Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Climate Hustle

Yes, It's Still Us, and It's Still Bad

Posted on 28 October 2011 by dana1981

Now that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study results are in, and have confirmed the accuracy of the surface temperature record (see here and here), those "skeptics" who spent years disputing the accuracy of the record despite all the evidence pointing to its accuracy are now shifting the goalposts.

Climate "skeptic" and WattsUpWithThat (WUWT) contributor Maurizio Morabito incorrectly predicted that the BEST results would show less warming than the records compiled by NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, but he did make one nearly correct prediction on the subject:

"Several attempts will be made by climate change conformists and True Believers to smear the work of BEST, and to prevent them from publishing their data"

Although unless Anthony Watts is a "climate change conformist and True Believer," he got the party wrong:

"the Muller et al paper uses data for comparison from 1950 – 2010....I see this as a basic failure in understanding the limitations of the siting survey we conducted on the USHCN, rendering the Muller et al paper conclusions highly uncertain, if not erroneous....I consider the paper fatally flawed as it now stands, and thus I recommend it be removed from publication consideration by JGR until such time that it can be appears they have circumvented the scientific process in favor of PR." -Anthony Watts

Indeed, since the BEST results became public, rather than accept their results as promised, WUWT has produced a steady stream of attacks on their work, including a mocking cartoon and guest author Willis Eschenbach going as far as to call the BEST team "media whores"Twice.

Morabito has now published a new post on WUWT attempting to minimize the impact of the BEST results, claiming that the following three questions (quoted from Eschenbach) remain unanswered:

"To date, I have not seen any “useful quantative results” regarding [how much increasing greenhouse gases will warm the Earth].

Once those quantitative results are in, we can proceed to the next question — is a warmer earth better or worse on balance? there a cost-effective way to reduce the GHGs, or are we better off putting our money into adaptation?"

Likewise, Kenneth Green at Master Resource has asked the exact same questions in a separate article.  Clearly, now that they are forced to admit the planet is warming, the "skeptics" are doubling down on these other climate myths.  Green, Morabito, Eschenbach, and the WUWT folks in general would benefit from reading Skeptical Science (SkS), because we have answered all of these questions many times.

Quantifying the Increased Greenhouse Effect

Coincidentally, my very first post on SkS was on quantifying the human contribution to global warming.  It's actually not a terribly difficult exercise - all we need to know are the radiative forcing and climate sensitivity.  Quantifying the net human influence on the climate is a more difficult task, because the magnitude of the cooling effect from aerosols remains highly uncertain. 

However, quantifying the increased greenhouse effect is relatively simple.  We know the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases with high precision, and the associated radiative forcings are known with a high degree of confidence (Figure 1).

ipcc forcings

Figure 1:  Global average radiative forcing in 2005 (best estimates and 5 to 95% uncertainty ranges) with respect to 1750.  Source (IPCC AR4).

We recently discussed this subject during our dialogue with Dr. Pielke Sr., and showed that using the CO2 radiative forcing estimate of Skeie et al. (2011) and the Padilla et al. (2011) 90%  confidence range for the transient climate sensitivity parameter, we can estimate a CO2 contribution of 0.64 to 1.28°C, with a best estimate of 0.79°C warming of average global surface temperature over the past ~150 years.  If we add in the warming effects of the other long-lived greenhouse gases, the best estimate rises to 1.22°C surface warming caused by human emissions (we've only observed ~0.8°C warming because much of that has been offset by human aerosol emissions).  And the IPCC has quantified how much future warming we can expect in various emissions scenarios - in the ballpark of 4°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100 if we continue on our business-as-usual path (Scenario A2) (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Global surface temperature projections for IPCC Scenarios. Shading denotes the ±1 standard deviation range of individual model annual averages. The orange line is  constant CO2 concentrations at year 2000 values. The grey bars at right indicate the best estimate (solid line within each bar) and the likely range.  (Source: IPCC AR4).

We believe these are "useful quantitative results," and thus Morabito and Eschenbach's first question has been answered.  And of course on top of these quantitative results, there are the many empirically-observed fingerprints of man-made global warming (Figure 3).


