEST is the reasons behind the need for BEST. Muller is on record as saying he had lost faith in GISS temp & CRU because of the behaviour of Jones, & Hansen. Muller said he couldn’t trust their ‘science’ any more and because of this BEST was necessary. I posted a comment to this effect on Richard Black’s column in the BBC but it was deleted. I deliberately didn’t include names of people & data sets in the post, but still they deleted it anyway…

    I was also thought it was perverse that the BBC used a picture of the hockey stick to promote the Black’s story. Again the hockey stick was something that Muller said offended him.

  60. Lord Beaverbrook says:

    Anthony, I for one would like to thank you for your effort and time not principally for the surface stations but for this blog.
    You may not sense it yet but the effect of this site opening up the discussion of climate change for scientists and non-scientists alike has been instrumental in getting to this point.

    The discussion being open is why the blog achieves awards and has such a high hit rate.

    If the peer review process finds anything different from this open discussion then the reviewers will not have contributed to the open discussion and the next question would be why did they not participate or if they did then why do their views differ from the views of the open consensus?

    The movement towards open scientific discussion has to continue in this, it’s revolutionary, again thank you.

  61. Ivor Ward says:

    It would appear to me that this, so called, new interpretation of the already mashed and mangled data is actually the first stage in the proof that CO2 is not the main driver of climate. I have heard from Dr Santer that CO2 is considered to be well mixed in the atmosphere yet Best is showing an enhanced hockey stick for the “Land only” component of global temperature, about 1 degree in 60 years.. As they themselves seem to infer that their next great PR exercise will be the release of the sea based air temperature record and they expect that to show much less warming, (to balance the figure with their mates it will have to be about 0.3 of a degree), does this not infer that a consistant mix of CO2 somehow increases temperature more rapidly over the land than the sea. Surely a more logical explanation of any land warming would be that induced by the increasing use of land for agriculture and building. Therefore whilst Man’s use of the land area may well be linked to a small amount of temperature change it is not the CO2 that causes it but the change in Albedo.
    My second thought is the use of the word “Island” in UHI. This seems to infer that the land area is in a constant state of still air when in fact the movement of warmed air over rural and Urban areas is constant and sometimes dramatic especially in the corn belt and central tornado corridor.
    My third thought is that they are using a set of thermometers put in place at the end of runways to check whether the wings need de-icing, and sea temperatures taken by ships designed to assist Chief Officers in their assessement of the relative humidity in the ships holds not to interpolate to the “Nth” degree for political reasons.

    I have other thoughts but the cat is walking across my computer key board and needs feeding.

  62. NotTheAussiePhilM says:

    I’ve seen a couple lectures by Muller on YouTube
    – he seems to have a sensible approach to Global Warming

    I think the reason that he lumps ‘deniers’ as ‘unscientific’ is that you have to ignore all the scientific data to ‘deny’ Global Warming – even WUWT concedes that there has been Global Warming over the last century.

    A skeptical position is reasonable, there are many reasons to be skeptical about the political bandwagon and gravy-trains that surrounds the issue.

    That’s why people like Muller are worth listening to, as they try to point out where the science is, and also where the reality of CO2 output is (i.e. CO2 output of the developing world is the real problem)

    Anyway, worth a watch:

    Also, several important points about the BEST work:
    1) Even though the raw data they use is largely the same as others have used, they have returned to the original data as much as possible, rather than using ‘adjusted’ data (which has always been one of the complaints about the other data sets)
    2) Their methods allow much more of the data to be used, including incomplete sequences.
    3) They publish both their data & their programs freely for others to see & use. (No more need for FOI requests!)

  63. P. Solar says:

    From the screen shot of their text:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/best_uhi_capture.png?w=640&h=174

    “The UHI effect is locally large and real …”

    Hang on , I thought they came to the rather surprising conclusion it was negative.

  64. Dayday says:

    So the delinquent teenager is growing up quickly and is now finding new and more sophisticated ways of getting its own way. In the past the cabal that as been bullied into submission, no longer provides the legitimacy it needs so a new ally is sought. Step forward leading sceptics who get a few promises that this time things will be done properly get involved with the delinquents friends. On the platform of open and transparent conduct these friends decide to confirm the answer to a question no one disputes and gets rewarded with access to the teenager’s exclusive club where fortunes are to be made. The delinquent teenager smiles to itself in the mirror realising that no matter what it does it will always get its own way.

  65. Rhys Jaggar says:

    My Tamblyn

    Having read your highly informative discussions at the weblink in your post, would you indicate to the readers here if any analysis of ‘average of anomalies’ takes place AFTER discontinuities of anomalies in any individual station records have been taken into consideration.

    If one assumes that there are only three reasons for such discontinuties:
    1. Change in weather station siting or instrumentation.
    2. Change in environment surrounding weather station site.
    3. Rapid climatic change (such as 1977 PDO shift in oceanic temperatures near Alaska)

    you will presumably be able to stress test your temperature graphs based on eliminating the effects of such discontinuties through simple subtraction or readdition of the size of the discontinuity from all subsequent records?

    It would again be a major point of bringing concordance to the discussion by eliminating a valid concern, not through saying that the adjustments are valid or not, but highlighting what the effect of such adjustments would be were there incorporated.

    The conclusion that would be drawn would either be that it has little if any effect; it has a significant effect in explaining away the increase in the ‘global temperature index'; it eliminates the current effect; or it amplifes the current effect by in fact highlghting a bias toward changes which led to colder temperature records being erroneously recorded.

    I have no clue what the outcome would be, but it is clearly in the interests of all public officials to know the outcome fo that stress test.

  66. A. C. Osborn says:

    I find this statement a bit odd “Apparently I’m not allowed to point out errors”, I am sure that lots of people will be doing exactly that, in fact I posted a link to someone who has already done so on the first thread. At least they think it is an error?

  67. Solomon Green says:

    Sun Spot says:

    “Why does the “Decadel land-surface average temperature” graph stop at 2005 ??
    This is almost 2012 why have they dropped 7 years of data ???”
    Worried me too until I guessed that they have used the midpoint of the ten year average. This gets rid of the (awkward for them) 1998 max.
    Presumably if temparatures really do decline over the next deacde they can use a twenty year average ro “hide the decline”.

  68. Keith Battye says:

    You can’t call for changes in the review process just because this is a very important topic to us. The process works quite well and any “howlers” in these new papers will be exposed. It isn’t right that there should be a subjective sliding scale of review because as we all say “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”.

    Our cause is just and it doesn’t need special pleading.

  69. maz2 says:

    “Serious claims belong in a serious scientific paper”

    “If you have a serious new claim to make, it should go through scientific publication and peer review before you present it to the media”

    [...]

    “And it is this second stage of review by your peers – after publication – that is so important in science. If there are flaws in your case, responses can be written, as letters, or even whole new papers. If there is merit in your work, then new ideas and research will be triggered. That is the real process of science.

    If a scientist sidesteps their scientific peers, and chooses to take an apparently changeable, frightening and technical scientific case directly to the public, then that is a deliberate decision, and one that can’t realistically go unnoticed. The lay public might find your case superficially appealing, but they may not be fully able to judge the merits of all your technical evidence.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/21/bad-science-publishing-claims

    “Ben Goldacre”

    “This week Baroness Susan Greenfield, professor of pharmacology at Oxford reportedly announced that computer games could cause dementia in children. This would be very concerning scientific information. But this comes from the opening of a new wing of an expensive boarding school, not an academic conference. Then a spokesperson told a gaming site that’s not what she means. Though they didn’t say what she does mean.

    Two months ago the same professor linked internet use with rising autism diagnoses (not for the first time), then pulled back when autism charities and an Oxford professor of psychology raised concerns. Similar claims go back a long way. They seem changeable, but serious.

    It’s with some trepidation that anyone writes about Professor Greenfield’s claims. When I raised concerns, she said I was like the epidemiologists who denied that smoking caused cancer. Other critics find themselves derided as sexist. When Professor Dorothy Bishop raised concerns, Professor Greenfield responded: “It’s not really for Dorothy to comment on how I run my career.”

  70. Ivor Ward says:

    My next thought was that if one third of the temperatures are cooling and the other two thirds are warming over only 25% of the planet surface surely the word “Global” is not in any sense of the word applicable. So why do we continue to be bombarded with this fallacious statement when everyone already knows and agrees that there are areas of increasing temperatures and areas of decreasing temperatures. Rising sea levels and falling sea levels, accumulating sea ice and receding sea ice. No one has yet to my knowledge demonstated that any supposed warming is any more than the noise in the signal. Statistical hoop jumping does not improve the historical record. When there is 60 or 90 years of satelite data you can dig up my corpse and etch “you were wrong” on to my bleached bones. Until such time as that I will continue to see projects such as Best as the interpretation of garbage using flawed computer models and confirmation bias for political purposes.
    Why do I always misread the word “Our Finding” as “Our Funding” in all these PR exercises? Is it that the two words are so inextricably linked that the first cannot be written without an eye to the second.

  71. moptop says:

    I don’t know about you guys, but I think that their averaging approach is a huge advance over what was done in the past.

    They are quite open about the fact that this is still early days in the analysis, in the paper. I didn’t read the press release. This is such an improvement over gridding by dividing the lat and longitude by 5. The temperature adjustments don’t seem outrageous to me.

    What is interesting is the graph that Anthony didn’t show. Where they took the GHCN data, not Hansen’s or Jones’s and ran it back to 1800. They divided it into five subsets and graphed them, so the results are somewhat robust, and it shows that 1800 was approximately the same temp as today.

