The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?

[wirebender]

We went through this back in March with Rocks presenting incomplete initial results as foregone conclusions, yet Rocks still tries seven months later to do the same thing.

Its a very dishonest streak in him. He apparently doesn't have much control over it. Interesting isn't it that people can show examples of his dishonesty but when the people he calls dishonest ask for him to show examples of their dishonesty, he can't deliver.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'm curious Ian, what non computer model derived evidence supports AGW? Also it has to of course not have been falsified...that's kind of important too.

I'll go so far as to say that for those honest scientists doing actual research the problem isn't falsified data, it's incompetently smoothed data. The historical GISS dataset doesn't even exist anymore. The only data available now is the daily average that was computed by software written by an amateur programmer (not someone formally trained or experienced in computer science and statistics).

Bad data begets bad data.

It's the GIGO Constant. "Garbage In, Garbage Out"

 

[Si modo]

I'll go so far as to say that for those honest scientists doing actual research the problem isn't falsified data, it's incompetently smoothed data. The historical GISS dataset doesn't even exist anymore. The only data available now is the daily average that was computed by software written by an amateur programmer (not someone formally trained or experienced in computer science and statistics).

Bad data begets bad data.

It's the GIGO Constant. "Garbage In, Garbage Out"

Yes.

 

[IanC]

I am pumped to see the BEST results! I am sure both sides will be disappointed but just the fact that raw data and correction methodology will be open access is a huge step forward. apparently it is just about through peer review so we should be seeing it soon. I dont know the cutoff date for inclusion into the new IPCC report but there should be time for rebuttal papers as well. get your popcorn ready!

as a side note: is it a good sign that there have been no leaks since Muller's congressional preliminary release?

 

[Si modo]

I am pumped to see the BEST results! I am sure both sides will be disappointed but just the fact that raw data and correction methodology will be open access is a huge step forward. apparently it is just about through peer review so we should be seeing it soon. I dont know the cutoff date for inclusion into the new IPCC report but there should be time for rebuttal papers as well. get your popcorn ready!

as a side note: is it a good sign that there have been no leaks since Muller's congressional preliminary release?

I think maybe it is good because that may indicate that they care more about the integrity of the work than press. That's always good in my book.

 

[asterism]

You have google, the same as I do. Find them yourself. However, others have checked out the data with the intent of demonstrating the errors, and their results are below.

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Study Results Confirm Global Warming - WaterWired

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Study Results Confirm Global Warming
First day of Spring!

Joe Romm, who runs the well-respected Climate Progress blog and Twitter, just posted this -hot-off-the press item: Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU”.

Thanks to friend Mark Boslough of Sandia National Laboratories for alerting me to this.

Romm writes that climatologist Ken Caldeira sent him this note:

I have seen a copy of the Berkeley group’s draft paper, which of course would be expected to be revised before submission.

Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.

Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.

The Berkeley group (BEST) - the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study - was created to take an objective look at all the temperature data of Earth to assess whether global warming is occurring or not. Others felt BEST was out to debunk global warming.

Romm continues:

In one sense, this finding isn’t news, since there have never been any credible challenges to the surface temperature data other than the smoke blown by the climate science deniers.

Indeed, we have very good reason to believe the data that were attacked the most, that collected by the Hadley Center and Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, (unintentionally) lowballed the rate of recent warming (see The deniers were half right: The Met Office Hadley Centre had flawed data — but it led them to UNDERestimate the rate of recent global warming).

A link to a blog is not data. A source (credible or not) posting results of a study is not data.

 

[Si modo]

You have google, the same as I do. Find them yourself. However, others have checked out the data with the intent of demonstrating the errors, and their results are below.

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Study Results Confirm Global Warming - WaterWired

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Study Results Confirm Global Warming
First day of Spring!

Joe Romm, who runs the well-respected Climate Progress blog and Twitter, just posted this -hot-off-the press item: Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU”.

Thanks to friend Mark Boslough of Sandia National Laboratories for alerting me to this.

Romm writes that climatologist Ken Caldeira sent him this note:

I have seen a copy of the Berkeley group’s draft paper, which of course would be expected to be revised before submission.

Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.

Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.

The Berkeley group (BEST) - the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study - was created to take an objective look at all the temperature data of Earth to assess whether global warming is occurring or not. Others felt BEST was out to debunk global warming.

Romm continues:

In one sense, this finding isn’t news, since there have never been any credible challenges to the surface temperature data other than the smoke blown by the climate science deniers.

