Real Climate pans BEST and Muller

In a shocking development that may represent a singularity, I find myself in agreement* with parts of an opinion piece posted on Real Climate today called Berkeley Earthquake Called Off. Dr. Eric Steig writes:

Anybody expecting earthshaking news from Berkeley, now that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group being led by Richard Muller has released its results, had to be content with a barely perceptible quiver. As far as the basic science goes, the results could not have been less surprising if the press release had said “Man Finds Sun Rises At Dawn.” This must have been something of a disappointment for anyone hoping for something else.

True. As Maurizo pointed out in World is Warming. Pope Catholic, and as Dr. Roger Peilke said in No surprise about BEST.

Other excerpts:

But Muller’s framing of the Berkeley results is still odd. His statement, that had they found no warming trend, this would have “ruled out anthropogenic global warming”, while true in a technical sense, would not have implied that we should not worry about human drivers of climate change. And it would not have overturned over a century of firmly established radiative-transfer and thermodynamics. Nor would it have overturned the basic chemistry which led Bolin and Eriksson (reprinted here) to predict in 1959 that fossil fuel burning would cause a significant increase in CO2 — long before the results of Keeling’s famous Mauna Loa observations were in. As a physicist, Muller knows that the reason for concern about increasing CO2 comes from the basic physics and chemistry, which was elucidated long before the warming trend was actually observable.

Muller’s other comments do very little to shed light on climate change, and continue to consist largely of putting down the work of others. “For Richard Muller,” writes Richard Black, “this free circulation also marks a return to how science should be done,” the clear insinuation being that CRU, GISS, and NOAA had all been doing something else. Whatever that “something else” is supposed to be completely eludes us, given that these groups all along have been publishing results in the peer-reviewed literature using methods that proved easy to reproduce using easily available data (and in the GISTEMP case, complete code). In one sense, though, we do agree with Muller’s quote: nobody has stolen his private emails and spun them out of context to make his research look bad.

Overall, we are underwhelmed by the quality of Berkeley effort so far — with the exception of the efforts made by Robert Rohde on the dataset agglomeration and the statistical approach. And we remain greatly disappointed by Muller’s public communications (e.g. his WSJ op-ed) which appear far more focused on raising his profile than enlightening the public about the state of the science.

It will be very interesting to see what happens to these papers as they go through peer review.

==============================================================

* OK now for the asterisk. Like any opinion piece not everyone will agree with all of it. I’m no exception Steig writes about the station siting issue saying:

National Academy of Sciences study already concluded that the warming seen in the surface station record was “undoubtedly real,” that Menne et al showed that highly touted station siting issues did not in fact compromise the record…

I would point out to Dr. Steig, and to Dr. Muller, that science, by its very nature, is not a static enterprise. A second paper is in the works looking at the station siting issue from a much broader perspective will be sent for peer review (and hopefully publication) in the coming weeks. In the best tradition of Forest Gump I’ll borrow one of his famous lines:

“And that’s all I have to say about that”.

This guest post is an instructive read though: Unadjusted data of long period stations in GISS show a virtually flat century scale trend

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jimmy Haigh

Anthony. I thought you had something up your sleeve…

“World is warming. Pope Catholic”….when did WUWT turn into a Alarmist den, everybody knows that NCDC manipulates readings to give false warming BEST is just the latest example of this corruption, the fact the Kocg brothers financed the study whows it is Alarmist as the Kochs are up to their necks with Al Gore etc.

Gary Hladik

“A second paper is in the works looking at the station siting issue from a much broader perspective will be sent for peer review (and hopefully publication) in the coming weeks.”
*facepalm* No no no, Anthony! The way science is done, first you issue a press release with your conclusions, next you write the paper, and only then do you submit it for publication! How do you expect to write a first class scientific paper without going through the crucial press review step?

Legatus

I don’t know about you, but Figure 1 immediately made me think of the repeated claim by Michael Mann that the temperatures of the 1990s were the warmest in a thousand years

Uhhh, sooo, whats the big deal? Sooo, we had a medieval warm period 1000 years ago, it was warm, people were happy. Then it got cold, people were not happy (those that lived through it). Now it is the same temperature as 1000 years ago (and people are happy again), so I have to ask, what, exactly, is “unprecedented” here? We have been this warm before, we are again now, what, exactly, has changed? What, exactly, is there to be concerned about? Or can it be shown that 1000 years ago was a time of danger and death from all that heat? Did the sea rise and cover all of them then? Did all the animals go extinct? All the forests and crops die off? What, exactly, did happen?
Now, if you can show me that it is much much warmer than it was 1000 years ago, much warmer than it has ever been, why, that would be something else.
And the 1990’s huh, what about the 2000’s, what about the 2010’s? What has happened since those 1990’s, and why?
Mr Mann, call me when you actually have something to say.

