Temperature Trends

The End of Climategate?

New data on global temperature trends sheds light on the 2009 climate change scandal.


Climategate erupted into public with the release in November 2009 of thousands of emails sent to and from researchers associated with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. It became a scandal because some of the emails seemed to suggest that prominent climate researchers may have fiddled with historical climate data with the goal of making recent increases in global average temperature look worse than it is. Suspicion was cast on three sets of historical temperature data, Hadley Centre/CRU series, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) series, and a third one from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

As a possible example of scientifically illegitimate manipulation, skeptics pointed to an email from National Center for Atmospheric Research climate scientist Tom Wigley where he mentioned lowering mid-20th century temperatures by 0.15°C. This would have the effect of making the later increase of global temperatures look steeper.

In another email from CRU head Phil Jones reported, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps ?to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from ?1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Skeptics decried this "trick" because it tacked (largely without acknowledging it) thermometer data onto the end of a tree ring data series where the complete set of tree ring data suggested that temperatures had actually declined rather than increased. A graphic using the adjusted data showing a recent sharp increase in northern hemisphere temperatures was published as the cover of the World Meteorological Association's statement [PDF] on the status of the climate in 1999.

Were global warming proponents cherry-picking temperature data to bolster their claims that the world was becoming substantially warmer because of the emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels? As University of Colorado environmental studies professor Roger Pielke Jr. told me back in 2009, "If it turns out that the choices made by CRU, GISS, NOAA fall on the 'maximize historical trends' end of the scale that will not help their perceived credibility for obvious reasons." On the other hand, Pielke added that Climategate could dissipate if probing by outside researchers finds that CRU, GISS, and NOAA researchers made temperature data adjustments "in the middle of the range or even low end, then this will enhance their credibility."

In 2010, University of California physicist Richard Muller decided to become just such an outside researcher. Why? In a lecture back in October 1, 2010, Muller made it clear that he was extremely provoked  by the implications of the "hide the decline" adjustments made to the tree ring data. Consequently, Muller established that Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) group* with the goal of checking the accuracy of the temperature datasets assembled by the climatologists involved in Climategate.

Putting aside the possibility of unwitting or witting data manipulation, global warming skeptics were also concerned about the quality of the data used to determine temperature trends. They pointed out that many weather stations were subject to the urban heat island effect as cities grew around them and that numerous changes in equipment and location could spuriously suggest rising temperatures. The BEST team created a vast new set of 1.6 billion temperature reports using raw temperature data from more than 39,000 unique measuring sites. The data come from five times more stations than are used to assemble the earlier datasets.

So what did the BEST team find? On October 20, BEST issued a press release that declared [PDF], "Despite issues raised by climate change skeptics, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study finds reliable evidence of a rise in the average world land temperature of approximately 1°C since the 1950s." Muller added, "Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the U.S. and the U.K. This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate skeptics did not seriously affect their conclusions." So much for that aspect of Climategate.

The BEST team focused on the land temperature data because those were considered to be the most likely ones to be biased. The team suggested that once ocean temperature data are included the increase since the 1950s in global average temperature would be reduced to about two-thirds of a degree centigrade. Muller stressed, "What Berkeley Earth has not done is make an independent assessment of how much of the observed warming is due to human actions." Nevertheless, one of the four studies issued by BEST looked at the influence of ocean currents on global temperature trends, specifically the effect of shifts in sea surface temperatures associated with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The study acknowledged that either greenhouse gas increases or natural variation might be driving AMO temperature changes. If the latter, that would suggest "the human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated."  

Naturally, proponents of anthropogenic global warming were pleased with the BEST results and skeptics disappointed. However, Muller told the BBC on October 29 that the BEST land data showed no indication  that man-made global warming has stopped or slowed down. He did also note that data combining land and ocean temperatures indicated that global temperature increases had slowed down in recent years. Interestingly, even some proponents of anthropogenic warming have accepted that "global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008." They blame factors like natural variability and increased air pollution for the hiatus.

Muller's assertion about recent temperature trends incited skeptics and a member of Muller's BEST team, Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry. An article with the provocative headline, "Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague," in the Sunday Daily Mail (U.K.) reported that Curry was accusing Muller of "trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST's research shows global warming has stopped." The article quotes Curry as asserting, "There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn't stopped. To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate."