Indeed, we have very good reason to believe the data that were attacked the most, that collected by the Hadley Center and Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, (unintentionally) lowballed the rate of recent warming (see The deniers were half right: The Met Office Hadley Centre had flawed data — but it led them to UNDERestimate the rate of recent global warming).

A link to a blog is not data. A source (credible or not) posting results of a study is not data.

(Rocks isn't too clear on that concept yet.)

 

[IanC]

I am pumped to see the BEST results! I am sure both sides will be disappointed but just the fact that raw data and correction methodology will be open access is a huge step forward. apparently it is just about through peer review so we should be seeing it soon. I dont know the cutoff date for inclusion into the new IPCC report but there should be time for rebuttal papers as well. get your popcorn ready!

as a side note: is it a good sign that there have been no leaks since Muller's congressional preliminary release?

I think maybe it is good because that may indicate that they care more about the integrity of the work than press. That's always good in my book.

I agree. its hard to believe that a warmer like Muller in a hotbed of liberalism like Berkeley wouldnt find a way to shade the rhetoric a bit but the actual science should be sound if only because it is open to everyone, unlike so much of past 'climate science'.

 

[2twsted4colorTV]

Right wingers explaining how "science" works is the true meaning of "Shock and Awe". Then the bellylaughs begin. Then the tears, followed by a few giggles and a small burp.

No, we use common sense. Ask yourself this. When the earth was once practically all covered in ice and it then all melted some thousands of years ago, what do you suppose caused that? There were no trains, planes or automobiles then. No factories. Doesn't it stand to reason that it is cyclic? Do a little research on the ocean currents like El Nino and La Nina for it is THEY who determine much of the climate. No about of breathing out CO2, farting, driving a car or anything is going to suddenly "warm" the earth. If anything, the earth will be "warmed" via the friction of the tectonic plates and/or volcanic activity. Both of which have been going on long before man inhabited the earth. My God, the dinosaurs were rendered extinct without the help of man.

This global warming nonsense was not started by any scientist. You go right on believing what you want. I shall continue doing and driving and farting and breathing out CO2 as I please.

 

[IanC]

You have google, the same as I do. Find them yourself. However, others have checked out the data with the intent of demonstrating the errors, and their results are below.

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Study Results Confirm Global Warming - WaterWired

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Study Results Confirm Global Warming
First day of Spring!

Joe Romm, who runs the well-respected Climate Progress blog and Twitter, just posted this -hot-off-the press item: Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU”.

Thanks to friend Mark Boslough of Sandia National Laboratories for alerting me to this.

Romm writes that climatologist Ken Caldeira sent him this note:

I have seen a copy of the Berkeley group’s draft paper, which of course would be expected to be revised before submission.

Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.

Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.

The Berkeley group (BEST) - the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study - was created to take an objective look at all the temperature data of Earth to assess whether global warming is occurring or not. Others felt BEST was out to debunk global warming.

Romm continues:

In one sense, this finding isn’t news, since there have never been any credible challenges to the surface temperature data other than the smoke blown by the climate science deniers.

Indeed, we have very good reason to believe the data that were attacked the most, that collected by the Hadley Center and Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, (unintentionally) lowballed the rate of recent warming (see The deniers were half right: The Met Office Hadley Centre had flawed data — but it led them to UNDERestimate the rate of recent global warming).

A link to a blog is not data. A source (credible or not) posting results of a study is not data.

(Rocks isn't too clear on that concept yet.)

Romm is just about the farthest away you can get from a neutral observer and reporter.

 

[Si modo]

I am pumped to see the BEST results! I am sure both sides will be disappointed but just the fact that raw data and correction methodology will be open access is a huge step forward. apparently it is just about through peer review so we should be seeing it soon. I dont know the cutoff date for inclusion into the new IPCC report but there should be time for rebuttal papers as well. get your popcorn ready!

as a side note: is it a good sign that there have been no leaks since Muller's congressional preliminary release?

I think maybe it is good because that may indicate that they care more about the integrity of the work than press. That's always good in my book.

I agree. its hard to believe that a warmer like Muller in a hotbed of liberalism like Berkeley wouldnt find a way to shade the rhetoric a bit but the actual science should be sound if only because it is open to everyone, unlike so much of past 'climate science'.

Irrespective of his leanings, I have yet to see anything he has done that lacked integrity. When I heard about his testimony, I was disappointed, initially, until I read his testimony and he made it crystal clear that his study was incomplete and nothing could be gleaned from it.

But, he also managed to draw a lot of attention to himself and the work that is pending. So, I suspect (and hope) that he knows his final work will be scrutinized for flaws moreso now.

I look forward to seeing what comes of it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Vindication for Hansen, et al.