Figure 3: 'Fingerprints' of man-made global warming

It's Bad

Morabito proceeds to make various "common sense" arguments as to why a warmer world would benefit humanity, for example "a warmer world is predicted to be a wetter world, which overall can only be a good thing."  This is quite obviously a grossly oversimplified argument.  How much wetter, and what part of the climate system (atmosphere?  surface?)?  Uniformly wetter, or will some areas receive the bulk of the increased precipitation?  Without answering these questions, arguing that a "wetter world" will necessarily benefit humanity is foolish.  "Common sense," when based on ignorance, is rarely correct.

As SkS has documented, the balance of the consequences of rapid climate change will be bad, according to the peer-reviewed scientific literature.  Increased evaporation will lead to drier land, while increased atmospheric water vapor will lead to stronger storms concentrated in smaller areas, meaning more floods and more droughts, depending on the geographic location.  Sea levels will rise, flooding populations along the coastlines (where a large percentage of people live), and ocean acidification will cause marine ecosystems to decline.  We are also currently on pace to trigger the Earth's sixth mass extinction, with climate change playing a major role.

Even if you deny all of this scientific evidence, risking the future of humanity on little more than your optimism and personal beliefs is extremely unwise and poor risk management.

Cost-Effective Solutions

There appears to be a very strong correlation between climate "skepticism" and ignorance of climate economics.  Watts, Monckton, Christy, SpencerLindzen, Montgomery, and a large number of politicians have all incorrectly argued that putting a price on carbon emissions will damage the economy.  What all of these "skeptics" fail to understand is that we already have to pay the external costs of those emissions (which we experience through climate change impacts).  If those costs are reflected in the market price of the carbon emissions sources (which they currently are not), then people can accurately consider those costs in making their purchasing decisions. 

In short, putting a price on carbon emissions is a free market solution that remedies a market failure (external costs).  That's why there is an economic consensus that we should put a price on carbon emissions (Figure 4), and why Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman called putting a price on these emissions "Econ 101."

should US reduce emissions

Figure 4: New York University School of Law Institute for Policy Integrity survey of economists with expertise in climate, results when asked under what circumstances the USA should reduce its emissions.

It's also why even conservative economists like Nicholas Muller, Robert Mendelsohn, and William Norhaus agree that we should put a price on carbon emissions, even when their estimates of the current external costs of those emissions are exceptionally conservative.  Simply put, economic analyses have consistently shown that the benefits of carbon pricing will exceed the costs several times over.  Thus, to answer the third Morabito/Eschenbach question, carbon pricing systems are indeed cost effective solutions.

Doubled-Down Denial

It's understandable that those who are in denial about anthropogenic climate change are shifting the goalposts now that the BEST results have made the accuracy of the surface temperature record almost impossible to deny.  However, the BEST results have not made the body of climate science (or economics) literature disappear.  Multiple lines of scientific evidence overwhelmingly show that human greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause of the current global warming, that the consequences of that warming will on the whole be bad, and that there are cost-effective solutions to the problem, of which carbon pricing systems are a critical component.

If BEST convinces the self-proclaimed "skeptics" to stop denying the accuracy of the surface temperature record, that will be a small step in the right direction.  But rejecting the rest of the body of climate science and economics research is still denial, and doubling down on different climate myths is not going to solve our problems.

0 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page


1  2  Next

Comments 1 to 50 out of 68:

  1. Kudos on an excellent synthesis of the key elements of climate change and why the major arguments made by deniers are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
    0 0
  2. Even the belief that "a warmer world is predicted to be a wetter world, which overall can only be a good thing" is a continuation of simplistic so-called skepticism (aka denial), as yet another study shows :

    Rivers and streams in the United States are releasing substantially more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than previously thought.
    The paper, titled "Significant Efflux of Carbon Dioxide from Streams and Rivers in the United States," also indicates that as the climate heats up there will be more rain and snow, and that an increase in precipitation will result in even more terrestrial carbon flowing into rivers and streams and being released into the atmosphere.

    If only life was as simplistic as those so-called skeptics believe it to be...
    0 0
  3. Yes, I've always thought that the simplistic "skeptic" mindset must be a very comforting way to view the world. Warmer is better. Wetter is better. Everything climate scientists say we should worry about is nothing to worry about.

    Then again, they also think global warming is a massive conspiracy for climate scientists to get rich, and for the government to take all their money away via carbon taxes. They worry about imagined threats, and dismiss real threats. A very strange mindset.
    0 0
  4. There is still one AGW denier who is denying that temperatures have risen since 1940. In a recent comment to a Nature editorial Fred Singer claims:

    But unlike the land surface, the atmosphere has shown no warming trend, either over land or over ocean — according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons. This indicates to me that there is something very wrong with the land surface data. And did you know that climate models, run on super-computers, all insist that the atmosphere must warm faster than the surface? And so does theory.

