Climate Farce

I wrote here about Berkeley physicist Richard Muller setting up an independent project to establish the truth about climate change. Muller had sided with sceptics, so they were keenly anticipating his conclusions.

I wasn't expecting to hear from him so soon. But Muller testified at last week's Congressional hearing on climate science, and it turns out his preliminary results find global warming trend "very similar to that reported by the prior groups".

As New York Times op-ed writer Paul Krugman writes, the sceptics are seething.

Just a few weeks ago Anthony Watts, who runs a prominent climate denialist Web site, praised the Berkeley project and piously declared himself "prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong." But never mind: once he knew that Professor Muller was going to present those preliminary results, Mr. Watts dismissed the hearing as "post normal science political theater." And one of the regular contributors on his site dismissed Professor Muller as "a man driven by a very serious agenda."

Of course, Krugman points out, nobody who's been following this discussion believed for a moment that sceptics would accept a result confirming global warming. Any more, I'd add, than psi-sceptics would ever acknowledge the truth of any evidence of psi.

The Republicans fielded an economist, a lawyer and a marketer among their "expert witnesses" (the lawyer argued that the gas emissions should not be declared a health threat, because they had been rising steadily for the past century, during which time public health had improved).

As Krugman suggests, it would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

Comments

[Lawrence]

Sigh. I have to say as an AGW skeptic that maybe you are getting ahead of yourself here. ONLY 2% of surface stations have had their temp data crunched through a stat analysis. Read that again - 2% OF THE AVAILABLE SURFACE STATION DATA. Nevermind the problems of linear and non-linear stat analysis on temp data here as the be-all-and-end-all to climate and climate change..too complex to get into here.

Here's an article from the very pro-AGW LA Times that - to their credit - puts things into a better perspective.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404,0,772697.story

Also see AGW skeptic Roger Pielke's blog post here on the above article, pouring even more cold water on the AGW hysterics
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/informative-news-article-by-margot-roosevelt-in-the-los-angeles-times-on-richard-mullers-testimony-to-congress/

Pielke Jr is a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) where he was Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He also served as a staff scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Some of the pertinent quotes from the LA Times article:

'Kevin Trenberth, who heads the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a university consortium, said he was "highly skeptical of the hype and claims" surrounding the Berkeley effort. "The team has some good people," he said, "but not the expertise required in certain areas, and purely statistical approaches are naive." '

Peter Thorne, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had this to say (from the self-same LA Times article):

"Thorne said scientists who contributed to the three main studies — by NOAA, NASA and Britain's Met Office — welcome new peer-reviewed research. But he said the Berkeley team had been "seriously compromised" by publicizing its work before publishing any vetted papers"

And Thorne is a true-believer in AGW! So when a NOAA scientist believer in AGW criticises Muller's claims as premature, well then..

As Pielke points out:

'Even Richard Muller was quoted as

“Although in his testimony Muller praised the “integrity” of previous studies, he said estimates of human-caused warming need to be “improved.” And despite his preliminary praise for earlier studies, he said further data-crunching “could bring our current agreement into disagreement.” '

Also Pielke's very pertinent post here on Muller's analysis
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/sampling-bias-in-the-best-analysis-reported-by-richard-muller/

Muller is/was hardly a full-fledged AGW skeptic btw, he was and is middle-of-the-road. He has been critical of much of the computer modelling and dubious temp data graphs and how this has been used to send people into the sky is falling endtimes panic (he still is) under that new disingenous misnomer 'climate change', but he could hardly be said to be a true-blue AGW skeptic like so many others.

This whole project, it's still very early days...let's see how it unfolds. Muller admits as much! Their analyses have not been properly vetted and to remind you, drawing conclusions from 2% OF THE DATA (that has debatable sampling bias problems)!! is absurd and even laughable. There are other big problems, the Berkeley team is too small, not disparate enough. Also talks by scientists before a Congressional or Senate hearing, when their work has yet to be properly scrutinised through the proper scientific channels and subjected to more sober reflection and tooth-comb analyses - talk about the politicisation of science! This hearing is the equivalent of science by press conference and equally dubious for the most part. Then again that's what this is all about, politics, theatre and rush rush rush.

Also amidst the hype and hysteria, easy to miss this (from the self-same pro-AGW LA Times no less):
"Temperature data are gathered from tens of thousands of weather stations around the globe, many of which have incomplete records. Over the last two decades, three independent groups have used different combinations of stations and varying statistical methods and yet arrived at nearly identical conclusions: The planet's surface, on average, has warmed about 0.75 degrees centigrade (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since the beginning of the 20th century."

