Alternate title: Something wonky this way comes
I try to get away to work on my paper and the climate world explodes, pulling me back in. Strange things are happening related to the BEST data and co-authors Richard Muller and Judith Curry. Implosion might be a good word.
Popcorn futures are soaring. BEST Co-author Judith Curry drops a bombshell:
Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago.
Here’s the short timeline.
1. The GWPF plots a flat 10 year graph using BEST data:
2. The Mail on Sunday runs a scathing article comparing BEST’s data plotted by GWPF and the data presented in papers. They print this comparison graph:
Note: timescales don’t match on graphs above, 200 years/10 years. A bit naughty on the part of the Sunday Mail to put them together as many readers won’t notice.
3. Dr. Judith Curry, BEST co-author, turns on Muller, in the Mail on Sunday article citing “hide the decline”:
In Prof Curry’s view, two of the papers were not ready to be published, in part because they did not properly address the arguments of climate sceptics.
As for the graph disseminated to the media, she said: ‘This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.
‘To say this is the end of scepticism is misleading, as is the statement that warming hasn’t paused. It is also misleading to say, as he has, that the issue of heat islands has been settled.’
Prof Muller said she was ‘out of the loop’. He added: ‘I wasn’t even sent the press release before it was issued.’
…
But although Prof Curry is the second named author of all four papers, Prof Muller failed to consult her before deciding to put them on the internet earlier this month, when the peer review process had barely started, and to issue a detailed press release at the same time.
He also briefed selected journalists individually. ‘It is not how I would have played it,’ Prof Curry said. ‘I was informed only when I got a group email. I think they have made errors and I distance myself from what they did.
‘It would have been smart to consult me.’ She said it was unfortunate that although the Journal of Geophysical Research had allowed Prof Muller to issue the papers, the reviewers were, under the journal’s policy, forbidden from public comment.
4. Ross McKittrick unloads:
Prof McKittrick added: ‘The fact is that many of the people who are in a position to provide informed criticism of this work are currently bound by confidentiality agreements.
‘For the Berkeley team to have chosen this particular moment to launch a major international publicity blitz is a highly unethical sabotage of the peer review process.’
5. According to BEST’s own data, Los Angeles is cooling, fast:
“BEST – +6C rise from 1809 to 1922”
Sorry all. I meant BEST shows a +6C rise from 1809 to 1822. Not bad for 13 years.
This propaganda move to publicize Muller’s spin on the so called ‘BEST’ results reminds me of Colin Powell’s UN presentation on Iraqi WMDs.
Except this time the potential Colin Powell of the story – Judith Curry – didn’t cave in to the pressure to be a patsy.
Looks like this BEST trick will prove to be the worst thing that the AGW Gang has done yet. Hopefully will have the same effect on the Durban Fear/Extortion Fest as the Climategate release had on Copenhagen.
Hope Muller has enjoyed his time in the spotlight. I’m sure the Koch Brothers are very pleased with his work.
Anthony, I agree with you and have said so. If he does, maybe we can get Gavin to put up a link to WUWT? An attempt at levity 8^)
Sorry if I missed this but I believe a question must be asked; who is pushing this agenda and supporting Dr. Muller’s non-peer reviewed claims? IMHO, there lies the reason/cause for this academic abuse. Someone must have some dirty laundry on Dr. Muller.
Here’s what I see… Muller will make sure temperatures go up on any charts that he can control…. without that, his new climate consulting company has no purpose, no clients. Was a scientist… no longer… now a conniving businessman.
He wants to suck on the government’s tax tit too !!
It is clear and simple what’s up… and using second and third-hand tax dollars to do it to boot. Read his company’s web page… Muller & Associates and see what you think. Government, government, government.
This is not science, it is how to basically steal money from the public under the cover, with a tangle of laws so expensive and complex to enforce (if not already rescinded by Congress via these GW lobbyists) that these laws simply cannot be filed and applied fast enough to stop this fleecing of the public.
Bill,
I guess I’m assuming the data was produced by machine rather than an army of Berkeley interns typing on an ASR33, so the typo explanation seems unlikely… The uncertainty of the last two samples is huge; I can only assume it was done with incomplete data. I wonder when/if they will update it?
Paul
Al Gored says:
October 30, 2011 at 12:58 pm
This propaganda move to publicize Muller’s spin on the so called ‘BEST’ results reminds me of Colin Powell’s UN presentation on Iraqi WMDs.
Except this time the potential Colin Powell of the story – Judith Curry – didn’t cave in to the pressure to be a patsy.
Looks like this BEST trick will prove to be the worst thing that the AGW Gang has done yet. Hopefully will have the same effect on the Durban Fear/Extortion Fest …..
_______________________________
It does not matter.
The EU caved Australia just caved and with Obama I think we can be pretty sure the USA will cave. The USA is hurting for tax money to support the big spenders in DC and you think they are going to turn down another TAX??? After all it is for the CHILDREN. The slave chains that is.
