You have to laugh at the dueling statements in this circus event, its almost like a fire and brimstone speech from Rep. Edward Markey, who thinks this will be the “End of Climate Change Skepticism” as if he were casting out the devil from his green vision of paradise. Plus, you gotta love how he insults about half of his constituents by calling them “climate science deniers”. How unprofessional and petty. Then again, this is politics, not science.
In the best practice of reprehensible political style that personifies Washington, the announcement comes on the eve of the three day holiday weekend, where it won’t attract much notice in time for rebuttals to be mounted. And of course, none have been scheduled. How convenient.
But here’s the joke on Markey, and it’s hilarious. Compare his fire and brimstone headline with the recent update to the FAQS on Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature BEST website, emphasis mine:
Do Judith Curry and Richard Muller disagree?
Below is a joint statement by Judith Curry and Richard Muller:
In recent days, statements we’ve made to the media and on blogs have been characterized as contradictory. They are not.
We have both said that the global temperature record of the last 13 years shows evidence suggesting that the warming has slowed. Our new analysis of the land-based data neither confirms nor denies this contention. If you look at our new land temperature estimates, you can see a flattening of the rise, or a continuation of the rise, depending on the statistical approach you take.
Continued global warming “skepticism” is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: “The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism — There were good reasons for doubt, until now.” But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were “Cooling the Warming Debate – Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why.” The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.
We do not agree with each other on every feature of climate change. We have had vigorous discussions, for example, on the proper way to analyze hurricane records. Such disagreements are an essential part of the scientific process.
Dr. Judith Curry said it “best” on her blog today:
JC comments: The “end of skepticism about climate change” meme seems to have caught on with the warm PR groups. I suspect that pushing this will be as successful as Gore’s 24 hours in terms of changing anyone’s mind.
It will be interesting to see if Richard Muller repeats the following statements on this topic that he has made on the BEST website:
Continued global warming “skepticism” is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process.
Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why.
Berkeley Earth has not addressed issues of the tree ring and proxy data, climate model accuracy, or human attribution.
Dr. Muller will either come off as a skeptic, and agree with what is written on his website above, or he’ll embrace the fire and brimstone of Markey. Either way, he’s in the hotseat. Buy popcorn.
Since it is impossible now for me or most anyone to attend and rebut at this hearing on such short notice, one can only hope that there will be somebody there to ask some tough questions.As I understand the rules of this meeting, public comment questions from the audience can even be asked.
On the plus side, as I said in the headline, this is circus. But more circus minimus than maximus because this is not a sanctioned committee meeting, its a sideshow put on by Waxman and Markey, who aren’t majority members, but minority members. Basically its a PR dog and pony show that has no bearing on a committee decision. Watch how much of the left media will fawn over this and repeat the headline put out by Markey, likely ignoring Muller’s own statements and what’s on his website right now.
And still, he hasn’t published anything and his papers have not passed peer review, but the political apparatchik wants to showcase the incomplete and rushed, non quality controlled, error riddled BEST science as if it were factual enough to kill off “denialism” worldwide. That’s political desperation in my opinion.
Given the PR missteps BEST has made so far, I welcome their participation in this circus.
It will be webcast. Here’s the details:
WHAT: Congressional climate science briefing: “Undeniable Data: The Latest Research on Global Temperature and Climate Science”
WHO: Reps. Ed Markey, Henry Waxman, others
Dr. Richard Muller, Director of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project
Dr. Ben Santer, research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Dr. William Chameides, Dean of Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and ViceChair of the National Academies’ Committee on America’s Climate Choices
WHERE: 1324 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
WHEN: Monday, November 14, 2011, 2 PM
More information & live webcast of this briefing >>
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Do Judith Curry and Richard Muller disagree?
I’d say no, just a minor ‘lovers’ tiff .
Markey and Waxman continue Gore’s effort to demonize energy use so that they can create huge sin taxes on energy use. Gore went so far as to compare his campaign against what he calls “denialism” with MLKJr’s campaigns against racism. My guess is that if they succeed with energy the next target for sin taxes is the internet, twitter, and all related technologies.
Let’s see if his testimony supports the headline. The clown Congressmen seem to be confident that it will. Surely their staff have discussed Muller’s appearance/performance with him. My guess is that Muller will be talking out of the warmista side of his mouth, when he appears before the handsome and intelligent Waxman, and friends.
PS: The Republicans will control both the House and Senate next year so this little stunt is a nit. Oh, and even if Obama get’s lucky, it’s still a nit.
Peer review no longer required by global warming crowd.
They cannot bring up peer review in their arguments anymore. Peer review of a paper used to be a cardinal rule of global warmers–used to be I say.
Calming to know they plan to PUSH rather than CONVINCE…
A sentence I find really cute is that they will present the “best case yet” for the end of climate skepticism. How can he know in advance that it will be the “best case yet”? Well, the belief (or heavy corruption, which is ultimately the same thing) makes Mr Markey sure that it must be the “best case yet”.
It will probably be another politically ordered, incoherent sequence of talking points denying basic facts about the climate debate (which may only convince those poor in the spirit who have been convinced by various 24 hours of reality and similar events) but some people apparently believe that it’s possible to arbitrarily confuse reality with a wishful thinking.
Are you holding back on us, Anthony ?
I hope so 🙂
The Global Warming Congress circus began in 1988:
This is another fine example of Pee-R review science.
Since it is impossible now for me or most anyone to attend theis hearing on such short notice, one can only hope that there will be somebody there to ask some tough questions.