  72. DC says:

    Anthony,

    When you wrote

    I’m prepared to accept whatever result they [the BEST group] produce, even if it proves my premise wrong,

    which premise did you mean? It’s being quoted in a number of places, e.g., here with a presumption that it’s quite clear what ‘my premise’ refers to, but I can’t be sure from the blog post.

  73. Kari Lantto says:

    Why not go all the way and run |rurality” as a factor in the regression. And test for trend!

  74. JohnWho says:

    NotTheAussiePhilM says:
    October 22, 2011 at 3:24 am
    I’ve seen a couple lectures by Muller on YouTube
    – he seems to have a sensible approach to Global Warming

    I think the reason that he lumps ‘deniers’ as ‘unscientific’ is that you have to ignore all the scientific data to ‘deny’ Global Warming – even WUWT concedes that there has been Global Warming over the last century.

    Show us one of these “deniers” of global warming. Sure, you’ll find some who will show that it hasn’t warmed in the last 10 years or so, but they will also state that we have been warming since the end of the LIA.

    Muller using the “denier” label is more of a hateful, mean-spirited usage than anything else, especially when he allows the listener/reader to think that most of the “skeptics” are these “deniers”. Muller loses a lot of respect and acceptance within the skeptic position by his words and now his BEST actions.

    That you, or anyone, accepts this and would excuse it shows how effective he and other users of “denier” are.

  75. Paul Coppin says:

    Tainted Jury Science. The media eventing is deliberate and intentional. Peer review will now be irrelevant as it was intended to be, and the process is indicative of contempt for the peer review process (not that that’s necessarily a bad thing). The paper(s) will not be read, or more importantly, understood, by the very vast majority of those who will receive the [press] “news”. There is nothing about science in this – its simply about gaming the system. If the science publishing world had any integrity, the press gaming before review would disqualify the paper from publication in any journal for anyreason. But then, its never really about the science. McLuhan would be proud.

  76. Ian H says:

    There are two levels here. Firstly there is the papers. Then there is the PR campaign. The problems in the papers are of less concern to me. I trust that these will be addressed and dealt with by the scientific process … eventually. The real problem as I see it is the PR blitz which is purely propaganda. I find the massive straw man arguments particularly offensive.

    Efforts to address issues with the papers themselves really do nothing to address the PR campaign. The propagandists that wrote this drivel obviously don’t care what the papers say since they massively misquote and misrepresent it. I suspect they really couldn’t care less if the papers are revised. The papers are not being reported on, they are merely being used as an excuse for mounting an independent propaganda blitz.

    The PR blitz needs a direct response in my opinion.

  77. John says:

    It isn’t just that the project states that human contributions may be somewhat overstated. Look at the numbers on page 12, 2nd to last paragraph before Acknowledgments. There is a feature that won’t let me copy and paste, and you want to read the whole paragraph, but the last words are, “In that case, the human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated,” as stated above.

    These words come right after showing that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which they previously showed to be tightly correlated with temperature changes up or down, rose sharply since 1975 by 0.55 degrees, while global temps as they calculate them rose by 0.8 degrees. That would mean by simple subtraction that in the last 35 years, temperature forcings other than the AMO (e.g., CO2, methane, ozone, black carbon, deforestation, and reduced sulfate) caused temps to increase by 0.25 degrees, in 35 years. That is a rate of less than a degree per century. Back of the envelope, yes, but very encouraging. I’m sure Richard Lindzen will be quite happy.

    The link to the study:

    http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Decadal_Variations

  78. Tom in Florida says:

    The reason for the media blitz on Oct 20 is right here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/california-commits-business-suicide/

  79. Elmer says:

    Is there a graph somewhere that separates the Urban, Rural and Very-Rural stations? Because isn’t it the very-rural areas which we are concerned about? We measure the entire earth’s CO2 level from one station in Hawaii, maybe we can measure the entire earth’s temperature from one station in the south pole.

  80. Lars P. says:

    “And what percentage of weather stations were in that 1%?”
    Very valid question and it is the first the statisticians should have dealt with. It answers the question of how representative the sample of measurement is.
    Interesting to note that the discrepancies between HadCRU and Berkeley is bigger then the statistical uncertainty interval.
    Why is there no comparison to UAH? (for the period 79-now)? Would this not make sense?

  81. Max Hugoson says:

    Local weather Wonk, Paul Douglas…completely AWG bought off, “interprets” Meuller as a “skeptic who now believes”. (Amen Brothers and Sisters and Hallelulia! We have a convert…)

    Of course this is NOT the case at all. Meuller has never been a “skeptic” in the sense of the rising of temperatures…shall we say, since the early 1800’s.

    This is, again, the “control” issue of “controlling the language” and defining the debate “as WE tell you WE will..!” That’s why I’m happy that Anthony has made it clear that the arguement over whether the “climate is changing” (it is, always has been, always will), or the SURFACE TEMPERATURES ARE TRENDING UPWARD, (they maybe are…I have some doubts as to the significance of certain measures, I personally find the fact that the RURAL temps in the USA are pretty much DEAD LEVEL over the last 70 years of GOOD data…), or that the Arctic ice is diminishing (while the Antarctic is going up!)..is not an argument. The central question is the influence of CO2 on the atmospheric HEAT balance. (Again, the masses have a terrible time differentiating between “ENERGY” and “TEMPERATURE”, “HEAT” and “WARMING”!)

    I cannot help but think of a highway warning sign I saw recently: “TRAFFIC FROM THE LEFT DOES NOT STOP.” Yes, that is true.

  82. To Glenn Tamblyn !

    You are 100% coorect when you address issues on avering temperature data.

    Even well known sceptic jumps happily into this trap of “validating” GHCN temperature data and the like by averaging blindly exactly as they are supposed to do, and then afterward can be quotedd by even scepticalscience who says: “See, even sceptics approve of our temperature data”.
    Even sceptics are happily doing as they designed to do, and do so with great authority.

    Heres why it make more error in temperature data to average blindly (with “correct math”) perhaps than UHI and adjustment can cause:

    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti.php

    see ex1a,b,c … to ex4.

    And Glenn, im happy that im not the only sceptic thats aware of this essential problem. We are being fooled like complete [I snip this myself] by a wolf dressed like a math teacher :-) and end it up that we dont see tha banal overwhelming issues in temperature data.

    SELECTING temperature data and periods for these is MORE effective way to control the resulting temperature trend than adjusting. – and then its “clean”, you did not adjust…! just average so that warm trends occurs where there where none in the real world.

    K.R. Frank

  83. NotTheAussiePhilM says:

    JohnWho:

    He’s saying that out-and-out deniers are as bad a AGW-exaggerators (e.g Gore)
    – they don’t help the debate
    – as Monkton says, the actual debate is not whether there is Global Warming, or even if human burning of fossil fuels is a contributing factor,
    – the actual debate is how much warming we will get from a doubling of CO2
    – the uncertainty coming from the total contribution of the feedbacks

    Muller even states that if the cloud cover increases by 2% when the CO2 is doubled, this will nullify the effects of AGW…

    Here’s another video where Muller gives his thoughts on CO2 emissions

    To me, Muller seems to be a scientist who is not afraid to state his opinion, and not afraid to point out flaws in the science behind GW, or even point out flaws with the IPCC.

  84. otter17 says:

    “There’s lots of hay being made by the usual romminesque flaming bloggers, some news outlets and the like, over my disagreement with the way data was handled in one of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) papers, the only one I got to review before yesterday’s media blitz. ”

    Couldn’t all the disagreement with BEST and Dr. Muller have been kept private with them rather than posting on the WUWT blog? That would have attracted far less attention and wouldn’t have publicly detracted from Dr. Muller and the BEST team’s reputation as much. If the results changed following peer review, then one could write an op-ed or get a retraction from the Economist or other news outlets, etc. That would seem to be the quiet professional’s route, imo.

  85. EFS_Junior says:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/best-what-i-agree-with-and-what-i-disagree-with-plus-a-call-for-additional-transparency-to-preven-pal-review/#comment-774739

    Not so.

    The title of the paper is all you need to know that what you state is incorrect.

    “Decadal” means that they removed the long term trend and only looked at “Decadal Variations” in the residual time series.

    Meaning 2-15 year variations as they state in the last sentence of their abstract;

    “Variations in the flow of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation may be responsible for some of the 2‐15 year variability observed in global land temperatures.”

  86. peter stone says:

    I don’t get this.

    For the past two years, skeptics were claiming that the Climategate faux “scandal” and other alleged malfeaseances proved a conspiracy of scientists and faked or manipulated data to exaggerate, perhaps even fabricate, the warming trend of the last half century.

    Now that the Berkley team (which was in fact headed by scientists who were sympathetic to the claims of skeptics) have confirmed that the temperature reconstructions of NOAA, HadCrut and NASA are all credible and robust, skeptics are belatedly saying the knew all along that these warming trends and reconstructions were real and credible; that their “only” complaint is with regard to attribution.

    How can both of these contradictory positions be true at the same time?

  87. Steve Piet says:

    The mistake was in thinking that a U.C. Berkeley effort of this importance and this visibility would be politically neutral. Imagine what pressure BEST is getting from virtually everyone else at Berkeley to get “the right answer.” People respond logically to the incentive and feedback system they find themselves in. No external incentive or feedback will be enough to counter the one-sided pressure from within Berkeley.

  88. otter17 says:

    Steve Piet says:
    October 22, 2011 at 7:59 am

    “The mistake was in thinking that a U.C. Berkeley effort of this importance and this visibility would be politically neutral. Imagine what pressure BEST is getting from virtually everyone else at Berkeley to get “the right answer.””
    ____________________

    Well, if that is the case, then you can run their code when they put it on the website. As I understand it, all the work (and maybe the source code I heard) will be put on the website. Or, you could develop your own code, analyze the data, and then publish a peer-reviewed rebuttal to the BEST team’s results if they are biased to get the “right answer”.

