'Hide the decline' explored by Berkeley professor

I read the thread and I also think that pollution is a bad thing. That said, I also think that the Global Warming crowd has an agenda that is worth fighting against.
 
paso, remember when you linked to a Think Progress article completely undermining the BEST project? So how do you feel about it now? How about you Bevo Icognito?
 
I honestly have not read anything put out by the BEST Project and do not really intend to unless it is peer reviewed. I am, however, not surprised that they eventually concluded the actual peer reviewed work by real scientists was good.

Does this surprise you?
 
Yeah, Judith Curry was also one of several who have pointed out that the BEST papers use data that has a statistical bias which makes up half of the reported warming. I don't think this situation is really helpful for your cause paso, Texoz, etc.
 
Joking about what? That Judith Curry found that the statistical bias of the data was half of the presented warming? No. That is the reason she made the comments she did about the latest BEST paper. Are denying the science?
 
Am I denying something Judith Curry claimed? Absolutely. She was a part of the BEST Project until the result was something she didn't like. She is a flake.

You need to examine the thread sequence. The BEST Project was partially funded by the Koch brothers in an effort to discredit global warming. Muller was funded by Koch because of his skepticism. The fact that he has confirmed the research of others like Mann is both unsurprising and yet highly entertaining. I do not particularly care about his research until or unless it is peer reviewed (like Mann's is).

I do, however, find it entertaining as hell that mop's own guy turned on him. I guess the decline was not hidden after all.
 
paso, you are already a few steps behind. this is all based upon a "study" that got peer reviewed and rejected! it was found to have serious problems, so Muller is now trying to pimp it via the media (who is eating it up). meanwhile a new study (yet to be peer reviewed) finds that the data from the last 20 years has such serious problems as to basically erase 50% of what we have seen. this is not at all the situation you seem to be fantasizing that it is.

But i concur, this thread did not turn out how i expected. but what is funny is that you are the guy who first lynched Muller on this thread and now you are hailing his work. so the ways this thread has turned is ironic for BOTH of us, not just me. might as well face the fact that trying to get too much milage out of claims by Muller is not working out for either of us.
 
Read this very, very slowly. I have neither read nor do I champion Muller's work. I have looked at a number of temperature reconstructions including those by Mann and Rahmstorf that have been peer reviewed.

I do, however, find it entertaining as hell that you are now turning on someone you once championed and the Koch brothers are getting bitten by someone they fed.

The science is and has been solid so Muller and Curry chasing each other's tail is a sideshow apparently designed primarily for my amusement. The entire BEST Project was somewhat of a waste of time (as I noted at the outset of this thread).

It is fun to see Muller change his tune.
 
yeah, but it turns out Muller didn't really change his tune. he has been a consistent AGW enthusiast since the beginning. the only time he looked a bit like a true skeptic was when he admitted that "hide the decline" was a joke and not defensible. Otherwise he has a rich history of supporting alarmism before the BEST project began, during the BEST project and since. In fact, billing him as a skeptic on my part was ignorance in light of these facts that have come to light, but it is inexcusable for the press who has access to plenty of evidence that Muller was never a skeptic. Trying to skip around the shortcomings of his study makes him look even more pathetic.
 
wink.gif
 
It's interesting that the BEST study did not look at temperature changes in the ocean areas, nor did it address human causes of the warming....

I don't want to pay for a NYT subscription, so I can't read Muller's opinion piece, though, so I don't know what he's basing his opinion on
 
The Link

So one of the last holdouts, of course which had nothing to do with massive funding by the Koch brothers, now recants his anti-global warming stance, and states that the cause is almost totally human-caused.

Should we have a countdown of the remaining skeptics, to see if mop can ultimately become the final one on earth? I have every confidence he can accomplish this feat.
 
wow accurate, that is a very interesting take. Muller was anything but "one of the last holdouts." in fact, there have been far more former believers converting to the skeptic than the other way around (if Muller can even reasonably be considered a skeptic.) Here are some quotes from Muller over the years:

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
It's a bit shocking when someone who has been debating this topic with skeptics on this forum for several years can still so wildly misrepresent the other side.

1. virtually no skeptic denies the physics behind CO2, we question the feedbacks.
2. The fact that the world is warming and has been for 200 years does not mean that CO2 is the primary cause of the warming
3. In light of the above fact, the fact that we have been "above average" for several decades is not only not surprising information, it is incredibly mundane information.


In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
several points need to be reiterated:

1. Muller is anything but a "last holdout." He isn't even much of a skeptic. He rightly criticized those involved with "hide the decline" but otherwise has shown almost no characteristics of a skeptic in terms of questioning things that ought to be questioned.

2. every few months another prominent scientist of some sort comes out as a skeptic. the population of skeptics is growing while that of the believers is shrinking.

3. money no doubt influences both sides to a certain level, but there is FAR more money available for those who decide to "go with the flow" on AGW. This is not even close. Grant money flows for those who will tow the line on global warming orthodoxy. In spite of that, there continue to be studies coming out monthly that call into question the aforementioned orthodoxy.
 
He did, in his public statements, reference the scientific work that has gone into this opinion. The other potential causes have been eliminated or considered. He is actually right about this (although I have not read his actual work). This opinion is also consistent with the work of actual scientists in this area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top