You know, Patrick Michaels lives in the area. This could be Ben Santer’s big opportunity.
Since it is impossible now for me or most anyone to attend theis hearing on such short notice, one can only hope that there will be somebody there to ask some tough questions.
This is not a ‘hearing’. It takes the consent of the majority to have ‘hearings’.
This is a ‘briefing’…where two congressman have invited whoever they want to ‘brief them’ personally.
Muller appears to be all things to all men/women. I believe he’s an alarmist who’s come up with this spiffing idea of fooling the dumb sceptics into believing he’s a scientist who will be a straight shooter.
It comes as no surprise to anyone that the temperature rose in the last century, it did the century before. There is no doubt that humans are having an effect on the climate, the key questions are:
1. What effect, it is not scientific to say we can identify where part of the warming comes from so it must be because of CO2 emissions for the portion we can’t identify. In any other science if the warming stopped and the CO2 emissions continued the scientists would conclude there were unknown unknowns and try to find them.
2. The completely made up positivie feedbacks for which there is no empirical proof whatsoever, are used to bolster the temperature to catastrophic levels. Where’s the proof for this?
3. I’m off to Thailand in a week or two, it is warm and fecund, with rich green jungles, what’s not to like about being warmer? Why are there non benefits in the IPCC AR4? Even the biggest dunderhead could figure out that the warm places are the best places to be.
Is it just me, or has the trap now been camouflaged 🙂
REPLY: Yes, there’s some 20/20 hindsight going on. – Anthony
The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were “Cooling the Warming Debate – Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why.” The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.
Seriously? This all by itself is pretty insane. How the hell can editors change the title of a piece without asking permission of the author? I’d be trans-pissed if somebody did that with an article of mine; pissed enough to have a lawyer get involved and demand a retraction and apology, in print, in the same venue. This is especially the case when the actual title has a diametrically opposite meaning from the title that is eventually published.
IMO, Muller is attempting to interject a new $ play into the climatic apocalypse circus. He missed the carbon trading and there’s no $ in outright skepticism, so enter the scientist who doesn’t deny warming but proclaims the utter uselessness of “mitigation”. Our hero shows us another way to avoid frying the planet: geo-engineering. Personally disappointing, but when it comes right down to it, I’d rather pay geo-engineers millions than carbon traders (Al Gore) billions and still have to “adjust” my standard of living downward.
Let’s not forget this Quote of the Week, donated by Waxman to WUWT a couple of years ago:
“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/quote-of-the-week-5-waxmans-stunningly-stupid-statement/
I doubt Waxman could even wade through the watered down and filtered content of Muller’s “Physics for future Presidents” no matter how appealing the title appears.
Even BEST went flat in 2001: slope = 0.0030497°C per year = 0.3°C/century.
See http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1980/plot/best/from:2001/trend
And BEST is land-only temperature.
WUWT?
Knowing Rich, he will be so pleased to make it to the Big Show. This is what BEST was always about, and it is good for everyone to appreciate that.
OT slightly, to give you an idea where Gregory B. Jaczko Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission learned his politics:
“Immediately prior to assuming the post of Commissioner, Dr. Jaczko served as appropriations director for U.S. Sen. Harry Reid and also served as the Senator’s science policy advisor. He began his Washington, D.C., career as a congressional science fellow in the office of U.S. Rep. Edward Markey.”
Any wonder nuclear power is not going forward?
We have both said that the global temperature record of the last 13 years shows evidence suggesting that the warming has slowed. Our new analysis of the land-based data neither confirms nor denies this contention.
Say what?
oops, of course depending on the Propaganda’s “statistical” approach needs at any particular time, CO2 = CAGW being “consistent with” everything that happens and thus nonsensical compared to the practice of real science, as well as compared to any other factual claim. But o’so meaningful compared to good old run of the mill pre-Enlightenment Evangelical Apocalypticism, where scepticism is taboo in the face of money and control needs, and elitist self-gratification? [per the Prophet, the PNAS, the IPCC, et cultists]
And what, the ever “scientifically” vigilant Muller himself has failed to solve the “preprint” problem that killed the good old peer review system because of the suddenly evil WSJ media, and still defective and counting concerning whatever it is that BEST is alleged to show, just like Climate Science’s “statistical” methods and babbling verbiage?
Perhaps exactly because of “Climate Scientists” like the new team of Miller and Markey’s use of the media as their scam’s personal propaganda mouth organ as “show science” = their only “science”?
So I guess that clears up any questions, eh? “Perception being Progressivism’s reality”, and all…
[Man, even the spell-check spells “sceptic” “skeptic”.]
How the hell can editors change the title of a piece without asking permission of the author?
Because they’re the editors. That’s why they’re called “editors”: they edit things.
In newspapers especially, there’s someone whose particular job it is to make up catchy headlines. The author has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
You know if it wasn’t for show science
If it wasn’t for real bad show science
They wouldn’t have no science at all…
That ain’t no lie
h/t Albert King, “Born Under a Bad Sign”, and Stalin
Wouldn’t bet on any surprises. The first rule of any Cong hearing (just like any TV interview or court proceeding) is that a witness won’t be called unless his answers are thoroughly known and predictable in advance.
If Muller actually surprises Markey, he will be ushered out quickly and his reputation will be trashed. I’m sure Muller knows the rules.
Do not expect them to allow known skeptics (e.g. Patrick Michaels) to be called upon for a question.
Also, in order to speak or ask questions at such a venue it is often required to submit questions in advance. It might therefore be advisable to submit a question that is not necessarily the one you ask when you get the microphone.