  89. Slightly amending Legatus on the Keenan thread

    False Flag – Ally, Neutralize, and Destroy
    Ally “We are fellow skeptics like you! Watts’ concern is important!!”
    Neutralize “Our results show that Watts’ work, though a salutory check, is actually nothing to worry about!”
    Destroy “MEDIA MEDIA MEDIA!!! Even skeptics now see that warming has happened, records are trustworthy, and UHI is nothing to worry about!”

    Legatus says that these are standard Communist tactics, and that Berkeley is a Marxist bastion.

  90. otter17 says:

    peter stone says:
    October 22, 2011 at 7:53 am

    “How can both of these contradictory positions be true at the same time?”
    __________________________

    That brings up a good point. I guess the datasets themselves are vindicated from accusations of manipulation now?

  91. Smokey says:

    peter stone says:

    “I don’t get this.”

    Apparently you don’t. BEST is nothing but alarmist propaganda, intended to reinforce the current narrative.

    There is no skpetical scientist as co-chair of BEST, and the rest of the BEST propagandist team are all climate alarmists. So do you actually believe their story? And if so, why? With no spokesmen from the scientific skeptics’ camp, you are just being spoon-fed alarmist propaganda. Please tell us you’re smarter than that.

  92. Theo Goodwin says:

    peter stone says:
    October 22, 2011 at 7:53 am

    “Now that the Berkley team (which was in fact headed by scientists who were sympathetic to the claims of skeptics) have confirmed that the temperature reconstructions of NOAA, HadCrut and NASA are all credible and robust, skeptics are belatedly saying the knew all along that these warming trends and reconstructions were real and credible; that their “only” complaint is with regard to attribution.”

    I guess you missed my post above which ends with the following paragraph:

    In summary, the claim that the percentage of weather stations found in urban areas has grown greatly in the last 30 years and caused there to be a disproportionate number of all weather stations in urban areas has not been investigated. The only evidence relevant to the claim is the evidence that Anthony has collected over the last 30 years. BEST simply blew off the question entirely.

  93. otter17 says:

    Smokey says:
    October 22, 2011 at 8:11 am

    “BEST is nothing but alarmist propaganda, intended to reinforce the current narrative.”
    ____________________________

    Is there any evidence to show that their funding sources were aimed to put pressure on them or if there was any political pressure put on the group? Weren’t Dr. Muller and Dr. Curry anything but climate alarmists?

    Who on the team specifically are climate alarmists that would make them untrustworthy?

    http://www.berkeleyearth.org/aboutus.php

    If you don’t like their results, you can use the same base data and come up with your own code when the stuff is published.

  94. David L says:

    Goodness gracious… “the movement” is back in full swing. They only need to prove warming because everyone already believes that only human activity can cause warming.

  95. Theo Goodwin says:

    NotTheAussiePhilM says:
    October 22, 2011 at 7:31 am

    “To me, Muller seems to be a scientist who is not afraid to state his opinion, and not afraid to point out flaws in the science behind GW, or even point out flaws with the IPCC.”

    In the corporate world, people like Muller quickly earn the label: LCOD (loose cannon on deck). You can get away with that nonsense in academia where 39 is last year of adolescence. Some have speculated that Muller is behaving as he does to draw attention to his geo-engineering firm. Apparently, he is unaware that his behavior is the kiss of death for corporate types. Maybe he is angling for a Nobel Prize.

  96. Bill Illis says:

    It appears that BEST has posted their monthly Land Temperature data in a text file (which covers the full dataset at:

    http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis.php

    So, here is the Monthly Land Temperature chart and the 12 Month Moving Average going back to 1800 which you have not seen as yet. It is highly variable.

    Here is the 12 month Moving Average and the 5 year Moving Average.

    A couple of notes, the data ends in May, 2010. The moving averages were appropriately cut-off at the end of the chart (but not at the beginning which signals they were using data prior to 1800 to be able to maintain the moving averages in January 1800). April 2010 has an anomaly of -1.035C (which carries through the moving average values so is not a typo).

    The overall trend over the whole period is 0.059C per decade. Starting in 1976, it is 0.28C per decade. Starting in 2000, it is 0.176C per decade. Starting in 2005, it is down -0.68C per decade.

    [two of the three sites referenced are blocked. . . are you aware of this?]

  97. David Ball says:

    I am not clear as to why they are dismissing the UHI effect on the temperature record. This appears to be a relevant factor affecting the data. Perhaps someone can put it in terms we can all understand. Or are they just claiming it is irrelevant without explanation? It is quite clear to me that the surfacestations project is showing that the data is compromised at acquisition. This stinks to high heaven.

  98. Theo Goodwin says:

    Elmer says:
    October 22, 2011 at 6:55 am
    “Is there a graph somewhere that separates the Urban, Rural and Very-Rural stations? Because isn’t it the very-rural areas which we are concerned about? We measure the entire earth’s CO2 level from one station in Hawaii, maybe we can measure the entire earth’s temperature from one station in the south pole.”

    Very well said. In addition, there are two egregious errors in the Muller analysis. The first is that one can draw lines among the stations and label them Rural, Very Rural, and so on, as if the labels applied to static groups. Urban sprawl grows all the time and, for that reason, UHI effects must be treated as dynamic and local. They need to work with something like Rate of Change From Urban to Rural and similar rates.

    The second egregious error is their claim that UHI has a one-time effect on a weather station, bumping it up by a constant number. That is ridiculous and a typical example of Warmista loathing for experience. UHI comes incrementally and has its effects for decades.

  99. David Ball says:

    Lucy Skywalker says:
    October 22, 2011 at 8:09 am
    Great post, M’lady !!

  100. Anthony Watts says:

    @Bill Ills 8:22

    Bill Thanks.

    There’s a delicious error in assumption here on the part of BEST in using such old data, pre-1800, note none of the other metrics use such old data and there is a very very good reason. I’ll have a post on it later. – Anthony

  101. Bill Illis says:

    Bill Illis says:
    October 22, 2011 at 8:22 am
    ….
    [two of the three sites referenced are blocked. . . are you aware of this?]
    ————————-

    My charts are not making it through from imageshack? That is the point of the post.

    Anyone else not getting them.

  102. Exp says:

    [snip]

    Funny the comments that get through the moderation policy, isn’t it?

    And yet Anthony will use the excuse of a fake email address in order not to publish dissenting opinions.
    [Reply: Use a legitimate email address and there's no problem. Suggest you read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

    This post is all about back peddling, going back on your own words and being unable to admit you are utterly wrong. Add all that up and try to find a word to describe it and one quickly comes to mind: [snip].

    Best Science Blog? In the comedy category perhaps.

    REPLY: Well if you believe what you say, have the courage to stand behind your words by putting your name to it as I do, otherwise shut up. As for the offending comment, I didn’t see it as I don’t approve all comments. But it is removed now. Will you argue equally vociferously to have the post removed where I’m accused of raping farm animals for daring to ask for a correction in a libelous article, or does that sort of thing seem acceptable to you? – Anthony

  103. juanslayton says:

    Glen Tamblyn: Do you think that looking at a few stations provides any relevent information.
    Well, yes, as a matter of fact I do. On-site developments can swamp larger scale trends, from global all the way down to UHIs. Observed anomaly trends can come from any level; the immediate vicinity is surely relevant. Or perhaps you think that not looking provides some relevant information? : > )

  104. No Whining says:

    This might be picking at nits, but I question the extent to which bias is absent from the BEST group’s methods and results when they saw fit to put this sentence in the “Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process” paper:
    “As described in the preceding section, the existing global temperature analysis groups use
    a variety of well-motivated algorithms to generate a history of global temperature change.”
    Why include “well-motivated”?

  105. Anthony Watts says:

    @ Bill Illis 8:51 Whatever issue that poster has it is within his own PC/network or the paranoiaware installed on his PC, the links are fine – Anthony

  106. Richard B says:

    Why do the temperature anomalies look to be higher now than in the 1930s?

  107. Septic Matthew says:

    I don’t think you need to worry about “pal review”. The papers are being reviewed all over the world as we write. When the published versions appear, everyone who wants to will be able to see the differences between the submitted and published versions.

  108. kelly liddle says:

    UHI should be called thermal emissions as the use of the word island suggests that heat goes directly into space and there is no green house effect at all. These numbers if you use watts/m2 for certain countries are very significant in theory. I worked them out for some countries based on energy use creating 70% as thermal emissions for 2009 as follows USA 0.20 watts/m2 China 0.19watts/m2 France 0.38watts/m2 Germany 0.74watts/m2 United Kingdom 0.75watts/m2. Another point the graph shown above ends in 2006 and is 10 year moving average so as not to show relatively stable temperatures for the last 12 years or so.

  109. Theo Goodwin says:

    Matt says:
    October 22, 2011 at 1:01 am

    ‘and this is what Muller has for your peer review / pre-print criticism:

    ‘When contacted by The Reg, Muller responded in an email that he believes scientific papers should be widely circulated in “preprint” form before their publication. “It has been traditional throughout most of my career to distribute preprints around the world,” he writes. “In fact, most universities and laboratories had ‘preprint libraries’ where you could frequently find colleagues.”’

    Utter and total BS. Peer Review serves the journal editor and no one else. Authors are entirely welcome to circulate articles to colleagues apart from peer review. But leaking information about your work to the press when it is in peer review earns you the title Loose Cannon on Deck. Muller seems to have earned that title more than once.