US public opinion did not matter a hoot when it came time to fork over lots of dollars to the banks. This is just another handout to the banks.
“The Danish text, … draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
Al Gore and the World Banks money making scheme (Genocide): http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/they-had-to-burn-the-village-to-save-it-from-global-warming/
I am reminded of the recent spate of headlines stating that a recent experiment had ‘proved’ that Einstein was wrong. Far from it, and ‘BEST’ turns out not to be the advertized Climategate ‘killer,’ but a clear example that the academic misconduct exposed in the Climategate messages is still alive and ‘well.’
————-
Dan,
We need to search out, within the BEST organization, who is the manager ultimately responsible for strategies for the PR and media contacts. That will be the person who should be responsible for the blunders in media and Muller’s public statements. That BEST manager is presumably Dr. Muller’s daughter Liz. Whoever it is that profoundly erred in the strategies for the PR and media interface, if it wasn’t Muller, then we could give Dr. Muller some slack.
I just don’t know who mismanaged the strategies for the BEST PR and media contacts.
John
REPLY: Correct. That would be Elizabeth Muller, Richard Muller’s daughter. – Anthony
A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.
I went to the Muller and Assoc. website. I know it is an old story, but I’m still shocked that academics do not seem to have any conflict-of-interest training. I used to work in a large corporation and we got an annual dose of ethics training that included things like doing stuff on the outside that would be a conflict of interest .
It is just like the hysteria that followed the climategate stuff. Any corporate employee should understand that whatever they issue in an email is discoverable from a legal p.o.v., not to mention whatever computer usage policies the corporation has.
An idea from a commenter at Tamino: April 2010 = Eyjafjallajökull?
woodfortrees (Paul Clark) says:
October 30, 2011 at 1:41 pm
An idea from a commenter at Tamino: April 2010 = Eyjafjallajökull?
___________________________________________________-
It is certainly possible. It might be worth going and checking some individual stations throughout the world for that month and seeing if they were cool.
I did this for my town last year:
In Sanford NC, the middle of the State, I count by July tenth 43 days over ninety F for 2004 vs 26 days for 2010, and four days of 98F in 2010 vs nine days of 98F in 2004
Central North Carolina (Sanford)Monthly temps over 90F for.2004.&.2010
April 2010 (1)………..April 2004 (6)
1day – 91F……………..2 days – 91F
…………………………….4 days – 93F
May 2010 (4)………………May 2004 (17)
4day – 91F……………..6 days – 91F
…………………………….6 days – 93F
…………………………… 2 days – 95F
…………………………….1 days – 96F
…………………………….2 days – 98F
________________________________________________
So it may be well worth doing a check. My computer is a very slow old dinosaur and tends to crash or I would check myself.
It was quite obvious that Muller didn’t get the memo that everything has changed because of “Climategate.” It appears, to this skeptic, that he released the paper thinking he could control the narrative, and failed miserably. Keep up the good work Muller, you could impact an entire movement on your own with epic failures such as this one. And you would actually be helping mankind in the process.
Gail Combs says:
October 30, 2011 at 1:23 pm
“It does not matter.”
I fear you are right but I’m in a ‘Hopey Changey’ mood. So I hope that this fiasco does matter. After all, Copenhagen was supposed to be the AGW Project’s victory rally and that didn’t turn out as planned.
And since The One We Have Been Waiting For now seems scared to even say the words ‘Climate Change’ outside of CA, there may well be hope for a change.
April 2010 = Eyjafjallajökull?
Neither satellite noticed.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2009/to:2011/plot/best/from:2009/to:2011/plot/uah/from:2009/to:2011
steven mosher says:
October 30, 2011 at 10:50 am
Well,
People wanted more data. ha. There are a few points that everyone is missing.
1. RomanM and JeffId also created a method a while ago. That method also showed more warming in recent years.
2. Why does more data show more warming?
============================================================
Steven, you already know the answer to this. The “more data” is selectively land based. Is it more selectively eslewise? IDK, but……. look at the data. If it is, in fact, a more accurate representation, then doesn’t this call into question the competency of all of those engaged in the temp gathering, all of those engaged in reviewing such processes, and then ultimately, all of those engaged in giving the public information regarding our climate? Or, it could just be that Muller doesn’t know what the heck he’s doing. Recall that even when he was pretending to be a skeptic, that he was wrong in his statements. In many ways, he seems to be a sharp guy that stopped his climate education in the 5th grade and is desperately trying to catch up on the nuances of the climate discussion.
A note to Paul of WFT……. Paul, go ask Steve Mac. He’s pretty good with statistics. 🙂 He’s a pretty straight shooter.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/29/uh-oh-it-was-the-best-of-times-it-was-the-worst-of-times/#comment-782502
Anyone care to check my logic here?
The BEST uncertainties are ploted as +/- the values published.
So, for example, 1800 has 0.512 above and below the value of -0.424, giving an uncertainty range of 0.088 (upper limit) to -0.936 (lower limit). Which, by my eyeballs, matches up rather well.