    And finally, we have non-thermometer temperature data from so-called ?proxies?: tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites. They don?t show any global warming since 1940!
    0 0
  5. Ian wrote: "There is still one AGW denier who is denying that temperatures have risen since 1940."

    Oh, there are lots of them.

    Over on the McLean thread there was a guy claiming temperatures haven't risen since 1659. :]

    Of course, you'll also find alot of the exact same people also saying that nobody ever claimed temperatures weren't rising. Heck, I bet you Monckton will make both claims in the same speech.
    0 0
  6. The satellites show no warming trend? Somebody should let RSS and UAH know their data is wrong.

    We've got a post in the works on the ratio of lower troposphere to surface warming over land in response to an error-riddled Eschenbach post on the subject at WUWT.
    0 0
  7. Every month that goes by makes WUWT reveals itself for what it is. The efforts made by moderators there to give it an appearance of scientific relevance are a little pathetic. It baffles me that R.P. Sr would want to be associated in even the loosest way with this miserable display.
    0 0
  8. Ian @4,

    That is interesting, because on another thread poster JMurphy found this quote by Fred Singer when referring to the BEST global temperature results:

    "I applaud and support what is being done by the Project — a very difficult but important undertaking. I personally have little faith in the quality of the surface data, having been exposed to the revealing work by Anthony Watts and others. However, I have an open mind on the issue and look forward to seeing the results of the Project in their forthcoming publications."

    But Watts and Delingpole et al. assure us that real 'skeptics' never doubted that the planet has been warming. So we know what that makes Singer then.
    0 0
  9. The Fred Singer claim is perplexing. It's similar to his claim in 2000.

    "But since 1979, our best measurements show that the climate has been cooling just slightly. Certainly, it has not been warming."

    "The surface record continues to go up. But you have to be very careful with the surface record. It is taken with thermometers that are mostly located in or near cities. And as cities expand, they get warmer. And therefore they affect the readings. And it's very difficult to eliminate this--what's called the urban heat island effect. So I personally prefer to trust in weather satellites."

    PBS Interview with Singer

    Now this interview was around the time all the big errors (diurnal drift, orbital decay) were being discovered and corrections made. Some of the corrections may have been applied earlier than his interview, and while that might lead one to believe Singer wasn't up-to-speed on the latest findings, what in the world is his excuse now? It's like he's stuck in 1997.

    Science moves on. Deniers are left behind.
    0 0
  10. When some folks at WUWT say with confidence that the earth hasn't warmed in the last 10 years... it makes me think that they look at scientific inquiry through the smallest of lenses - one that is truly ignorant of the hard work put in by people all over the world.

    If they don't believe climate change experts in the US, or the UK ...fine... trust the ones in Japan!
    0 0
  11. " It baffles me that R.P. Sr would want to be associated in even the loosest way with this miserable display."

    Money talks, apparently.
    0 0

    [DB] Please clarify your point.  If you are implying that RPSr receives untoward compensation for the positions he takes then that is a violation of the Comments Policy & you will have to rescind that implication.

  12. NewYorkJ @9,

    Great sleuthing. Yup, Singer is stuck in 1997, McIntyre is stuck in 1998....

    Actually I do not think Pielke Sr. is doing what he is doing for the money at all, I have a pretty good idea where he is coming from, but won't get into it here. Unless you can cite evidence for your claim, I would encourage you to retract it as it actually breaks the site's Comments policy.
    0 0
  13. Well that settles it.

    No-one should ever accept any kind of physical challenge from any of these people. The muscle development from all that goalpost shifting must be absolutely massive.
    0 0
  14. 13, adelady,

    Ah ha! So you are saying the science is settled, are you? We knew it! Ah ha! Tomorrow's WUWT headline reads:
    Skeptical Science, That Closed Minded and Dogmatic Disinformation Site, Openly, Irrefutably (And Foolishly And Falsely) Declares That The Science Is Settled!
    0 0
  15. adelady - They don't have to be that muscular. After all, those goalposts have never been firmly fixed for these folks...