Mark T

It’s’s sort of a “toldyaso” as a crackdown to the “deniers” that don’t think much of the warming.
Mark

Mark T

Smackdown, not crackdown. Autocorrecting phone with a dictionary that would be embarrassed by a pre-schooler.
Mark

Ursus Augustus

Am I unreasonable in concluding that Richard Muller et al have managed to piss of both the skeptics and the warmista’s by making a craven play for publicity? Who does the guy think he is? Al Gore??

Legatus

And we remain greatly disappointed by Muller’s public communications (e.g. his WSJ op-ed ) which appear far more focused on raising his profile than enlightening the public about the state of the science.

Well, his company, Muller & Associates, seems a very likely reason for this. The title of the op-ed, “The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism
There were good reasons for doubt, until now”
, strongly supports the idea of global warming, and is obviously against the idea of skepticism. If global warming is real, Muller & Associates can get business. If he raises his profile, he can get a lot of business. If he actually gets into the IPCC report, he gets even more. Conclusion, he has a conflict of interest. Therefore, no matter how honest he may appear, I must suspect him, at the very least. In addition, it is possible he may make a semi honest BEST project, yet spin it to make AGW look real and thus increase his business. It is also possible that the press, who are all for AGW, will slant their coverage as well, and, like I said, he has a conflict of interest and thus may not exactly appose this…
Also, his method of telling if there is UHI bias seems very inadequate. The only way one could actually tell would be if the folks whose job it is to tell us the temperature would actually get out there and do their jobs, take a portable measuring station, set it up nearish but out of the way of any urban effects of the station they wish to check, and see if there is a difference in the two. Heck, at the very least, they could actually go out and look at the station, rather than trying to tell if it is rural or not with some satellite. Heck, if they really want to get frisky, they could fly over it at fairly low altitude and look down with infrared film or detectors (war surplus stuff might be good enough), see if the area around the station shows up as a hot spot, has no one ever tried this? They may even want to make sure that their portable station will calibrate with old stations with, dare I say it, whitewashed screens. After all, we are trying to compare new data to old data, we need to know we are doing an accurate comparison. want to get super frisky, well, actually make an old style station manufactured and calibrated the same way it was done say, 50 or 80 years ago, then us that, now that would be true apples to apples.
BTW, the first post I made above should have been under the next article down.

Oops I put in the wrong year. its only 160 days too early, or 206 days too late.

jorgekafkazar

Earth warms. Earth cools. Bear goes in Yamal woods.

Brian H

The more we see and hear of Muller, the disingenuouser and disingenuouser he looks and sounds. The gratuitous put-downs littering his text are really juvenile.

jorgekafkazar says:
October 24, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Earth warms. Earth cools. Bear goes in Yamal woods.

How sweet! That was my favourite bed-time poem when I was a kid.

Ursus Augustus

Just to counterpoint my post above, I just looked at Richard Muller’s “Hide the Decline” Youtube video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk ) and it does not surprise me that Realclimate bags him considering what he inferred about the culprits. Not a lot of love there I imagine. Maybe BEST is a Trojan Horse playing the media for the cretinous, lazy suckers they are. We’ll have to wait for the final papers and the final results. Who knows?

John

The two important things that BEST adds to the debate are:
1. A substantial part of the warming from 1975 — as much as 70% — may be due to natural forcings such as the AMO. BEST says that the AMO (and PDO) cycles could be caused by GHGs, but my sense is that this is just being scientifically cautious. It certainly appears that these cycles were in operation before significant increases in GHGs occurred. IF the temperature increases due to the AMO are part of a natural variation, then as pointed out on pg. 12 of the BEST temperature report, then no more than 0.25 degrees or so of the 0.8 degree temperature increase over land since 1975 would be due to GHGs. That is a rate of less than a degree per century. Someone check and see if Richard Lindzen is chortling. If ocean surface temps were included in this analysis, temperature increases would be lower.
Maybe this is why Steig doesn’t seem impressed by BEST?
2. In 2010, BEST finds that temps plunge by 0.1 degrees, in one year. The other three records show temps increasing by a slightly smaller amount. Why?? If BEST is right, the other records are high by about 0.15 degrees at the end of the temperature record. It is important to find out if this is anomalous or not.

a jones

“When I see our own officers being shot to encourage the others I know the war is lost”.
Not my words: but a fair summary of the current state of play.
Kindest Regards

TomT

“Man Finds Sun Rises At Dawn.”
Of course the sun doesn’t really rise at all, the earth rotates. Ok not really a big deal, but it is just another example of how the people at Real Climate seem not to care at all about getting the scientific facts correct at all.