  110. Theo Goodwin says:

    EFS_Junior says:
    October 22, 2011 at 12:43 am
    “So now we’re back on the Conspiracy Train? That didn’t take too long, now did it?”

    Judith Curry calls for disbanding the IPCC. Is she on the conspiracy train? You do not have to believe in a conspiracy to believe that a group of people are behaving as if they were conspirators. It is called GroupThink.

  111. peetee says:

    Anthony, accepting to your applied caveats, do you accept the BEST results? Would you be anymore accepting if a follow-up analysis limited itself to your preferred 30-year period? Equally, will you be as resolute in your criticisms of skeptic ‘revelations’ that get pumped up into the mainstream, sans peer-review?

  112. Bill Illis says:

    In case noone else is getting the charts, this is a different link to BEST monthly anomaly.

    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/36/berkeleymonthlylandanom.png/

    I’m also starting to wonder how NCDC, GISS and Crutemp can come up with such stable Land temperature data month-to-month when BEST, using 39,000 datapoints, has such high variability from month-to-month.

    BEST temperatures vary from Crutemp3 by +/- 0.5C and from the NOAA by +/- 0.4C on a consistent basis month to month. They also have a higher trend than either dataset.

    (It also looks like BEST has an error in their database for April, 2010 which should be +1.035C rather than -1.035C – it is such an outlier compared to the trend and to other datasets – that means all their moving averages have to recalculated as well).

  113. Elmer says:

    If the 1/3 of the stations that are showing cooling are all very-rural it could be argued that mankind is saving the planet by burning fossil fuels.

  114. Anthony Watts says:

    @ peetee, are you unable to read and comphrehend this post? All your questions about BEST acceptance and time periods are answered. You’re just looking for a money quote so you can post it elsewhere sorry chump, seen your kind too many times. Go fish.

    The issue with peer review is that they told me (when they asked for my data) that they’d be going through the standard peer review process, No mention of media blitzkrieg. If I knew they were going to do that, I would not have agreed to share my data.

    A lie of omission is still a lie.

  115. Theo Goodwin says:

    Elmer says:
    October 22, 2011 at 9:38 am
    “If the 1/3 of the stations that are showing cooling are all very-rural it could be argued that mankind is saving the planet by burning fossil fuels.”

    The supreme arrogance that isolates Warmista from all common experience also makes their language meaningless. For example, Warmista might claim that Rural stations show the most warming of all and, in addition, that fact shows that the effects of UHI are not important. What they do not tell you is that the Rural stations show the most warming because they are well into the process of becoming Urban stations. The same holds for Very-Rural stations that are in the process of becoming Rural stations. Their language is designed to defeat attempts to use empirical observations in criticism of their conclusions.

  116. Alan S. Blue says:

    The error bars on the reconstruction seem implausibly tight for an honest ‘instrumental’ approach instead of a ‘proxy’ approach.

    Saying that a thermometer in a field is representative of the true energy content of the meter of surface air across the entire gridcell is an assumption, and the stated error bars are ludicrous. It’s fine when you call it a proxy – “Hey, this is all we have.”

    But “instrumental” is claiming some skill at -actually- measuring the quantity of interest. And calculating and propagating errors from actual calibrations of instruments. These instruments are generally calibrated as -point-source-observers-. I have never yet seen one calibrated as a -gridcell- observer.

    Coming at this a different way:
    Pick a tiny gridcell that’s -far- smaller than those typical of these reconstructions: 10km x 10km. From where I sit, that would include a long windy ridgeline, a couple of hills, two streams and a large flat area near a lake. Even correcting for elevation differences, these locations do -not- have the same temperatures – a three-degree temperature difference exceeds the ‘0.1C’ error limit on the physical thermometers by more than an order of magnitude. “CRN1″ siting and instrumentation at these locations wouldn’t change that. The “microsite” issues and the (separate) UHI issue are -not- the same problem as converting a point measurement into an estimate for a distributed quantity.

  117. Theo Goodwin says:

    otter17 says:
    October 22, 2011 at 8:19 am

    “If you don’t like their results, you can use the same base data and come up with your own code when the stuff is published.”

    The claim that they are alarmists is not a claim about their (preliminary) results. It is a claim about their decisions to depart from the peer review process, violate Anthony’s trust, and go to the media with their non-peer-reviewed results. Muller is grandstanding. Any questions?

  118. Theo Goodwin says:

    Septic Matthew says:
    October 22, 2011 at 9:16 am
    “I don’t think you need to worry about “pal review”. The papers are being reviewed all over the world as we write. When the published versions appear, everyone who wants to will be able to see the differences between the submitted and published versions.”

    In the meantime, Muller and friends are happily spreading claims that might prove to be false in a matter of days when peer review is finished. They have succeeded in the media handsomely.

    You do not understand peer review. It serves journal editors and has no other function whatsoever. You are confusing peer review and the general discussion of new papers.

  119. Muller himself seems to accept that the surface temperature record as a whole is suspect when he says “it is nonetheless possible to find long time series with both positive and negative trends from all portions of the United States.”

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/kansas-temperature-trend-updatemuller-confirms-there-is-a-problem/

  120. unbound says:

    “The Earth is warmer than it was 100-150 years ago. But that was never in contention – it is a straw man argument. The magnitude and causes are what skeptics question.”

    Yes. Yes, it was…including by you. Stop trying to whitewash history, and you might start getting some of the respect you think you’ve earned.

  121. al says:

    UC Berkeley got a 500 million dollar grant for green energy from British Petroleum. BP is owned by the English Crown/Rothschilds banking consortium. The Koch brothers got ‘outbid’.

    UC berkeley most of their research money comes from the Government and UC Berkeley is once again out pushing their massively flawed nuclear reactor technology to the world among other scams they have going funded for by the taxpayers.

    http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/02/01_ebi.shtml

    it is estimated the carbon trading market is worth 2 trillion a year it they can make it ‘stick’- CO2 taxes- with falsified, bad science.

    Prince Charles, Sir Albert Gore, Barron rothschild, etc are the principals in setting the trading exchange up for Carbon to be based out of london and have hedge funds to invest in green energy as well. prince charles is sort of the behind the scenes mover on ‘green’ energy. ( and we all see how ‘green’ fukushima is) and al gore is the notorious ‘science’ front man even though he was a liberal arts major and a C law school student/graduate.

    englands north sea is in decline and all of england is financed based or service based around finance. the english invented the CDS what is currently being used to collapse/manipulate global markets and that market is coming under strict regulation in the USA and Europe.

    this global warming/carbon tax is their ‘next’ act in England. And not only that if they can levy Carbon trading and carbon taxes globally many of Al Gore (prince Charles 12 th cousin) and Rothschiilds ‘green’ energy firms will benefit as well.

    After Gore let his literal cousin, W. Bush, who is on the record admitting he is a relative of Prince Charles as well, like Al Gore, take the election in 2000, and some say the Bush family bribed the supreme court to do so. Al Gore was put on the BOD of directors of Kleiner perkins, the big Silicon Valley , by the City of London, as ‘compensation’ and got 1 dollar series A google stock which made him a billionaire and front man for the anthropogenic global warming hoax.

    All of this centers around an ethos the English Royals postulated by Disraeli that the English Elites should oppress the middle class with heavy taxes and send that money down to lower classes and use that to eliminate competitors coming out of the middle class to challenge the english elites.

    it is one of the greatest hoaxes of the world by the English royals that their empire has been disbanded. the PM of England must kneel and swear and oath of loyalty to the English crown and kiss the Crowns rings to take power. The English queen can dissolve parliament in New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and the UK at any time. The PM of the UK and Finance minister must met weekly with the English crown’s privy council (bankers and house of lord types) to advise them and receive advise.

    the USA was ‘recaptured’ by traitorous elite families with ties to the English crown like the Al Gore and Bush family by the Creation of the Federal Reserve Bank -See Dr. Murray Rothbards book, ‘the case against the Fed’ and his history of banking it the USA. The Fed is privately owned and its owners are all part of the City of London, ‘Royal’ banking cartel.

    no one disputes that by virtue of Obama’s father being an English Citizen at the time of Obama’s birth he is dual English-USA citizen. Obama must know who has the ‘power’ as his first meeting was not to Canada as is tradition for American presidents but to England for private meetings with Prince Charles, and his banking pals.

    Queen Elizabeth is retired even though she has not told her people and prince Charles is heading the English monarchy day to day and his father was head of the WWF, a highly political outfit for stealing indigenous land rights. It looks like the Queen and Prince Phillip have an early onset of Alzheimers as their memory is shot. The Queen has announced she is on her last world tour. English Commonwealth countries control the majority of the votes at the UN.

    This anthropogenic global warming hoax like the peak oil theory hoax and has ties right to MI6 and the English crown.

    The English empire is still growing they just took ‘libya’ back again. Al Quaddafi was put in power by the English, is a graduate of their military schools and was partnered with Prince Andrew and Nate Rothschilds and Tony Baliar, and when he stopped cooperating with the Crowns NWO agenda in Libya the English crown lead the effort to war to remove him. The English created the modern nation of Libya and they have always been in ‘charge’ and in business with its various leaders since all that oil was discovered there.

    I used to work as a petroleum engineer for a large multinational that is where you sort of pick up how the world really works. I’ve always favored, LNG, clean coal, and solar over oil , and oil by far to nuclear power. I studied nuclear engineering at UC and thought it was a ‘scam’ to advance the nuclear power goals of the military. there is no way a nuclear power plant can be called ‘clean’ energy and no way any of the designs can be really fail safe or fool proof.

    when i was last in the oil industry these same people in london were trying to blame ‘global’ cooling for the worlds ills. it seems every generation they change the story and no one remembers what lies London told the last generation. i do.