    Coming soon to a venue near you: Goalposts... On... Ice!!! - sliiiiiide...
    0 0
  16. Given the changeling nature inherent to these yon movable goalposts I suspect hot air inflation by the "skeptic" contingent; the size & volume of the skeptic meme deflates upon closer inspection.
    0 0
  17. If you have not already done so, you might want to check out "Koch-Funded Study Confirms Climate Data" by Al Gore posted on Huffington Post on Oct 26. The comment thread now has more than 800 comments. The Climate Denial Spin Machine is now in over-drive.
    0 0
  18. adelady, KR - not so much on ice (it will melt too soon), as on roller-skates :D
    0 0
  19. For those ineterested in how climate denial spin is reacting to BEST, then have a look at Jo Nova's site. If you do go there could you please point out any links to peer reviewed science you might find there? I'm not saying there is no sound science there, just that I haven't been able to find any.
    0 0
  20. 19, Stevo,

    I saw that and was going to comment, but I fell off of my seat laughing. I never even got to the comments. Nova's post was just too funny to get past.

    Man, talk about desperation. Of course, she still clings to the CO2-lags-temperature and "hot spot, hot spot" stuff, so what can one expect? She's probably the most embarrassing of all of the denial bloggers, because she doesn't even try (and her legion of followers fit that bill perfectly -- co2isnotevil hails from there).
    0 0
  21. Spherica @20,
    I'm glad you got a laugh. I couldn't even fathom whatever it was she thought she was rambling on about.
    Mercury based life forms, encroaching ice age quotes from the '70s......
    0 0
  22. Sphaerica

    I have in the past commented on both WUWT and JoNova. Anthony's crowd is generally straightforwardly nasty, Jo's sometimes has folks who are honestly looking for information - either way, I have found it worth my effort to (on occasion) put some of the actual science up, as I know it.

    But now?!? After the BEST publicity/papers both Anthony and Jo have gone into tinfoil hat mode. They're posting truly stunning collections of (unprintable adjectives here) that have zero connection with reality. It's like they're not even trying.

    Not much to do in the face of that kind of outright denial - except laugh, and suggest psych evaluations and possibly medication...
    0 0
  23. Yep, Nova's post is such an absurd jumble that I though I was looking at a title/precis page for series of posts, and kept re-hitting the title link to see the article on BEST. Then I realised this dog's-breakfast was the article!...

    Nobody could be persuaded by this nonsense, surely?

    Then you read the comments below. I think it's fair to say that the BEST results have finally winnowed away pretty-well all of the flighty chaff (any susceptible to being borne aloft on the winds of evidence) and left behind only the true grit; they're right, evidence notwithstanding, and they'll never be persuaded otherwise...
    0 0
  24. Since BEST only used land data (30% of the surface) and also found 1/3 of all stations cooled, all they proved was that 20% of the planet's surface warmed. Is that reason for all your celebrations? ;)
    0 0
  25. ...QED
    0 0
  26. Do you need any extra straws to clutch, Dale, or will that one do? Scientifically, this study was largely irrelevant before it even started, as its 'results' have already been repeatedly demonstrated by different independent groups. We already knew the Earth was warming, that UHI was largely irrelevant, and that the HADCRU record was probably on the low side.

    But unfortunately, certain nice people like Anthony "I'm prepared to accept the results of BEST even if they prove my premise wrong" Watts and his ilk simply refuse to accept that the good people at NASA, NOAA and the Hadley Centre could possibly do good science. It is for showing exactly the kind of cognitive dissonance going on in people like Watts, Nova, and others, that the BEST study was worth every one of its Koch-funded dollars.
    0 0
  27. Thanks for posting this. From my perspective, I have noticed many deniers in my own corner of the world have lapsed into (stunned?) silence, at least temporarily, since the BEST results. They have danced all over "hide the decline" so often, it is hard for them to get the words out.

    It is important to re-iterate the reasons for the warming of the planet, as the fallback position are "is it man-made?", and "it is natural variability" etc.
    0 0
  28. I suggest to Moribato and his friends on WUWT that "skeptics" need to give attention to these three questions:

    What is the equilibrium sea level rise for a warming of 2, 3 or 4 degrees C?

    Can the 40 percent of the world's human population living in the tropical zone (as opposed to more comfortable latitudes in the USA) tolerate a rise of 2, 3 or 4 degrees C?

    What percentage of the world’s biodiversity will be destroyed by a rise of 2, 3 or 4 degrees C?

