Scientist who said climate change sceptics were proved wrong accused of hiding truth

[cancel2 2022]

It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, ‘proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’. Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually.
Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it.
.
.
.
Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.
Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.
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.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/scien...ved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

 

[cancel2 2022]

...

 

[Bfgrn]

Scientist who accused Scientist of hiding truth is hiding truth

Judith A. Curry is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. A high profile climate communicator, she runs a climate blog and is regularly invited by Republicans to testify at climate hearings about uncertainties in climate understanding and predictions.

Her climate outreach communication has been criticized for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence.

Criticisms from climate scientists

Liu and Curry's August 2010 paper, "Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice", has been criticized for its failure to cite previous papers drawing the same conclusion, and for its "uncritical use of invalid data".

Curry's "public outreach" communication is criticized by prominent climate scientists and other science-aligned climate bloggers for its propensity toward "inflammatory language and over-the-top accusations ...with the...absence of any concrete evidence and [with] errors in matters of simple fact."

Gavin Schmidt has criticized Curry for "not knowing enough about what she has chosen to talk about, for not thinking clearly about the claims she has made with respect to the IPCC, and for flinging serious accusations at other scientists without just cause."

James Annan has laid out examples of Curry's "history of throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong."

 

[cancel2 2022]

Judith A. Curry is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. A high profile climate communicator, she runs a climate blog and is regularly invited by Republicans to testify at climate hearings about uncertainties in climate understanding and predictions.

Her climate outreach communication has been criticized for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence.

Criticisms from climate scientists

Liu and Curry's August 2010 paper, "Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice", has been criticized for its failure to cite previous papers drawing the same conclusion, and for its "uncritical use of invalid data".

Curry's "public outreach" communication is criticized by prominent climate scientists and other science-aligned climate bloggers for its propensity toward "inflammatory language and over-the-top accusations ...with the...absence of any concrete evidence and [with] errors in matters of simple fact."

Gavin Schmidt has criticized Curry for "not knowing enough about what she has chosen to talk about, for not thinking clearly about the claims she has made with respect to the IPCC, and for flinging serious accusations at other scientists without just cause."

James Annan has laid out examples of Curry's "history of throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong."

Gavin Schmidt and his partner in crime James Hansen are the true zealots of AGW. There was a meeting held in Lisbon back in February which Schmidt, being the arrogant shit that he is, refused to attend. He gave this as his reason for not going.

Thanks for the invitation. However, I'm a little confused at what conflict you feel you are going to be addressing? The fundamental conflict is of what (if anything) we should do about greenhouse gas emissions (and other assorted pollutants), not what the weather was like
1000 years ago. Your proposed restriction against policy discussion removes the whole point. None of the seemingly important 'conflicts' that are *perceived* in the science are 'conflicts' in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for
political positions. No 'conflict resolution' is possible between the science community who are focussed on increasing understanding, and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.

You would be much better off trying to find common ground on policy ideas via co-benefits (on air pollution, energy security, public health water resources etc), than trying to get involved in irrelevant scientific 'controversies'.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/02/climate-sceptics-scientists-at.html

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Judith A. Curry is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. A high profile climate communicator, she runs a climate blog and is regularly invited by Republicans to testify at climate hearings about uncertainties in climate understanding and predictions.

Her climate outreach communication has been criticized for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence.

Criticisms from climate scientists

Liu and Curry's August 2010 paper, "Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice", has been criticized for its failure to cite previous papers drawing the same conclusion, and for its "uncritical use of invalid data".

Curry's "public outreach" communication is criticized by prominent climate scientists and other science-aligned climate bloggers for its propensity toward "inflammatory language and over-the-top accusations ...with the...absence of any concrete evidence and [with] errors in matters of simple fact."

Gavin Schmidt has criticized Curry for "not knowing enough about what she has chosen to talk about, for not thinking clearly about the claims she has made with respect to the IPCC, and for flinging serious accusations at other scientists without just cause."

James Annan has laid out examples of Curry's "history of throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong."

So in other words, you are just like the idiots Cypress and Mott. You think 'the debate is over'? Despite reports from CERN, despite the FACT that we have seen no significant warming for over a decade?

yeah... there is a name for people like you.... 'religious nut'

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Judith A. Curry is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. A high profile climate communicator, she runs a climate blog and is regularly invited by Republicans to testify at climate hearings about uncertainties in climate understanding and predictions.

Her climate outreach communication has been criticized for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence.

Criticisms from climate scientists

Liu and Curry's August 2010 paper, "Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice", has been criticized for its failure to cite previous papers drawing the same conclusion, and for its "uncritical use of invalid data".