  122. otter17 says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    October 22, 2011 at 9:55 am

    “The claim that they are alarmists is not a claim about their (preliminary) results. It is a claim about their decisions to depart from the peer review process, violate Anthony’s trust, and go to the media with their non-peer-reviewed results. Muller is grandstanding. Any questions?”

    Still, if BEST can be proven wrong after the publication of their method/code or whatever, that would make Muller look all the more incorrect. Now, not to say that this pre-release is kosher in the climate science realm, but if Dr. Muller is used to doing it in the physics realm, why demonize him as an alarmist? He may have made an honest mistake doing what he is used to doing for his physics results/publications.

  123. Septic Matthew says:

    Theo Goodwin:You do not understand peer review. It serves journal editors and has no other function whatsoever. You are confusing peer review and the general discussion of new papers.

    Let me try again: When the published versions appear, everyone who wants to will be able to see the differences between the submitted and published versions.

  124. peter stone says:

    Here’s another reason I can’t buy the belated assertion the skeptics “knew all along” the temperature reconstructions were robust, and credible. And that they merely have problems with attribution.

    This belated assertion is contradicted by what has been said routinely – and recently – on skeptics blogs.

    AW himself said this in March on his own blog. He stated he didn’t know if the Berkley results would show warming or cooling. This clearly suggests uncertainty about the trend of global surface temperature. And he implied the NOAA and GISS temperture records were all mucked up….”madness” was his word. How, therefore, can it be true that skeptics “knew all along” that the temperature records were credible and robust- as now confirmed by a prominent Berkley team that was sympathetic to skeptics; indeed had their support?
    **********************************************************************************************************************

    AW on the Berkley Project: “But here’s the thing: I have no certainty nor expectations in the results. Like them, I have no idea whether it will show more warming, about the same, no change, or cooling in the land surface temperature record they are analyzing….. However, I can say that having examined the method, on the surface it seems to be a novel approach that handles many of the issues that have been raised.”

    “And, I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. ….. I haven’t seen the global result, nobody has, not even the home team, but the method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU, and, there aren’t any monetary strings attached to the result that I can tell.”

  125. William says:

    If any of those advocating extreme dangerous warming would like to discuss the paleoclimatic record and current observations rather than name calling I am more than willing.

    I would be curious, “What is the scientific case that the judges will be asked to decide on?”
    Milankovitch’s theory does not explain the paleoclimatic record. The paleoclimatic record shows evidence of a massive serial pseudo cyclic forcing function. It is this unknown mechanism that drives the glacial/interglacial cycle.

    With Milankovitch’s mechanism and assumed positive amplification planetary temperature should cyclically track insolation at the critical 60 degree North. That is not observed. Interglacials periods end abruptly not gradually. There are at least six fundamental observations that cannot be explained by Milankovitch’s theory.

    Detailed analysis of top of atmosphere radiation balance in response to ocean temperature changes shows the planet’s feedback response to a change in forcing is negative not positive. The planet resists temperature changes rather than amplifies them. The glacial/interglacial cycle is caused by what causes the abrupt climate change events in the paleoclimatic record.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

    1) 100,000-year problem

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100,000-year_problem

    2) 400,000-year problem
    3) Stage 5 problem
    4) Effect exceeds cause
    5) The transition problem
    6) Identifying dominant factor

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/sample_articles/cr/2002PA000791/2002PA000791.pdf

    http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

    According to the marine records, the Eemian interglacial ended with a rapid cooling event about 110,000 years ago (e.g., Imbrie et al., 1984; Martinson et al., 1987), which also shows up in ice cores and pollen records from across Eurasia. From a relatively high resolution core in the North Atlantic. Adkins et al. (1997) suggested that the final cooling event took less than 400 years, and it might have been much more rapid.

    The event at 8200 ka is the most striking sudden cooling event during the Holocene, giving widespread cool, dry conditions lasting perhaps 200 years before a rapid return to climates warmer and generally moister than the present. This event is clearly detectable in the Greenland ice cores, where the cooling seems to have been about half-way as severe as the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene difference (Alley et al., 1997; Mayewski et al., 1997). No detailed assessment of the speed of change involved seems to have been made within the literature (though it should be possible to make such assessments from the ice core record), but the short duration of these events at least suggests changes that took only a few decades or less to occur.

  126. petermue says:

    I have a serious question and maybe someone could help me.

    If BEST claims 1/3 of the stations show cooling and 2/3 warming, have they included the mass elimination of sites by 2/3, like Ross McKitrick shows here?

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html

    In original from GISS here (Fig. 2 at the top)

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

    I’m just wondering about the “1/3″ and “2/3″ coincidence.

  127. Mark says:

    Dr. Muller’s job was to provide the results for which Charles and David Koch so well paid him.
    Dr. Muller’s job was NOT – I repeat NOT – to think for himself.
    Until we Americans learn to follow our job creators without question, we will never truly be a free nation.
    Global warming does not exist. Climate change does not exist. Only government impedes right and just firms from acquiring the rich amounts of oil and natural gas that lie inches beneath the ground all over the United States.

  128. Werner Brozek says:

    “peter stone says:
    October 22, 2011 at 7:53 am

    I don’t get this.

    How can both of these contradictory positions be true at the same time?”

    The beliefs of people that do not believe in CAGW vary. However I do not see any contradiction to believe we are warming due to natural causes since we are coming out of the LIA while at the same time disagreeing with the huge effect man-made CO2 allegedly has.

    “For the past two years, skeptics were claiming that the Climategate faux “scandal” and other alleged malfeasences proved a conspiracy of scientists and faked or manipulated data to exaggerate, perhaps even fabricate, the warming trend of the last half century.”

    This does not necessarily reflect on BEST or HADCRUT, but may be a reflection of the hockey stick that did away with the MWP thereby exaggerating the “warming trend of the last half century” relative to 1000 AD.

  129. peter stone says:

    Otter17: That brings up a good point. I guess the datasets themselves are vindicated from accusations of manipulation now?
    **********************************************************************************************************
    I would say so. If the Berkeley project confirms and replicates that the HadCrut, NASA and NOAA temperature reconstruction are scientifically credible, then I presume the AEU scientists, Phil Jones, and Michael Mann are owed apologies. Their temperature reconstructions are consistent with the reconstruction the Berkley team did. And the Berkley team had the blessings of prominent skeptics.

    BTW, regarding the claim that skeptics “knew all along” that the temperature reconstructions were showing global warming, and that their only objection was with regard to attribution, here’s another gem. This recent “knew all along” assertion, sadly, just isn’t cutting it.

    *************************************************************************************************************
    Joeseph Daleo and Anthony Watts, 2010

    “Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that IT CANNOT BE CREDIBLY ASSERTED THERE HAS BEEN ANY SIGNIFICANT “GLOBAL WARMING” IN THE 20TH CENTURY.”

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

  130. Smokey says:

    peter stone’s reading comprehension appears to be almost non-existent. He seems to believe that “significant” means zero. The planet has naturally warmed over the past century and a half, from 288K to 288.8K. That is hardly significant.

    The planet has been warming along the same trend line since the LIA. There has been no acceleration in the warming trend, despite a ≈40% increase in [harmless, beneficial] CO2. What does that tell you?

  131. Jantar says:

    Perhaps we need an FOIA request to Berkeley asking for any emails between members of the BEST team and the IPCC or any representives of the IPCC concerning inclusion of these papers in the next IPCC report.

  132. Theo Goodwin says:

    peter stone says:
    October 22, 2011 at 11:49 am

    You continue to miss the point that BEST pulled a Bait and Switch using a 60 year record instead of Anthony’s 30 year record. They did not address the station siting issue which is the topic that Anthony was talking about.

  133. LazyTeenager says:

    The Earth is warmer than it was 100-150 years ago. But that was never in contention –  it is a straw man argument. The magnitude and causes are what skeptics question.
    ———-
    Well I have seem lots of commenters say that there has been no warming at all. But of course that is no indication of the proportion of climate skeptics who do actually believe that. They are just the noisy ones.

    I am of the view that the many attempts to discredit both these temperature series and the scientists who produced them was based on this belief.

    I think it’s time to find out what proportion of climate skeptics do actually believe the world has been warming over the 200 year instrumental record period. I think one of Anthony’s web surveys is the best approach.

    Multiple choice of course. Something like:
    1. Are you a climate skeptic yes/no
    2. What temperature unit do you prefer C/F
    3. Do you believe the temperature fall/rise over the last 200 years has been: -1.0/-0.75…….. 0.75/1.0 degrees celcius (unit changes depending answer to previous question)
    4. What country do you live in?

  134. Mike Jonas says:

    The Australian Bureau of Meteorology, http://www.bom.gov.au, has a set of “high quality sites” http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/hqsites/ some of which are classified as urban. “Urban sites have some urban influence during part or all of their record, hence are excluded from the annual temperature analyses.“.

    Unfortunately, I could not find a list of the “high quality sites”, only a map with them marked on it, so it would be quite time-consuming to find out just which these stations all are. I went through just the ones in Western Australia as that is the largest state by area. Here are the ones not classified as urban, ie. the ones that are not excluded from the annual temperature analyses:
    Derby Aero 3032
    Broome Airport 3003
    Halls Creek Airport 2012
    Port Hedland Airport 4032
    Roebourne 4035
    Marble Bar Comparison 4020 closed 2006
    Newman Aero 7076
    Carnarvon Airport 6011
    Giles Meteorological Office 13017
    Meekatharra Airport 7045
    Geraldton Airport 8051
    Kalgoorlie-Boulder Airport 12038
    Southern Cross 12074 Ceased temp. obs. 2007
    Merredin 10092
    Kellerberrin 10073
    York 10311
    Rottnest Island 9193
    Wandering 10917
    Cape Naturaliste 9519
    Jarrahwood 9842
    Bridgetown Post Office 9510
    Katanning Comparison 10579
    Esperance 9789
    Cape Leeuwin 9518
    Albany Airport 9741

    28 stations. 10 at airports. 1 at a Post Office (Post Offices are typically near the centre of a town). 2 now closed.
    Not very encouraging.
    And it is likely that many of the others would be decidedly non-rural. For example Katanning Comparison 10579 – here is a Google Map centred on the given location of the site:

    (downloaded in January 2011).
    How on earth can BOM claim that the airports, the post office, and stations like Katanning 10579 do not have “urban influence during part or all of their record“?