    Honestly, they haven’t got a clue, have they?
    0 0
  29. The casual reader is invited to read Dale's comment at 24, and to determine for themselves if this represents truly rational, skeptical thinking or instead a desperate need to very simply ignore the facts and the science, to cover one's eyes, and the say over and over "it isn't there, it isn't there, it isn't there..."

    This behavior has been repeated over and over... a constant, irrational and often comical interpretation of facts and events. They can make it look good for a little while, and dress it up in so much complexity and obfuscation that it makes even an intelligent person stop and give it consideration. But as the evidence mounts...

    [Let me see if I can summarize the two positions...

    Dale: A new temperature study shows warming at 2/3 of the land stations which only represent 1/3 of the globe, so that only represents warming on 20% of the globe, so there is no warming.

    Science: 6 temperature studies (GISS, HADCRUT, NOAA, RSS, UAH, BEST) based on multiple data sources (including satellites and land and sea observations), all compiled and analyzed independently using entirely different (and in one case, UAH, even secret) methods all demonstrate clear and unequivocal warming. Two of those six records were produced by self-described skeptics. Simultaneously, Arctic, Greenland and glacial ice is melting at ever accelerating rates, and has reached historic lows. Historic floods, droughts, wild fires and heat waves are also being recorded in record numbers (a record squared!). The seas are rising consistent with both ice melt and thermal expansion. Humidity in the atmosphere has risen 4%, consistent with warming temperatures, increased evaporation, and an increased capacity of a warmed atmosphere to hold water vapor.]

    Sooner or later people have to catch on, and then to be themselves embarrassed that they ever took these people (Watts, Nova, etc.) and their followers seriously.
    0 0
  30. Beautiful written piece, however I don't think we should stoop to the deniers level in our comments and gloat.
    0 0
  31. Is there a source with annual temperature data that can be viewed on decadal or other user defined criteria?

    It's readily apparent that the global temperature has been rising. No surprises there. It appears to have stalled, or at least slowed down in the past few years. But, I don't know where to look to see that. Any help would be much appreciated.
    0 0
  32. 31, Sasquatch,

    Visit this page and play with the options for any selected temperature record (in particular "mean" and "linear trend").

    You'll probably want to look at a mean with a # of samples of 240 months (i.e. 10 years).

    0 0
  33. They are making "we never denied the earth was warming" statements not because that is true, but because they don't want to admit they were wrong.

    The best example of what they had been saying about the global temperature record is in the PDF "SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY-DRIVEN DECEPTION" published in 2010 by the SPPI, authored by Watt's and D'Aleo:

    "Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century"

    What BEST has done is not simply show there was warming, warming which "skeptics" doubted had happened, but it showed the pattern, timing and magnitude of warming was similar to what GISTEMP and HadCRUT3 already had demonstrated.

    In short it simply told us what we already knew - the false skeptic doubt was false doubt.

    They won't stop. They have only been forced to admit the planet has warmed temporarily as their response to being called out.

    Even now they are making the same old tired claims. Post #24 is a great example of this continuing. See if "skeptics" knew the world had warmed why is post #24 implying that maybe it hasn't.

    It was never about facts for them, or else they would have at least been consistent. They simultaneously cite the little ice age as a fact and cry outrage at the prospect of it being "removed", even as the muse that maybe the world hasn't warmed significantly since..the little ice age.

    Both views are convenient to them, so it doesn't matter that they are completely inconsistent.

    They aren't trying to be consistent. They are trying to sow doubt and when they have to they will try to cover their tracks.

    I think SkepticalScience should add a new skeptic claim for "skeptics never doubted the earth had warmed..."
    0 0
  34. Dale, do you know why people are not concerned about the sea temperatures?
    0 0
  35. Fred Singer - one of the 'heros' in the book Merchants of Doubt. A good read and gives some insight of his ilk and why they doubt real - opps - peer reviewed science
    0 0
  36. PhilMorris#35: If by 'hero,' you mean villain.
    0 0
  37. I think we need to accept that the very strong mental imperative to avoid cognitive dissonance means that those who deny AGW (and I've had my share of "vigorous" arguments with them on WUWT and other places) will NEVER accept any evidence that challenges their beliefs.

    All we can do is continue to put forward the evidence as calmly as we can (I confess I've been guilty sometimes of being a little too passionate in the face of egregous misrepresentations and outright ad-hom insults) so that those who are genuinely sceptical and open minded and want to learn can be pursuaded by the truth.