Curry's "public outreach" communication is criticized by prominent climate scientists and other science-aligned climate bloggers for its propensity toward "inflammatory language and over-the-top accusations ...with the...absence of any concrete evidence and [with] errors in matters of simple fact."

Gavin Schmidt has criticized Curry for "not knowing enough about what she has chosen to talk about, for not thinking clearly about the claims she has made with respect to the IPCC, and for flinging serious accusations at other scientists without just cause."

James Annan has laid out examples of Curry's "history of throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong."

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/30/article-2055191-0E974B4300000578-6_634x639.jpg

I suppose you are just going to ignore BEST's OWN data?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The BEST project, which has been lavishly funded, brings together experts from different fields from top American universities.

It was set up 18 months ago in an effort to devise a new and more accurate way of computing changes in world temperatures by using readings from some 39,000 weather stations on land, instead of adding sea temperatures as well.

Some scientists, Prof Muller included, believe that this should provide a more accurate indication of how the world is responding to carbon dioxide.

The oceans, they argue, warm more slowly and this is why earlier global measurements which also cover the sea – such as those from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University – have found no evidence of warming since the Nineties.

From the link above....

Hey... let's just cherry pick the data we want. Right Bfgrn? Just choose which data we want to use so that it can hopefully project a case for our fear mongering.... right? I mean, THAT is surely 'real science' to idiots like you, Mott and Cypress. Right?

 

[DamnYankee]

Judith A. Curry is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. A high profile climate communicator, she runs a climate blog and is regularly invited by Republicans to testify at climate hearings about uncertainties in climate understanding and predictions.

Her climate outreach communication has been criticized for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence.

Criticisms from climate scientists

Liu and Curry's August 2010 paper, "Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice", has been criticized for its failure to cite previous papers drawing the same conclusion, and for its "uncritical use of invalid data".

Curry's "public outreach" communication is criticized by prominent climate scientists and other science-aligned climate bloggers for its propensity toward "inflammatory language and over-the-top accusations ...with the...absence of any concrete evidence and [with] errors in matters of simple fact."

Gavin Schmidt has criticized Curry for "not knowing enough about what she has chosen to talk about, for not thinking clearly about the claims she has made with respect to the IPCC, and for flinging serious accusations at other scientists without just cause."

James Annan has laid out examples of Curry's "history of throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong."

So we can count on you to be an advocate for nuclear power, right?

 

[Bonestorm]

SF, this is sad. The BEST study confirmed what the other agencies already reported: the Earth is warming. Now, I'm not going to get into a debate about cause with you, but ignoring the fact of warming is insane at this point:

Yet Berkeley Earth’s results, as described in four papers currently undergoing peer review, but which were nonetheless released on October 20th, offer strong support to the existing temperature compilations. The group estimates that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911°C: a mere 2% less than NOAA’s estimate. That is despite its use of a novel methodology—designed, at least in part, to address the concerns of what Dr Muller terms “legitimate sceptics”.

Here's a chart:

http://www.economist.com/node/21533360

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

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.

I wonder why he did this BEFORE the Peer review process? Any guesses Bfgrn?

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.’

Oh.... that would explain it.... REAL Scientists at work here!!! Right Mott? Right Bfgrn?

Prof Muller defended his behaviour yesterday, saying that all he was doing was ‘returning to traditional peer review’, issuing draft papers to give the whole ‘climate community’ a chance to comment.

Except those bound by confidentiality agreements....

As for the press release, he claimed he was ‘not seeking publicity’, adding: ‘This is simply a way of getting the media to report this more accurately.’

RIIIIIGHT.... How I wonder does this get the media to report 'more accurately'? .... and isn't the whole reason for a press release to seek publicity?

He said his decision to publish was completely unrelated to the forthcoming United Nations climate conference.

I know Bfgrn will believe the above, as will the moronic pair of Mott and Cypress, but if anyone else buys this, I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you.

This, he said, was ‘irrelevant’, insisting that nothing could have been further from his mind than trying to influence it.

LMAO.... these are the 'scientists' the fear mongering flat earth global warming idiots are backing.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

SF, this is sad. The BEST study confirmed what the other agencies already reported: the Earth is warming. Now, I'm not going to get into a debate about cause with you, but ignoring the fact of warming is insane at this point:

Ah yes, the standard 'deflection' tactic from the left. We KNOW the earth warmed going into the late 1990's. The debate is whether or not MAN was the primary cause and whether 'the debate is over' on this issue. The debate is whether it is primarily caused by CO2. The fact that CO2 levels have continued rising the past decade, yet temps have not would suggest that the debate is most certainly NOT over.

If you honestly think it was Best's intention to just state that temperatures rose from the 1950's to the 1990's, then you are quite the simpleton. His comments tell you exactly what his intentions were.