Nobody disputes that there has been a SLIGHT warming trend, the question is is it 1 natural or man-made or how much is man-made and how much natural and 2 has the warming been signficant or not. The actual temp records show less than a ONE DEGREE CELSIUS INCREASE - yes celsius and centigrade not exactly the same thing, but for our purposes.. - over the last century or so! (Muller's testimony changes none of this) This is well within natural fluctuations. The climate is always changing, just for the record. Climate change is intrinsic to climate.

A response from Anthony Watts, well-known AGW skeptic (who Muller has praised in the past re Watts's commentary on the actual temp records) to Muller here http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/response_to_muller_testimony.pdf
A big problem is the siting of NOAA climate stations (which do not always follow self-same NOAA guidlines). Appropriate siting is needed to offset the artifice of the urban heat island effect and its warping of temp data record sets.

Much ado about nothing.

As Krugman states, it would be funny if it wasn't so serious. Yes indeed. Paul Krugman wouldn't be able to answer even very very basic questions on climate science. He has zero competence here. I would value his opinions on remote viewing and controversies in natural evolution far more, and I don't value his opinions on psi and evolution at all. He has no competence on scientific issues and controversies at all. None whatsoever. He has never demonstrated any. If you are going to be consistent Robert you should rush off to let us know what Krugman thinks of the controversies raging around the Daryl Bem precognition study, assuming he has even heard of it.

I don't want to be testy. I'm just saying..

[RabbitDawg]

Welcome to American politics.
Land of "Kinetic Military Actions". War? We don't know nothin' 'bout no war! Boot's on the ground? That's not boot's, that's the CIA!

A place where a Florida "Pastor" can burn a Koran, knowing that people will get killed by publicizing the video online. We've got our freedom of speech, you know. Will he, should he be silenced or stopped? No.

A country where a major Senate candidate has "I'm not a witch - I'm you" as a campaign slogan.

We're used to it...

[Michael Prescott]

"Will he, should he be silenced or stopped? No."

Gotta say, I don't think he should be silenced or stopped by force of law. He shouldn't have done it; it was a reckless and stupid act that has already cost innocent lives. But I don't want the government deciding that the Koran is somehow protected from the normal exercise of free speech.

Burning books is odious to me, but under the Bill of Rights people have the freedom to behave badly.

Regarding the AGW dustup, I agree with Lawrence that 1.7% of the data is not enough to form a conclusion. But even assuming that there has been some mild warming (as is probably the case), the big question still remains: to what extent does human activity contribute to this trend?

The nonfiction appendix to Michael Crichton's novel "State of Fear" is worth reading for a straightforward critique of AGW alarmism. Crichton concludes that some warming has occurred, but that very little of it is attributable to industrialism. (BTW, Crichton's essays on the paranormal in his memoir "Travels" are really excellent.)

Personally I think global cooling would pose much a greater threat than global warming. The Little Ice Age caused serious problems throughout Europe, while the Medieval Warm Period was a time of rising prosperity.

[RabbitDawg]

"Gotta say, I don't think he should be silenced or stopped by force of law. He shouldn't have done it; it was a reckless and stupid act that has already cost innocent lives..."

Of course he's an attention-seeking, mentally ill doofus. My understanding is that the local law enforcement officials aren't exactly devoting all of their precious resources to protect the good reverend. Why should they? Money's too tight to patronize fools. The fact is, I may have freedom of speech - but I am responsible for the actions that my speech provokes.

Such as, provoking some burly good ol' boy to hit me because I publicly state that his wife is fat and promiscuous. If I can proove that it's true, he can't sue me, and he may or may not be breaking the law by physically attacking me (some jurisdictions have a "fighting words" defense), but there is an implied responsibility inherent in certain freedoms. For example, If something bad were to happen to those Westboro Baptist Church funeral-disturbing maniacs, I wouldn't cry ('course I would love to be on the jury ;-)

I guess the point here is that the absurdly embarrassing flip-flop reaction that Richard Muller gave seems typical for so much of American politics, whether it's left or right leaning. Other countries may have the same type of clownish politicians and attention seekers, but sometimes it seems like we've perfected the bufoonish public office holder to a near-art.
On the other hand, the good news is that the U.S. seems like the last place left where climate change can still be openly debated. The system has its problems, but I wouldn't trade it for anything else that I can see out there.