Manfred

Remembering Steig’s contribution to basic physics and statistics in his Antarctica temperature paper, his opinion may still be regarded as pretty lightweight.

TomRude

“As a physicist, Muller knows that the reason for concern about increasing CO2 comes from the basic physics and chemistry, which was elucidated long before the warming trend was actually observable.”
Typical highjacking of physics and chemistry! If you are against us you are against the laws of physics… conveniently forgetting that they are using equations approximating what they think is the physics happening. Pierre Morel founder of the LMD was very clear about this and how the model freaks try this little magic.

You have to be pretty naive to believe anything else would come out of Berkley.

Mike Bromley the Kurd

All delivered with the barely-disguised snark so typical of the ballpark. Playing field is now a quagmire due to climate change.

Venter

Anthony,
The fact that you have another paper coming up showing different results could be the reason for this PR Blitz by BEST.
Dr.Judith Curry wrote this in her blog about the BEST PR Exercise
QUOTE
In my relatively minor role in all this, I have had virtually no input into the BEST PR strategy. I have encouraged making the data set available as soon as possible. They were reluctant to do this before papers had been submitted for publication, and cited the problems that Anthony Watts had with releasing his surfacestations.org dataset before papers were accepted for publication. IMO, two of the papers (decadal and surface station quality) should have been extended and further analyzed before submitting (but that very well may be the response of the reviewers/editors.) I agree that it is important to get the papers out there and not be scooped on this by others, especially since Muller and other team members have been giving presentations on this. I have no problem with posting the papers before they are accepted for publication, in fact I encourage people to post their papers before publication.
UNQUOTE
She specifically mentions ” not to be scooped on this by others ” which makes me suspect that they had wind of some other papers coming up showing different results.
Dr.Muller and BEST have scored an own goal here with this hasty and deliberately misleading PR before on papers which have been shown to have significant errors. I have no doubt that all of this was planned for rushing through the papers into AR5. But I believe this is going to backfire on BEST.
I have no trust on Dr.Muller who exactly deserves what he gets, as eloquently described by Willis Eschenbach. Willis called him out as an unprincipled and untrustworthy jerk when he gave that testimony to senate trashing your papers. Dr.Muller has fully lived up to that description.
Unfortunately, with this hasty PR and shoddy work, because of her association with BEST, Dr.Judith Curry, who’s one of the few honest people in the climate science field, is going to also have her reputation affected.

Robin Melville

@TomRude : Too true! The crudity of the “physics” is astonishing. You take an abstract column of gas standing over a shiny surface, project a beam of light energy through it and measure the irradiated heat return. Now add some extra CO2 to the column and the escaping heat reduces. That’s the basis of Bolin’s thought experiment upon which this whole farrago is based.
In the real world we have a massively complex interaction of different gases and water vapour (clouds). The completely unfounded assumption that this complex system will *reinforce* any minor heating due to increased CO2 rather than reacting to mitigate it is what feeds the scare story. In reality, the Earth’s systems are rather stable — for which we should be grateful — and tend towards homeostasis. “Oscillation” — which is often seen in climate phenomenology — implies negative feedback, not positive.
Convincingly disprove that and I’ll stop being skeptical about the Climate Disruption panic.

pat

In poker this silly BEST double down is called a bluff. The card being played here is one of reputation. It is the Joker that has been played for years. It means nothing in real terms, but if one does not condescend, it means that your reputation as a poker player will be smeared.

Daniel H

A couple of days ago on Grant Foster’s “Tamino” blog there was an anti-WUWT, anti-Keenan rant entitled Fake Skeptic Criticism of “Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures” in which Foster criticizes Keenan’s criticisms of the Muller et al paper. Buried somewhere in the comments was the following interesting remark by Eric Steig:

Tamino, I never thought I’d agree with anyone that agrees with Watts about anything but in fact the Muller AMO paper is quite unconvincing, on statistical grounds (not to mention their radical idea that there[sic] thermohaline circulation can contribute to global T variability on 2-5 year timescales)…

In response, Foster stated that he also disagrees with Muller and that he’s working on another post about that very topic. That post is now online.