 

[tinfoil]

I've been following this at Judith's site. I find it hilarious that Muller is being described as some renowned sceptic. LOL the only thing I recall was he known for in sceptic terms was his video of the climategate issue. I'd love to see someone cite some of Muller's sceptical works. Anyone notice how the propagandists do this?

check this out
http://www.9and10news.com/Category/Story/?id=308074&cID=3

WASHINGTON (AP) — After two years of studying the data for himself, a prominent physicist who's been a skeptic of global warming now says it looks like mainstream climate scientists are right. Richard Muller says the planet's surface temperatures are 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. His study was partly funded by a foundation connected to global warming deniers.



LOL that's the whole news report. No links either.
Don't you love propaganda?

 

[Bfgrn]

Ah yes, the standard 'deflection' tactic from the left. We KNOW the earth warmed going into the late 1990's. The debate is whether or not MAN was the primary cause and whether 'the debate is over' on this issue. The debate is whether it is primarily caused by CO2. The fact that CO2 levels have continued rising the past decade, yet temps have not would suggest that the debate is most certainly NOT over.

If you honestly think it was Best's intention to just state that temperatures rose from the 1950's to the 1990's, then you are quite the simpleton. His comments tell you exactly what his intentions were.

Actually, the 'debate' is becoming much more clear with Teapublicans taking over the House. It is not at all about global warming, and it has never been. That was just a smoke screen. Because one thing we are SURE of; pollution is man-made. But now we find out their TRUE intentions. Environmental protection is a BAD thing because it puts constraints on the 'job creators' who haven't created a fucking job in a decade of right wing ass licking of those same 'job creators'...the aristocracy you right wing turds want to build. But the TRUTH is good environmental policy is good economic policy. All 28 major environmental laws were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market. It is regressive morons like you who don't know SHIT about economics and TRUE costs.


Warning: Drinking Tea Party Rhetoric May Cause Cancer

Republicans in the House of Representatives have voted 169 times to weaken environmental laws on the notion that such regulations slow economic growth. The argument is that regulatory compliance is too costly to industry. What is forgotten in that logic is that exposing our children to toxic chemicals in our water and air cost the United States $76.6 billion in health expenses in 2008 (the number is certainly bigger now). And that figure does not include economic losses resulting from workers taking sick leave due to illnesses caused directly from exposure to pollutants. Nor do these figures take into account the positive impact on job creation when investing in clean water and air. Even without those adjustments, by any measure the economic impact of pollution greatly exceeds the total estimate annual cost of complying with environmental regulations: about $25 billion. To put these numbers in perspective, Exxon earned a profit of $10.7 billion in the second quarter of this year. The Clean Air Act Amendments (1990) are estimated to create $2 trillion (with a "t") in economic benefits in the 30 years following passage; compared to the total cost of complying with those amendments over that same period coming in around $65 billion. That is a cost/benefit ratio of 1:30. Any good businessman would look at that balance sheet and draw the obvious conclusion.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Actually, the 'debate' is becoming much more clear with Teapublicans taking over the House. It is not at all about global warming, and it has never been. That was just a smoke screen. Because one thing we are SURE of; pollution is man-made. But now we find out their TRUE intentions. Environmental protection is a BAD thing because it puts constraints on the 'job creators' who haven't created a fucking job in a decade of right wing ass licking of those same 'job creators'...the aristocracy you right wing turds want to build. But the TRUTH is good environmental policy is good economic policy. All 28 major environmental laws were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market. It is regressive morons like you who don't know SHIT about economics and TRUE costs.

ROFLMAO.... wow, here I thought old cornholio was deflecting. You trumped his deflection by a magnitude of 20. The above has NOTHING to do with what we are discussing. Nothing. Environmental protections are necessary to a degree, I do not dispute that. Pollution is absolutely something we should address, which has been my point all along in the global warming fear mongering debate. I think there is a lot we can do to clean our air, water and land. But again, but all of this is just a deflection attempt on your part not to address any of the points the article made about this fraud of a 'scientist' that global warming fear mongers like you support.

THEY are part of the problem as well.

 

[Bonestorm]

Ah yes, the standard 'deflection' tactic from the left. We KNOW the earth warmed going into the late 1990's. The debate is whether or not MAN was the primary cause and whether 'the debate is over' on this issue. The debate is whether it is primarily caused by CO2. The fact that CO2 levels have continued rising the past decade, yet temps have not would suggest that the debate is most certainly NOT over.

If you honestly think it was Best's intention to just state that temperatures rose from the 1950's to the 1990's, then you are quite the simpleton. His comments tell you exactly what his intentions were.