It has been hypothesized elsewhere (a few days ago at Open Mind), that the last few values of 2010 (say last three months) have been undersampled and may be highly biased due to spatial bias;
2010 1 1.135 0.066
2010 2 1.086 0.077
2010 3 0.859 0.131
2010 4 -1.035 2.763
2010 5 1.098 2.928
March (somewhat to nil), April (for sure), May (for sure).
Hope this helps.
Camburn: “What you have to look as also is have the last 10 years indicated a change in trend?”
Compare the 1975-2001 and 1975-2011 trends:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1975/to:2001/trend/plot/wti/from:1975/to:2011/trend
Tell me what you make of those.
Matt G: “About half global sets + ocean data sets show no warming for 12 years, so is this not long enough too?”
About none of the global temperature sets show an x-2001 trend that is any different from the x-2011 trend, for any value of x that you care to choose. So is what not long enough?
“1. The GWPF plots a flat 10 year graph using BEST data:”
However the title of the graph clearly says: “Jan2001-May2010”
So this would only be 9 years and 5 months. I checked the HADCRUT3 data and the average from Jan2001 to May2010 is almost the same as from June 2010 to December 2010, so I would assume that had the graph gone the full 10 years to the end of December 2010, there would not have been a real difference. However if January to September 2011 were to be included, then the graph would be more negative. The average HADCRUT3 anomaly is about 0.44 from Jan 2001 to December 2010. But from January 2011 to September 2011, it drops to 0.358.
Free the BEST UHI data!!!
So.. Muller, having got you all arguing over tenths of a degree here and there and the academic protocol, gets himself a right royal medal for services to the bullshit faith. Jesus..we are all so easily distracted.
Remember… CO2 does not govern the planet, 1.4 billion cubic km of liquid water has that distinction. Always has, always will. Muller is just another distraction prior to AR5 and you are all falling for it … again.
By the time you have all examined the bullshit and found it to be bullshit it will be part of AR5 and then part of government taxation policy. You will still be talking PC statistics as someone takes another 15% of your income to fund “green initiatives” – you never learn.
Science is just another bought and paid for industry. Dangle enough cash in front of Muller and he will produce a piece proving that tobacco is full of vitamins and minerals. Not that AR5 is on the horizon or Berkeley will see a 400% increase in moronic students studying “environment according to AR5 quoted Muller”.
Time to stop arguing the tenths of a degree, principal components and climate sensitivity.. time to attack the core. Seriously, at this rate, we are going to spend the next six months arguing about Mullers “statistics” while he heads over the horizon with a bag of loot. Worse still, he will be leaving dollar bills along the way to keep you all “facinated” as you try to catch him.
AGW is a lie. Accept it and move on. Carpet baggers should simply be tarred and feathered. Accept it and move on. Muller is a carpet bagger ….. Or you can simply pretend that “science” is still some pure and virtuous endeavour where “scientists” simply “tell the truth”. Yea, right, or you can watch them sell themselves to whatever taxpayer looting scheme pays the most.
[quote]
tokyoboy says:
October 29, 2011 at 9:28 pm
My hypothesis:
1. The surface temperature has arisen due mainly to urbanization.
2. Urbanization is approaching saturation these years, in many cities globally.
An example is Tokyo: its surface temp rose by ca. 3 degC from 1880-2000, but remains nearly flat thereafter.
[/quote]
I agree and would add in the affect of thermal equilibrium, meaning that urban areas generate heat. This heat rises as the energy form the city increases until the losses to the atmosphere match the gain in energy but at a higher temperature.
Eventually, if this is the case, temperatures should soon start to drop as efficiencies in buildings reduce the wasted heat expelled into the atmosphere.
Stevo,
You are better served by simply saying “move along now nothing to see here” (which is what you mean). Arguing that over a decade of flat temperatures is not meaningful when temperatures should have been rising (according to the “models’) is risible.
Even the very strongest propagandists for CAGW, such as Trenberth, are on record as lamenting that they cannot account for the “lack of warming”.
You can continue to play your game but you are making a complete fool out of yourself here – not only in front of skeptics but also those who believe in CAGW.
Paul Clark and Bruce,
Just a chart showing Berkeley compared to the NOAA/NCDC. It is pretty clear that a misplaced negative sign got in somehow for April 2010.
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/1029/berkeleyvsncdcwrongapr1.png
January 2007 is about the same in Berkeley and the NCDC (UAH and Crutemp3 have a much lower spike in that month but a spike nonetheless). Jan 2007 was a strange month in that a large peak hit in most of the series (as the impact of the 2006 El Nino peaked). In the daily UAH temperature series, this was mainly in the Northern Hemisphere (perhaps the Land Temperatures of NCDC and Berkeley are over-weighted toward the Northern Hemisphere). Something Steve McIntyre will be looking into. After Jan 2007, temperatures crashed as the Pacific was switching to La Nina-dominated.