Brian H

How droll; Muller is demonstrating incompetence both as a Warmist and a Skeptic.

Glenn

Bear in pig’s clothing, or pig in bear’s clothing, I can’t tell which. Maybe its manbearpig. Naaa. Baaa.

JJ

“Real Climate pans BEST and Muller”
AKA – “Remember, we go in separately and act like you don’t know me.”

Gras Albert

Anthony
Apologies for the re-post but I can understand the ‘team’ rallying against BEST, comparing the BEST reconstruction with the Hockey Stick leaves one to conclude one or the other is fantasy, if I were Mann’s mates I wouldn’t want this graphic getting courtroom time!
1800-2010 comparison, BEST-Hockey Stick

Yarmy

‘Muller’s other comments do very little to shed light on climate change, and continue to consist largely of putting down the work of others. “For Richard Muller,” writes Richard Black, “this free circulation also marks a return to how science should be done,” the clear insinuation being that CRU, GISS, and NOAA had all been doing something else.’
To be clear here, Eric Steig is criticising Muller for something someone else said about him. An opinion reconstruction using a proxy, no less!

KnR

Its not enough to ‘believe’ you have to ‘believe’ in the right way . Mullers crime for Real Climate is failure to both show ‘right belief’ , lets see how this work out , will Muller get the message they clearly sent. And come out to show us the ‘purity of his faith’ by denouncing any doubts or will he risk the anger of the ‘Team’ and so perhaps IPCC inclusion?

KenB

Its times like this that I wish sceptical scientists were as organised and as heavily funded as the team nodders always claim!! They use this illusion of funding to attack the qualifications of those scientists who dare to speak out rather than detail any issues with the scientific results they put forward.
If only a fraction of the money that has been wasted by the “team insiders and fellow travellers” AND the IPCC lunch club, was applied with full application of the Scientific method, “before” the results were splashed all over the media, we might get a great leap forward in our knowledge of extreme weather and how our climate actually works, rather than as postulated by some academics with snouts in the trough.
Having viewed the Jason Kirkby videos on the preliminary results/indications from the Cloud experiment and witnessed what was shaping up to be groundbreaking (Cloud making/precipitation) chemical building blocks of information based on actual experiments, those results, seem to have been deliberately nobbled by the upper Government/Academic managers, and their cautionary suppression of comments by working scientists, preventing them, giving any opinion at all on the results obtained, because of the apparent controversial importance of the results of those experiments and, exactly avoid seeking any media hype, unlike the BEST (WORST) approach we have now witnessed.
It would seem to this observer, there is some “dirty work going on behind the scenes” to get certain papers and data into the current IPCC reporting echo chamber, and rule others outside (outliers) or in football parlance ruled offside!!.
I think Donna is spot on in her book, The IPCC can only be cleaned out by defunding and then make sure climate science is rigorously rechecked and openly reviewed to ensure we get only premium science from the rejigged Climate Science.

@legatus IIRC the climate scientists (aka alarmists by people in this blog) claim, that temperatures of MWP were achieved by 1970-80, and now it is warmier than in the medieval warm period.

NotTheAussiePhilM

Robin Melville says:
“Oscillation” — which is often seen in climate phenomenology — implies negative feedback, not positive.
Worryingly, ‘Oscillation’ implies positive feedback.
– the microphone/speaker ‘howl-round’ feedback is classic example of positive feedback with which most people are familiar.

I think this is all just part of the work of master manipulators. The recent papers and opinion pieces have both solidified the idea that the world is warming and got the ‘skeptics’ to vocally agree to this. Real Climate’s welcome opinion piece will be hailed through the skeptical blogs and a rare glimpse of sanity, if we are agreeing with the the rate of warming, which we will more redilly do because we are so pleased that it shows measure on the BEST results. I think the AGW movement is manipulating the skeptic community with a classic flattery con trick; also individual beleaguered skeptics will latch on to any sign of kindness and unconsciously sacrifice some of their beliefs. It is a very solid foundation for the AGW movement who now don’t have to worry about defending the temperature records and can concentrate on various ‘scientific’ reasons for this warming. Lumumba.

Venter says: October 24, 2011 at 10:24 pm

Unfortunately, with this hasty PR and shoddy work, because of her association with BEST, Dr.Judith Curry, who’s one of the few honest people in the climate science field, is going to also have her reputation affected.