Like I said, I have no interest whatsoever in discussing cause with you. I'd just like to reach a point where simple, obvious fundamental facts can be agreed to, like the fact that global warming exists, whatever the cause.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Actually, the 'debate' is becoming much more clear with Teapublicans taking over the House. It is not at all about global warming, and it has never been. That was just a smoke screen. Because one thing we are SURE of; pollution is man-made. But now we find out their TRUE intentions. Environmental protection is a BAD thing because it puts constraints on the 'job creators' who haven't created a fucking job in a decade of right wing ass licking of those same 'job creators'...the aristocracy you right wing turds want to build. But the TRUTH is good environmental policy is good economic policy. All 28 major environmental laws were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market. It is regressive morons like you who don't know SHIT about economics and TRUE costs.


Warning: Drinking Tea Party Rhetoric May Cause Cancer

Republicans in the House of Representatives have voted 169 times to weaken environmental laws on the notion that such regulations slow economic growth. The argument is that regulatory compliance is too costly to industry. What is forgotten in that logic is that exposing our children to toxic chemicals in our water and air cost the United States $76.6 billion in health expenses in 2008 (the number is certainly bigger now). And that figure does not include economic losses resulting from workers taking sick leave due to illnesses caused directly from exposure to pollutants. Nor do these figures take into account the positive impact on job creation when investing in clean water and air. Even without those adjustments, by any measure the economic impact of pollution greatly exceeds the total estimate annual cost of complying with environmental regulations: about $25 billion. To put these numbers in perspective, Exxon earned a profit of $10.7 billion in the second quarter of this year. The Clean Air Act Amendments (1990) are estimated to create $2 trillion (with a "t") in economic benefits in the 30 years following passage; compared to the total cost of complying with those amendments over that same period coming in around $65 billion. That is a cost/benefit ratio of 1:30. Any good businessman would look at that balance sheet and draw the obvious conclusion.

So are you saying that Judith Curry is just a stooge for Exxon et al? Seems that is the standard argument trotted out whenever somebody commits an AGW heresy.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Like I said, I have no interest whatsoever in discussing cause with you. I'd just like to reach a point where simple, obvious fundamental facts can be agreed to, like the fact that global warming exists, whatever the cause.

No one is disputing that. So if you have no interest in discussing the ACTUAL disagreement with regards to global warming fear mongering... then perhaps you should chose to remain silent rather than simply state facts everyone agrees on. It warmed from the 1950's to the late 1990's. THANKS for the tip captain Obvious!

It again is whether or not MAN is CAUSING the warming that is the issue. Idiots like Cypress, Mott and Bfgrn want to pretend that it is 'settled science'... yet they ignore ALL data that contradicts their religious beliefs.

 

[Bonestorm]

No one is disputing that. So if you have no interest in discussing the ACTUAL disagreement with regards to global warming fear mongering... then perhaps you should chose to remain silent rather than simply state facts everyone agrees on. It warmed from the 1950's to the late 1990's. THANKS for the tip captain Obvious!

It again is whether or not MAN is CAUSING the warming that is the issue. Idiots like Cypress, Mott and Bfgrn want to pretend that it is 'settled science'... yet they ignore ALL data that contradicts their religious beliefs.

Oh, right. We were always at war with Eurasia.

 

[Bfgrn]

So are you saying that Judith Muller is just a stooge for Exxon et al? Seems that is the standard argument trotted out whenever somebody commits an AGW heresy.

Do you deny that stooges paid for by Exxon et al exist? Do you believe dirty energy producers are just going to sit back benignly? The REAL truth does go back the 1950's. It started around 1953 when the tobacco industry was faced with the FACT cigarette smoking caused cancer. They set in motion a well funded PR campaign to pay for pseudo scientists and reports that created doubt. They knew people would not actually READ the PR reports and books. It worked very well. It delayed legislation for 40 years. The same PR tactics are being used today by the climate deniers. So you and the freak spew PR, not science.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Do you deny that stooges paid for by Exxon et al exist? Do you believe dirty energy producers are just going to sit back benignly? The REAL truth does go back the 1950's. It started around 1953 when the tobacco industry was faced with the FACT cigarette smoking caused cancer. They set in motion a well funded PR campaign to pay for pseudo scientists and reports that created doubt. They knew people would not actually READ the PR reports and books. It worked very well. It delayed legislation for 40 years. The same PR tactics are being used today by the climate deniers. So you and the freak spew PR, not science.

Ah yes, more deflection from the left. Cannot address ANY of the points made, so they run to 'well, the tobacco companies tried to hide blah blah blah' or 'da oil companies is da evilz!!!'

The only pseudo scientists are the ones you worship at the alter of flat earth global warming.