    PS. All the Google maps I downloaded in Jan 2011 are in here: http:\\members.westnet.com.au\jonas1\RSelectedStationsGoogleMaps.pdf (large file 10.7mb). 8 of them are in the above list (3003, 4020, 12038, 12074, 10073, 9510, 10579. 9518). There were only 3 of these which could be classified as rural (4020, 10073, 9518).

    PPS. I don’t know whether these BOM sites were used by BEST, but it does seem likely.

  135. petermue says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    October 22, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    [survey]

    In the abstract a good idea.
    But before starting, you have to define what “warming” is.
    I am, for example, not the one who disputes a little temperature increase over the last 200 years, but I rather prefer to call it a little fluctuation.
    It’s the alarmists, who seem not to be able to look over the rim of a tea cup. For most of them, it even seems, Earth hasn’t existed way back before those 200 years.
    For example, if you take the Vostok ice core temperature proxy, you’ll notice a trend by -0.3°C for the beginning of the holocene period until now.
    It’s merely a point of view, and in alarmist’s case of a certain (cherrypicked) period of 200 years of steady incline. The 200 years before that 200 years were warmer and declining.
    Overall however, there was not much change in temperature.
    That’s why I can’t understand that whole anxiety.
    It’s simply mother nature at work.

  136. Mike Jonas says:

    typo in my last comment – 25 stations not 28.

  137. petermue says:

    Mike Jonas says:
    October 22, 2011 at 6:26 pm

    Mike, you can freely download the GHCN v3 data here
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
    (ghcnm.tavg.latest.qca.tar.gz)
    and look for your stations.

    For Katanning WMO #94629:
    50194629000 -33.6800 117.5500 311.0 KATANNING 324R -9HIxxno-9x-9WARM FOR./FIELD B

    It is a (R)ural station, and it seems, they don’t know the population. According to that data, it is not at an airport, the surrounding vegetation type is WARM FOR./FIELD and suburban by satellite night lights.

    If that doesn’t meet the reality, feel free to contribute all abnormal stations to Peter O’Neill’s project. He would appreciate each helpy hand.

    https://oneillp.wordpress.com/2011/08/20/are-you-acquainted-with-any-of-these-ghcn-stations/

  138. Jeff B. says:

    It’s the chicanery. The AGW crowd never seems to be able to conduct everything above board and let the science lead discussion. They just can’t let go of the tricks. Makes me willing to double down on spreading the properly skeptical message.

    We simply can’t have those who know what’s best for us, running the show.

  139. Glenn Tamblyn says:

    Rhys Jaggar at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/21/best-what-i-agree-with-and-what-i-disagree-with-plus-a-call-for-additional-transparency-to-preven-pal-review/#comment-774688

    “My Tamblyn

    Having read your highly informative discussions at the weblink in your post, would you indicate to the readers here if any analysis of ‘average of anomalies’ takes place AFTER discontinuities of anomalies in any individual station records have been taken into consideration.”

    Rhys, I would assume that all processing happens after discontinuities in station records have been considered. Either because such a discontinuity has been identified and perhaps some correction applied to acount for say a change in altitude of the station. Or the station was rejected from the record because of the discontinuity. Or because the possible discontinuity has not been noticed and made its way into the record.

    Of your 3 examples, 1 & 2 are things you would hopefully find and resolve in some way. Case 3, rapid climate change AT THAT STATION is something we would want to include. If that station saw a rapid real climate change then that is something we want to include in the analysis.

    As to stress testing the data, a number of individuals one the net such as Tamino have done just that, taking the unadjusted data from GHCN and the adjusted data and comparing the results. No significant difference. This post at SkS has links to quite a range of independent studies looking at temp records. http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm A range of people have looked at aspects of this question quite independently. Follow the links to see what others say.

    To your alternative possible scenarios
    1. ‘That it has little if any effect’. This is what I would expect because I would expect the various impacts of all sorts of faults in the data record to be at least substantially random and thus tend to cancel out.
    2. ‘it has a significant effect in explaining away the increase in the ‘global temperature index’. This seems very unlikely to me for 2 reasons. First for the reason I gave in case 1. And secondly, the ‘global temperature index’ is land and ocean and 70% of the earth is ocean so any problems with land based data only impacts 30% of the index anyway.
    3. For the same reasons I wouldn’t expect that any ‘issues’ would add a cooling bias either. []

  140. Glenn Tamblyn says:

    Oops, Copy & Paste error. Ignore the last 2 lines.

  141. Stephen Wilde says:

    Is it right that the essence of trhe Berkely findings is that the rural and urban sites have been warming at a sinilar rate and so it is assumed that UHI effects are not a significant factor for determining the direction and rate of the temperature trend ?

    Well, if so, how about the proposition that the incremental rate of nearby development is on average the same for both rural and urban sites ?

    Wouldn’t that produce just such an outcome ?

    During a period of development isn’t it just as likely that it will occur near a rural site as near an urban site ? Often, rural sites attract more development funds than urban sites because people prefer them for work and home life.

    Likewise developmental changes that result in lower temperatures would also average the same over time for rural and urban sites so one would indeed find some urban sites with short term cooling outcomes until other subsequentr warming developments offset it once more.

    So the problem here is the false distinction between rural and urban. That distinction matters not a jot because what matters most is the actual changes that occur at each site whether urban or rural and the splitting of the sites into those two groups does nothing to separate out sites that are affected by incremental (rather than absolute) development from sites that are not affected.

  142. peetee says:

    Anthony, I will take you up on your advice to ‘go fish’… given BEST, why given Fall et al… is the assertion any more….. credible? Just sayin.

    A. Watts 2010: “Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.”

  143. barry says:

    Theo,

    They did not address the station siting issue which is the topic that Anthony was talking about.

    One of the four papers is devoted to that subject.

    Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the
    United States

    http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Station_Quality

  144. The Monster says:

    @Leif Svalgaard
    “I do not buy the lame argument that the text is the property of the reviewers and cannot be published without their consent.”

    #include <ianal.h>
    From a legal standpoint, it is ridiculous. Copyright in a “work for hire” belongs to the customer who paid for the work to be done, not the writer. The act of reviewing a paper for a journal should be interpreted as a “work for hire” under any sane reading of the facts and circumstances.

  145. Martin_Lack says:

    Anthony,

    Your honesty is refreshing, but your hypocrisy is astonishing. You cannot criticise BEST for not observing normal peer review process when what most of what passes for science in contrarian quarters is never peer reviewed and never published in reputable, specialist, scientific journals (i.e. Energy and Environment, Nature, and Science do not count).

    Can you honestly say that you can look at that portion of the BEST instrumental record since 1960 and not be in anyway concerned about the clear accelerating warming trend? Rather than thrashing around like fish out of water trying to prove some causal link between this and sunspots, solar flares, cosmic rays, volcanoes, water vapour, etc., etc., why can you people not accept that the most obvious explanation is the right one? I’ll give you a clue: Petet Jacques et al (2008) ‘The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism’, in Environmental Politics volume 17(3) provides the answer.

    Dr Muller may not yet have admitted that he was wrong to accuse MBH98 and the Hockey Stick Graph of being a fraud (i.e. “hide the decline” referred to the removal of post-1960 tree ring data that declined when the instrumental record showed temperatures to be rising), but at least he has now accepted that global warming is accelerating not slowing down. He has therefore knocked-over the first of what I will call, for the purposes of passing moderation on this website, The Six Pillars of Climate “Contrarianism:
    1. Global warming is not happening.
    2. Global warming is not man-made.
    3. Global warming is not significant.
    4. Global warming is not necessarily bad.
    5. Global warming is not a problem.
    6. Global warming is not worth fixing.
    (See Henson, 2007, p.257).

    Anthropogenic climate change is happening; it is not a false alarm, scam, or hoax. It is not anti-Western, anti-Capitalist, anti-progress, or anti-human; and it is not a UN-WMO-IPCC conspiracy to install worldwide socialist government. However, it is a consequence of unrestrained and ill-considered fossil fuel consumption and of unsustainable development. As such, delaying doing something about it is utterly short-sighted and counter-productive. In the long-run, the later we try and tackle the problem the harder it will be to fix. It is perfectly analogous to getting into debt and not making any attempt to pay off your creditors.

    The sooner you people accept this the better it will be for all of the Earth’s inhabitants.

    REPLY: I went through peer review with Fall et al, before announcing the final results of our siting analysis.So did O’Donnell et al with refuting Steig’s Antarctic warming statistical fabrication. Both papers were published in reputable journals, so your demeaning claims about skeptics not publishing in ” reputable, specialist, scientific journals” is falsified.

    Why didn”t BEST put peer review before PR?. Simple question. They told me when I visted they would “do it by the book” which is why I embraced it. They they threw out the book in favor of a PR blitz. You seem OK with that, and I think that says more about you than it does me, especially when you complain about skeptics publishing.