Doesn’t have to be. Anthony Watts and others here also had high hopes for BEST. They shot themselves down by their behaviour, which led on to a much closer examination of their science than would have happened otherwise. And in all this we have a miracle, the Gordian-knot-slicing paper from Michael Palmer

DEEBEE

I have always found the “Team groupies” response of relief to station siting, a bit perplexing. If “bad” and “good” sites are giving similar results then the climate change signal must be very strong so as to survive such an obvious issue. If this is the case then the GCMs are woefully inadequate since they can barely begin to follow the undulations of this “strong” signal.
OTOH, there could be almost no signal of any kind to measure, so siting does not matter and we are just reading wonderfully aromatic, cherry picked tea leaves.

wayne Job

I have a logic problem, the hockey team and this best team are looking for a trend upward. The dying of thermometers in the backwoods, gives them a very upward trend. They then tell us that the UHI has no effect on the temperature increase in their graphs for the last hundred years, my head hurts.
Why do all the old continuos stations show no global warming? This BEST mob are telling me that the UHI makes no difference to the trend or the temperature rise as shown in their graphs, I find this logically incompatable with reasonable thought processes.
Some how I remember many people suggesting that our host cover his a#se and not trust these people. Lesson learned, and the cryptic message of a soon to be released paper is hope fully Anthony’s revenge. This may relieve the hurt in my head.

BEST / Muller will now use this as vindication of their analysis on the basis that both the skeptics and the alarmists are equally up in arms over it.
What I’d like to know is who is going to peer review it now after all the negative publicity over it. It’s a losing proposition for anybody engaged in it. And what about the journals? There won’t be anything in it for them, other than opprobrium for having let it through. Any publicity about it has already been done. Anything “groundbreaking” about the process is already known.
I think they are going to pay a high price for their fifteen minutes of fame. I just hope it was worth it.

SimonJ

NotTheAussiePhilM says:
October 25, 2011 at 2:15 am
“Worryingly, ‘Oscillation’ implies positive feedback.
– the microphone/speaker ‘howl-round’ feedback is classic example of positive feedback with which most people are familiar.”
The microphone/speaker feedback is indeed an example of positive feedback, but it does not involve oscillation. The ‘signal’ is pushed hard up against the end stops and stays there. That’s the problem, and that is why climate feedback CAN NOT BE POSITIVE.
Negative feedback does indeed produce an oscillation, a damped oscillation, where the rate of damping is a function of the feedback ‘strength’ (and here I can’t remember the correct word – transfer function??)

John

KnR (1:16 AM) has it right when he says:
“Its not enough to ‘believe’ you have to ‘believe’ in the right way . Mullers crime for Real Climate is failure to both show ‘right belief’ ”
Honestly, what did everyone expect, if BEST is starting with the same record everyone else has? The difference between the records is mostly how you adjust for changes over time, like UHI, except where land temp records have sea surface temps added in.
Why lambaste Muller and BEST, when they have suggested that apparently natural forcings such as the AMO and PDO may be responsible for around 70% of the temp increases since 1975 (see pg. 12 of the temperature paper, 2 paragraphs before acknowledgements)?
One of the things Steig and company didn’t like — it’s in the thread above — is that BEST suggests that thermohaline circulation, an apparent natural forcing, can influence the land temperature record. BEST speculated that perhaps the AMO might be driven by the thermohaline circulation. THIS observation is what makes BEST a threat to the IPCC, to Real Climate, to Hansen and Mann and Pachauri, and why they criticize it.
Yes, we need more research, but why are so many people on this thread killing what looks like a golden goose that you have been given?

Mark T

Negative feedback does indeed produce an oscillation, a damped oscillation, where the rate of damping is a function of the feedback ‘strength’ (and here I can’t remember the correct word – transfer function??)

Without going into too many details…
1. The feedback “strength” is simply called gain. It is less than unity for all bounded-input, bounded-output stable systems, necessarily so for any passive system such as the earth and its climate. Climate scientists tend to use this terminology (feedback) a little bit differently, however, though the same prinicple still applies.
2. The transfer function is a relationship between an input and output of a system. This can be decomposed down to any “path” between any input and any output, even within the system itself. E.g., the feedback path has its own transfer function from the output that is getting fed back to the input.
Mark

Severian

Gotta love the logic, or lack thereof, in the statement that, paraphrased, says “even if it’s not happening that’s no excuse not to do something about it!”