    This article by Dana is an excellent example of that approach :)
    0 0
  38. I think that we should stop completely responding to any of their comments. Complete and utter shutdown of communication. As Mark(37) said, just continue the onslaught of good data and superb analysis. Similar to the flat earthers, data will soon change the tide. My only worry (and source of my immense frustration) is that the tide might change way to late on its own.
    0 0
  39. Dale @ 24: "Since BEST only used land data (30% of the surface) and also found 1/3 of all stations cooled, all they proved was that 20% of the planet's surface warmed. Is that reason for all your celebrations? ;)"

    Dale, do you believe in the ability of scientists to collective representative samples, or do you assert we need a temperature reading at every spot on the earth before making any conclusions?

    Is your medical doctor capable of taking a representative sample of your blood chemistry with a 5 ml vial? Or do you demand they drain every drop of your blood, when you get a blood test?
    0 0
  40. @Ian Forrester writes: "There is still one AGW denier who is denying that temperatures have risen since 1940. In a recent comment to a Nature editorial Fred Singer claims:
    "But unlike the land surface, the atmosphere has shown no warming trend, either over land or over ocean..."
    Isn't that a bit like claiming that 'unlike everything within the greenhouse, the glass has shown no warming trend'?
    0 0
  41. On the same day that Dana posted his excellent essay, Zachary Shahan over at PlanetSave posted, "Yes, Global Warming is Real AND Caused by Humans." This is not the first time that Dana and Zachary have posted parallel articles almost simultaneously. Are they channeling each other?

    To access Zachary's informative article, click here.
    0 0
  42. That's funny John H. I guess great minds think alike!
    0 0
  43. Judith Curry attacks her co-authors.
    0 0
  44. Oh dear, the "skeptics" are feasting on each other. Desperate times to be A "skeptic" or someone in denial about AGW. The cognitive dissonance and denial in some circles (e.g., GWPF and WUWT) is quite impressive and scary.
    0 0
  45. Tamino has a post on why Curry's comments are nonsense.
    0 0
  46. Ian Forrester's links to the Daily Mail and Tamino (as well as related links to Curry's own site and WUWT), reveal a great deal of denial, reliance on the media and the GWPF for 'science', and desperation by all sorts of so-called skeptics. But no real scepticism, sadly. There can be found all those self-called sceptics who DO deny that the world has been warming, despite their own previous protestations. How do they manage to believe both assertions at the same time ?

    Plus, with regard to the Daily Mail, what a surprise to find the same shoddy, deceitful journalism. As well as Tamino's highlighting of Curry's (and the Daily Mail's) strange opinions, how could anyone think that a dodgy graph from the GWPF, that anyone could have produced, is in any way serious or convincing to anyone but those in denial ? And, the only other person they consulted (apart from Muller and Curry) was McKittrick, for some reason. Why ? Supposedly, many of those who could have been quoted criticising the BEST reports are not able to, because, apparently, they are actually reviewing the papers. No, I don't know, either...

    And Curry has, once again, tossed out some controversy, reckon she may have been misquoted, not understand what all the fuss could possibly be about, and become more of a darling for those in denial. Quite by accident and not intentionally, of course...
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [John Hartz] GWPF = Global Warming Policy Foundation
  47. You have to wonder why Curry was even invited to join the BEST group, since she clearly has no idea what they did, since their own FAQ contradicts her comments. I bet Muller is regretting inviting her to "participate" at this point.
    0 0
  48. Curry didn't just drink the kool-aid, she's taking it intravenously.
    ‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’
    Of course, the entire article is by none other than David Rose:

    More Rosegate
    More DailyMailGate
    0 0
  49. It's interesting (if only peripherally) that Dr. Roy is thus far silent on the BEST results. Instead, he posts a graphic proving that it's cooler in October than it was in July, with this insightful tidbit:

    "... you might have noticed the continuing drop this month in global temperatures."

    Noticed and dismissed with a 'what else is new?'

    As for the behavior of Dr. Curry, who is 2nd author on all four BEST papers, we may be seeing a manifestation of the Oozlum bird.
    0 0
  50. It would appear that Curry's inclusion in BEST was nothing more than an appeasement nod to the skeptic blogosphere. Which is perhaps by mutual design.

    Her attempts to now distance herself from the BEST findings amount to a last effort to retain the vestiges of seeming credibility for her "tribe".
    0 0

1  2  Next

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2019 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us