    As for being concerned about trend since 1960, have a look at the trend since 1800, since BEST went further back than any of the global temperature metrics. they have made a unique window. How would the trend from 1800 to 1900 be so strong prior to the CO2 forcing everyone is looked at? It is very important to note that BEST ascribes NO CAUSE to the trend, and specifically avoids the AGW question in their papers.

    global temp metrics

    Also, why does the data for land diverge from the oceans if UHI and other land based human influences have no effect? – Anthony

  146. JPeden says:

    Joeseph Daleo and Anthony Watts, 2010

    “Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that IT CANNOT BE CREDIBLY ASSERTED THERE HAS BEEN ANY SIGNIFICANT “GLOBAL WARMING” IN THE 20TH CENTURY.”

    peter, peetee, and all recipients of grants for Obama’s “green jobs training program”, of course including those already occupying these transformational “green” jobs but paid for by the other usual sources:

    I, too, hope that the climate system is warming, I really do, because the alternatives place us in a position closer to global cooling! But to support my wishes, I’m not going to merely repeat the same faux science and “latest, same as the earliest” unhinged propaganda tactics and memes intended to deliver the world’s populace into the maw of the same kind of greedy, looting and controlling Totalitarian throwbacks who are apparently paying you for your “green job” role in the repetition of this “latest” meme. Because their/your alleged cure is obviously worse than your alleged disease, and when it comes to further evaluating the climate according to this “alleged disease-alleged cure” metric where the rubber meets the road, I think it’s pretty clear by now that “2.5 billion Chinese and Indians can’t be wrong”.

    In other words, I prefer real scientific “credibility” and “significance” to support my desire for the world’s climate system to be warming, and thus to possibly wake up someday surrounded by Palm trees and Girls Gone Wild.

    So if you could please just get Muller and the BEST program to finally practice real scientific method and principle science instead, it would be of great help to me!

  147. Glenn Tamblyn says:

    Anthony, from your reply to Martin Lack above

    “Also, why does the data for land diverge from the oceans if UHI and other land based human influences have no effect? – Anthony”

    LOL!!!

    Because land air temperature is EXPECTED to warm faster than ocean surface temps! This is Meterology 101 Anthony!

    A. As the GH Effect increases due to AGW, more back radiation occurs. So land and ocean absorb more radiation. and thus could warm more. However additional energy being absorbed by the ocean can be (and is!) transported into deeper water away from the surface. In contrast heat conduction down through the land is orders of magnitude smaller.so the land surface isn’t able to sequester away additional energy and as a result this heat is available to heat the air over the land more. So if total radiation striking the Earth’s surface increases, land air temps must increase faster.

    B. One of the central aspects of the Climate/Weather systems is that energy is transported from tropical regions to higher latitudes via the major circulation patterns in the atmosphere – Hadley Cells etc. So if the total heat in the system is increasing due to AGW, this will tend to be concentrated more at higher latitudes. And more of the Earth’s land is at higher latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. So we expect to see greater warming there.

    So a fairly obvious question comes to mind for me Anthony. Did you start the whole surfacestations.org thing, discussions about UHI etc because you thought greater warming over land than oceans NEEDED explaining?

    Great Caesar’s Ghost Anthony! It is one thing to be critical of something – that is your right. But surely you if you are going to find faults in something you need first to ADEQUATELY understand the thing you are critical of. Particularly if you are then going to set yourself up as a commentator on the subject.

    REPLY: Oh please, seriously? You are reading way too much into one offhand question dashed off to a troll as if that question was the holy grail. There’s a whole bunch of stuff you left out yourself. Point is that my current data (which Muller does not have) shows UHI has an effect on trends, and I’m very close to proving it. Unlike Muller et al, I don’t blitzkrieg the press before the paper gets peer reviewed. Check back in a few months, and no I’m not going to explain it to you now.. – Anthony

  148. Glenn Tamblyn says:

    So Anthony.
    That would be ‘I am in the habit of flinging off incorrect statements when I don’t like people who put me on the spot’. Troll indeed? How about someone simply calling you to task? Radical thought Anthony: People who point out that you might be wrong about many things may not be ‘Trolls’. They may actually offering you a way out of the corner you seem to have spent several years painting yourself into. But the regulars here, they just love it. “Keep on painting Anthony, we’re here in the corner with you man!”

    REPLY: I don’t need a way out. Like I said, check back when the paper is published, I look forward to your comments then. – Anthony

  149. A real conservative, unlike you says:

    [SNIP: The world wondered when TCO would reappear. If you want to be a contributor, fine. Snark like this will be snipped. Your choice. -REP]

  150. Brian H says:

    Given the zero or declining temps since 1900 at 600 continuous US sites shown in the guest post by Michael Palmer, University of Waterloo, Canada, that just went up (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/unadjusted-data-of-long-period-stations-in-giss-show-a-virtually-flat-century-scale-trend/#comment-776101), you might want to begin to perhaps possibly considering maybe tempering your de rigeur pro forma protestations that you accept that (significant) warming has occurred since the LIA.

    The author’s record shows a bump in the 1920s to 1940s, and another one recently, but that’s it, and the net change/trend is zero to negative.
    The slight upward temperature trend observed in the average temperature of all
    stations disappears entirely if the input data is restricted to long-running stations only, that is those stations that have reported monthly averages for at least one month in every year from 1900 to 2000. This discrepancy remains to be explained.

  151. Martin_Lack says:

    Anthony, in replying to my earlier comment, I am not sure what you think re-posting the graph achieves. However, if you are rebutting my focus on the steep incline on the graph since 1960 by questioning the less steep and oscillating part of the graph prior to that, then I am afraid I am bound to conclude that, as a former TV weatherman, you are now getting desperate to defend your “anything but CO2” hypothesis.

    As I have said in response to Pat Frank and Smokey’s comments on your previous post, you people seem to lack (no pun intended) the ability or willingness to see what we are doing to our planet in its proper geological context: When everyone from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists to the Zoological Society of London agrees that anthropogenic climate change is happening, is serious, and needs to be minimised, I am afraid that you have to be a fantasist, conspiracist, or Supreme Being to believe that they are all wrong, or lying to you, and/or that you know better.

    P.S. Is everyone who challenges your belief system on this website automatically labelled as a “Troll“?

    REPLY: No just condescending writers of denial handbooks that refer to others as “you people”. Sheesh. And please as a book writer you must be getting desparate when you say I have a “anything but CO2” hypothesis. Citation required or retract. WUWT has plenty of articles on the effects of CO2. You’ll be in the troll bin (with extra moderation applied) unless you can provide a citation where I claim such a theory. I don’t generally extend full privilege to someone who who put words in my mouth I have not said or written. – Anthony

  152. Martin_Lack says:

    Is that the Stephen Wilde who is a fellow resident of Cheshire in the UK and a fully-qualified Solicitor; now world-famous for posting non-peer-reviewed critiques of conventional climate science on websites such as Climate Realists? As they say, Stephen, “don’t give up your day job

  153. Martin_Lack says:

    Anthony, by putting “anything but CO2” in quotations I was not actually implying you have ever said this. I was (as I am sure you realise) just characterising you position as seeking to explain what is happenng by any other means than accepting human activity s the main cause. As for the remainder of your comments, I am not sure what you are on about, as I have not yet written any books (just an MA dissertation on “Climate Change Scepticism in the UK“), but thanks for crediting me as capable of such – I will take it as a complement on my writing ability.

  154. Smokey says:

    Martin Lack is a clueless person who doesn’t understand the first thing about the null hypothesis, which falsifies the CAGW nonsense he and his deluded Believers believe. There is absolutely nothing unusual about today’s climate. Nothing. It is completely normal. Lack has to change his underwear several time a day because he’s scaring himself spitless over something that exists only in his fevered imagination. There is no evidence whatever for CAGW. None at all.

  155. Martin_Lack says:

    Smokey, In your haste to call me “clueless” (yet again), you clearly did not read what I said:
    When everyone from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists to the Zoological Society of London agrees that anthropogenic climate change is happening, is serious, and needs to be minimised… you have to be a fantasist, conspiracist, or Supreme Being to believe that they are all wrong, or lying to you, and/or that you know better.” (emphasis now added to clarify the point being made)

    No matter how much you may wish that a simple statement of fact such as this (and its implication) may not be true, it almost certainly is. Unless, that is, you have been personally informed by the Almighty that it is not. In which case, such a revelation would trump all of those received by Moses, Jacob, the witnesses to the Transfiguration of Jesus, and the apocalyptic vision of St John combined

  156. Smokey says:

    Martin Lack,

    Your appeals to authority mean nothing. You’re just avoiding facing the fact that the null hypothesis has never been falsified, which means that the alternate hypothesis – CAGW – is falsified. Sorry to rain on your parade, but CAGW exists only in your imagination.

  157. Martin_Lack says:

    Smokey, I can’t help it if you have a singular lack of imagination. However, your demand that we falsify your null hypothesis (before if becomes worthwhile taking any mitigating action) does not seem to wash with the majority of members of just about every professional body there is; and it cuts no ice with the vast majority of peer-reviewed climate scientists. If I was a betting man, I know whom I would put my money on being right and it would not be you… and neither would any reasonable jury find in your favour!

    All of this ignores the simple question, however, of exactly what evidence would convince you that your null hypothesis had been falsified? You are like a frog in a pan of water being heated on a stove; you will never jump out because the rate of temperature change is never great enough to be sufficient cause for alarm…

  158. Smokey says:

    I see that Martin Lack would love to consecrate himself as the jury, and he would, if he wasn’t so impotent. He sounds just like the climate alarmist Kevin Trenberth when he snivels and complains about the null hypothesis. To answer Lack’s quaetion, it is very easy to falsify the null hypothesis: simply show where the pre-industrial parameters of the Holocene are currently being exceeded.