chris y

Perhaps overheard at the water cooler-
Jim- “Gav, this is a travesty. That jester Muller’s grandstanding has usurped my helpful media.”
Gav- “Yeah, I gave the Fenton crew a couple of new postings to cycle through at RC.”
Jim- ” Kev and I are flying to New Zealand next week. I already have some interviews set up to steer the media lights back on me.”
Gav- “Are you going to bring up the rate of sea level rise doubling every decade again? They really fell for that.”
Jim- “Mehh. My 1988 prediction was not far enough in the future. People are starting to ask me why I haven’t moved my offices to higher ground. I think its time I resurrect my dead-certain Venus world caused by exploding methane clathrates of doom.”
Gav- “Good. With all the first class international travel and sixteen dollar muffins, the budget is a few mill short. A couple of apocalyptic scenarios should scare up the needed funds. Cheers.”

Gneiss

As BEST ramped up, Muller posed with the opinion that skeptics were right, the scientists were incompetent or dishonest — UHI or data shenanigans really could explain away the warming, and his team of outsiders would set things right. It turns out that his assumptions all were mistaken — the skeptics were wrong, hundreds of scientists had been doing a fine job all along, and neither UHI or data shenanigans were anywhere to be seen in the temperature records. It really is warming, just as NOAA, NASA and HadCRU (and UAH and RSS, and the Arctic sea ice, glaciers and so forth) had said all along. And more than that, as he’s still learning, it’s tought for outsiders to jump into a highly competitive discipline where they have no competence, and do top quality new work.
Perhaps it’s surprising, and honorable, that Muller has presented a finding that was opposite to his starting assumptions. But it’s not surprising that neither skeptics nor other scientists are much impressed with the his journey.

KnR

John given BEST says the world is warming and that broadly the figures were right , why the Realclimate hit piece when you think they would be happy. Simply Muller and BEST did not come out in full and blind support of AGW . They showed faith but not ‘correct faith ‘ which for the Team means full support for their views and all that means.
Its an oddity of religion that ‘heretics’ are always given a harder time than unbelievers for their seen to be a bigger threat to the ‘purity’ and therefore the validity of the faith .
Its to be seen if Muller gets the message and shows us he is after all a ‘true believer’ or if he will stick to his guns and risk the ‘Teams’ displeasure further. And that has little to do with any peer review process has we are now firmly in the land of PR and spinning.

Gneiss

KnR writes,
“why the Realclimate hit piece when you think they would be happy.”
If you think that then you don’t get Realclimate. They and others (including Tamino) are criticizing aspects of the BEST AMO paper because it’s not good science; the analysis is weak. Probably the peer review process will flag the same problems, and they’ll get corrected to make a stronger paper by the time it eventually gets published.
Realclimate notes also the irony of Muller admitting that he’s surprised by his own results. If he had done his homework, he would not be.

Ed Scott

From the Washington Post article, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-scientific-finding-that-settles-the-climate-change-debate/2011/03/01/gIQAd6QfDM_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions,
“It is true that Muller made no attempt to ascertain “how much of the warming is due to humans.” Still, the Berkeley group’s work should help lead all but the dimmest policymakers to the overwhelmingly probable answer.”
In other words, they have no factual data link to Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide having an effect on global warming/climate change/climate chaos or any new straw-dog they introduce to compensate for their lack of objectivity.
Scandal? What scandal? “Muller’s figures also conform with the estimates of those British and American researchers whose catty e-mails were the basis for the alleged “Climategate” scandal, which was never a scandal in the first place.”
A new scientific method of proving a theory, not by fact, but by the overwhelmingly probable. Sounds somewhat like consensus.
I am still waiting for the factual data link connecting Anthropogenic and/or Natural Carbon Dioxide to global warming – the original theory – or to any of the straw-dogs, which the Almor Goretry acolytes present in their efforts to prove something, whatever that something may be.

Ron Cram

I think one of the reasons RealClimate is upset at BEST is that BEST shows the early 19th century was cooler than tree rings show. When the Little Ice Age rears its head in this fashion, it throws off the nice, neat narrative RealClimate and the IPCC folks have been selling because natural climate variation is much greater than they previously believed. Also, it shows a second Divergence Problem in the early 19th century. It is hard to support the claim the divergence in the late 20th century is due to anthropogenic effects when we have evidence of a divergence in the early 19th century.
BEST may not have done great work in regards to UHI effects and station siting issues, but the surface temp series in the early 19th century throws a wrench into the works. We will have to see if that portion of their work holds up under scrutiny.