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.
If CAGWarmists are making Dr. Muller some ultimate authority it should be made to undermine their ‘political’ case….. as I recall some of the main take-aways from his Oct. 2010 talk:
they are (in my words not his):
1) Michael Mann and The Team are dishonest, engaged in unacceptable practices for scientists, and Muller said he would ‘never’ trust (read) a scientific paper from any of them again;
2) yes Muller believes there is warming and some AGW component, BUT,
3) he regards the “catastrophic” claims as both unsubstantiated and rather tenuous,
4) he notes (with a graph) that China and India are on such a course of rapid increase on CO2 emissions that even if one believed it were a major problem there is no possible effective action for western nations without vast reductions in planned outputs from China and India (thus his presentation made it obvious that the only choice is ‘adaptation’ since no one thinks there is any prospect of drastic reductions from China and India;
5) he emphasized that CAGWarmists assume virtually no increase in atmospheric clouds from the “greenhouse” gases despite marked increases assumed in atmospheric vapor (he said IIRC that up to a 2% increase in clouds would have a dramatic counter-acting effect on hypothesized warming??).
Those are just a few of the points I recall him making in that presentation linked above, so I suspect that a review of all of his public remarks and relevant papers may not be so cozy for the Waxman/Markey CAGWarmist crowd.
Ultimately what I took from Muller in the past (before this recent brouhaha) was that “policy” is very different from “the science” — and the science itself is often being greatly distorted by the more alarmist advocates — but that even if one sees an alarmist warming picture in the emerging science there will be NO basis for drastic policy measures in “the west” so long as China and India are going to continue on a path to overwhelm any changes we could make.
actually some of those words above are his, I only meant to emphasize that I was giving a free-form paraphrase from memory of some of his points…. but he definitely used ‘dishonest’ and ‘unacceptable’ and ‘would never read again’ etc. in reference to the fiasco of the “hockey stick” etc.