    Neither Lack nor Trenberth can provide any such evidence. Therefore, nothing unusual is happening. The climate is normal. That is why Trenberth demands that science do away with the null hypothesis; he knows that it falsifies his alternative CAGW hypothesis.

    Lack is no doubt a true believer in his own doomsday fantasies. But the science is proving him wrong. The truth is tough for him to swallow. But that’s the scientific method in action.

  159. Martin_Lack says:

    Smokey, I appreciate that your horizons may be severely restricted but, it is still not clear to me whether you are just ignoring what I say, or simply incapable of taking it on board? Also, why do you keep referring to me in the third person? Are you trying to appeal to the audience to back you up? You are on the losing side of this argument. Maybe not on this particular website but, you will lose, nonetheless. The only question is, will it be by 4, 5, or 6 degrees Celsius (by the end of the Century)? Quite literally, only time will tell….

    So, to get to the point, I know I am wasting my time quoting James Hansen et al to you but, irrespective of whether you accept their actual numbers, the key point I keep trying to impress upon you is that it is not the last few thousand years that is important; it is the last million years that matter (unless of course you believe the Earth to be flat and/or only 6,000 years old – in which case we have a much bigger problem)….

    Hansen et al (2008) – see especially Figure 2 on page 5 – point out that, in the context of the evolution of complex life on Earth, what we are now doing to the planet steps outside of the conditions that made the emergence of human beings possible: The fact that this does not concern you, brings into question the effectiveness of evolution itself but, then again, amoebas are still here as well…

  160. Martin_Lack says:

    Anthony – Exaclty when are you going to address the point that, even as recently as January 2010 you your self said, “Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant ‘global warming’ in the 20th centuy… Daleo, J and Watts, A (2010), published via SPPI without peer review (how could it have been otherwise?).

    REPLY: In our new upcoming peer reviewed paper we’ll have some things that directly address your concerns, and no I won’t talk about them now. I look forward to your comments then when it passes peer review and also your comments when and if all four BEST papers pass peer reviewed significantly unchanged.

    And by the way, the bulk of that SPPI paper you hate has been reviewed and published by the respected science publisher Elsevier. I didn’t have time to work on it for that publication so only Joe D’aleo’s name appears on it. See here:

    http://www.elsevierdirect.com/ISBN/9780123859563/EvidenceBased-Climate-Science

    See chapter 3. A critical look at surface temperature records

    In the meantime I’m not wasting any more time on the concerns of a person who labels me and others a “denier” and is trying to sell a book filled with such ugliness. – Anthony

  161. Martin_Lack says:

    Anthony – do you still not get it? I am not Robert Henson, I have not written any books; and i am not trying to sell his book. You can get a self-righteous as you want; all I am asking for is intellectual honesty! If you are going to continue to insist that climate change is not being caused by humans; you must have a defensible alternative. This you have not got. You are just refusing to accept what we have got; a workable hypothesis that fits the evidence we have got – it’s a bit like evolution in fact (only we can see it happening)…

    REPLY So many people in the AGW camp use fake names and non de plumes when they attack me, because they don’t have integrity, I thought your “Lack” was a non de plume to fit “lackofenvironment”. Still you push a book on deniers, and I find that repulsive that you’d embrace the word by pushing the book. Like I said, check back in a few months when we’ve published and then you’ll be able to see very clearly why I’m not the least bit concerned about your opinions. – Anthony

  162. Robert in Calgary says:

    Martin Lack has problems.

    Please put him the troll bin post haste.

    I’m fine with him viewing it as a badge of honour.

  163. Martin_Lack says:

    What book are you talking about? There is only one book that exists; and that is the very-well respected, and entirely rational Rough Guide to Climate Change by Robert Henson… My website is named after me (not the other way around); and the image that appeared on my blog last week is just my spoof on the front cover of Henson’s book. So, do you see, “my” book does not exist; and my six pillars of [you know what] are just my own simplification of page 257 of Henson’s book. Do you get it now?

    I look forward to reading what you have to say in your book; hopefully it will make more sense than your total sense of humour failure and misconstrual of all that I have been trying to say here. In the meantime, I would try and get some rest, you are clearly not working at optimum efficiency!

    Finally, with all due respect to you and your knowledge of meteorology – and your quest to prove AGW to be a hoax (or whatever it is you think you’re fighting for) – I think you should be concerned about the opinions of others; especially those that know more about a wider range of subjects than you do. You never know, you might actually learn something from them!

    REPLY: I’m only tying to demonstrate that the way surface measurements have been done affect the record. Check back again on the upcoming paper. As for the rest? So you made a spoof book cover of a book written by somebody else, then PUT YOUR OWN NAME ON IT (as seen below)

    Martin Lack's fake book

    …and now you are upset it is misinterpreted and suggest I have health problems? OK we’re done. Get off my blog, you fabricating liar. -Anthony

  164. Martin_Lack says:

    Anthony, I know you will probably block my IP address now but, for the record, I have not lied about anything; you just misunderstood. That is not my fault. I changed the name of the book, publisher, and author (all 3 if you look carefully-enough) – just to avoid any accusation of Copyright infringement. I think you are getting far too sensitive about all this.

    REPLY: Putting your name on a book cover that somebody else wrote isn’t lying and “not your fault”? Bullshit. I’d be excoriated for pulling such a stupid stunt. I wonder what respected author James Lovelock thinks about his “endorsement” of you? I suppose we’ll find out as I’ve sent him an email.

    No more from you, we are done. -Anthony

  165. Ivor Ward says:

    Thank you, Mr Watts! I really could not have tolerated much more garbage from Mr Lack. Happily his surname is appropriate to his brain power.

    When Dr Muller feels he has performed enough alarmist shenanigens to ensure the funding stream for Best, and secured his salary for a few more years I wonder if his conscience will bring him back to science by peer review rather than by press review. As a participating member in the actual collection of some of the data which he has so expertly massaged, I have sincere doubts that it will ever be possible to use such data for a coherent climate record. As far as I can see we have a more or less flat line with huge amounts of noise on either side caused by all the naturally varying factors. I would have hoped for an increase of temperature since the LIA to have been very clear by now, as without it I fear we are in for some cold dark days ahead. I believe that the historical anecdotal and archeological record is more reliable than the numerical temperature record. Lets hope that the satelite data will be less manipulated and more informative.

  166. Gail Combs says:

    Frank Lansner says:
    October 22, 2011 at 7:29 am

    To Glenn Tamblyn !

    You are 100% correct when you address issues on averaging temperature data.

    Even well known sceptic jumps happily into this trap of “validating” GHCN temperature data and the like by averaging blindly exactly as they are supposed to do, and then afterward can be quoted by even scepticalscience who says: “See, even sceptics approve of our temperature data”.
    Even sceptics are happily doing as they designed to do, and do so with great authority.

    Heres why it make more error in temperature data to average blindly (with “correct math”) perhaps than UHI and adjustment can cause:

    http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti.php

    _______________________________________________
    I strongly urge every one to look at the work Frank has done. It is the true science that BEST should have done and DID NOT! Joanne Nova also put it on her blog here: http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/messages-from-the-global-raw-rural-data-warnings-gotchas-and-tree-ring-divergence-explained/#comment-625436

    One of her commenters “Pointman” also has a blog that NAILS Muller & co. as Pathological Scientists: http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/global-warming-and-pathological-science/

    This is very nasty propaganda folks and we can not get lost in the details and ignore the main objective: To fleece the ordinary people the world over.

    Reread Anthony’s post on just what these MONSTERS are really up to: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/they-had-to-burn-the-village-to-save-it-from-global-warming/#comment-751952

  167. Gail Combs says:

    otter17 says:
    October 22, 2011 at 7:39 am

    ……..Couldn’t all the disagreement with BEST and Dr. Muller have been kept private with them rather than posting on the WUWT blog?
    __________________________________
    Muller declared war with yesterday’s media blitz. Why should Anthony continue to act the gentleman??? IT is MULLER not Anthony that blew off the “confidentiality agreement” He is the one that went public.

  168. Gail Combs says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    October 22, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    Well I have seem lots of commenters say that there has been no warming at all…..
    ____________________________________________-

    The answer depends on the time scale. And that is why it is so easy to lie and pull the wool over they eyes of the ordinary Joe.
    Last decade??? – No warming.
    Last six decades??? a slight warming trend.
    Last 8000 years – cooling trend.
    Last 0.03 million years??? warming trend

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

  169. Donald says:

    Anthony, here is a proper question for you, I ask because I think you are in danger of sidelining a very important issue for the sake of maintaining the existence of your site.

    IS GLOBAL WARMING REAL OR NOT AND ARE WE IN DANGER?

    Please don’t over-respond, a simple yes or no will suffice ( if you wish to answer)

    If the answer is no, then I will accept it and would ask you to please keep on going with your magnificent work

    But if the answer is “Yes” then please close this site down and open a new one that deals more with “solutions” to our problem and less with the actions, findings or results of others while all you do is suck some glory from their very existence.

    Please don’t take this as a complaint, I’ve read much of your stuff and I think you have done much to help others comprehend the issue of Global Warming.

    But enough, is enough, find solutions, mate, not whinging material :-(

  170. Ivor Ward says:

    Donald says,”here is a proper question for you ”

    “IS GLOBAL WARMING REAL OR NOT AND ARE WE IN DANGER?”

    That’s two questions. Can’t you count?

  171. Argonaut says:

    Ask them one question for me. If you find Ocean temperatures have been decreasing will you make a press release that leads off with this statement, “Global Warming is false”?

    I am very curious to hear their answer.

Comments are closed.