It's surprising how quickly people jump to (apparently predetermined) conclusions when it comes to a slowly unfolding phenomenon like climate change. The Daily Mail article engendered a flood of headlines from warming skeptics including, "The Climate Scam Continues," and "Time for Another Climate Science Scandal."

However, it seems that Curry has learned a rueful lesson about answering leading questions from reporters. On her Climate Etc. blog she clearly states, "This is NOT a new scandal….There is NO comparison of this situation to Climategate." In fact, Curry and Muller talked together for 90 minutes earlier this week at the Third Santa Fe Conference on Global and Regional Climate Change. "I have to say that there isn't much that we disagree on," reports Curry. "So all in all, I am ok with what is going on in the BEST project." End of scandal.

Contacted via email, Curry tells me that she "does not regard their initial findings and analyses as the last word on any of this" but adds, "Their interpretation is not unreasonable." She pointed to the BEST FAQ on the issue which concludes that "the decadal fluctuations [in global temperatures] are too large to allow us to make decisive conclusions about long term trends based on close examination of periods as short as 13 to 15 years."

new study [PDF] just now being published by a leading group of climate modelers argues that "temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature." Considering that the warming pause in some temperature records has already been going on for 13 to 15 years perhaps we will soon find out if the climate models are producing valid results or not and get a better idea of how much warming can be attributed to accumulating greenhouse gases. 

While statistical quibbling about its results will occur, the BEST project has set admirable standards of scientific transparency with regard to data and how it's treated. This will help repair a bit of the damage to the public's trust in climate science caused by the insular authoritarian-minded band of climate scientists involved in Climategate.

*Disclosure: BEST received some funding from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. His brother David is a trustee of Reason Foundation which publishes this website.

Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is available from Prometheus Books.

NEXT: "The blunt truth is that Obama's jobs plan will not work."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. At least Bailey waited a respectful 24 hours after the freak blizzard.

    1. This creates the Warm Arctic-Cold Continent Pattern, shown in Figure 2 below for December 2009 and 2010. Red colors indicate areas where the Arctic was 9?F or 5?C warmer than normal. Purple colors indicate areas where the continents were 9?F or 5?C cooler than normal.

      Warm Arctic – Cold Continents
      The Polar Vortex

      1. …to have any sway at Reason.

        The reason?

        Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine

        US oil company donated millions to climate sceptic groups, says Greenpeace

        Report identifies Koch Industries giving $73m to climate sceptic groups ‘spreading inaccurate and misleading information’

        1. Did White Idiot say something stOOpid?


          1. Yeah fuck science, you’re STOOPID.

            Hurf Hurf Hurf

            1. I said nothing of the sort, you fucktard.

              1. Feel free to clarify your response, beautiful.

                1. Is it hitting on me? I don’t swing that way.

                  1. Since you apparently don’t know my gender, does that make you asexual?

                    1. It’s probably male, and votes Democrat, if not Communist Party USA.

                    2. He sounds like one of those know-it-all college boys! (spits)

                    3. It has that holier-than-thou attitude, just like most Democrats.

                      Wow, whoever engineered this thing is clever as fuck.

                    4. Government research. I win the thread.

                    5. It’s almost… sentient.

                    6. That makes one of us.

                    7. Awww! It’s trying to learn HUMOR. How fucking adorable.

    2. Reason’s Scientism correspondent is so enthralled with his data-driveling, numbers-numbing cult that he would never understand that a 4.5 billion year old planet experiencing gazillons of variables daily might have a mind of it’s own, swatting away a few score decades of human carbon consumption like some inconsequential gnat.

      1. how many ice ages have we had already?

        1. We were told we’d have one due to mankind’s polluting ways, back in the 70s.

          That didn’t happen, so they switched to global warming, another scare tactic.

          Unfortunately, a lot of supposedly-smart people believe we can actually decimate the entire ecosystem with gasoline and coal.

          1. The IR absorption of CO2 is less than that of water vapor. CO2 is a fraction of a single percent of the atmosphere, while water vapor varies, it is several orders of magnitude more significant.

            In other words, anyone who claims theres a scientific basis for “global warming” based on CO2 levels, is a liar.

            Also, if you look at the historical record, CO2 levels go up *after* temperatures go up. (The hoaxers just shift the timing on their charts to make it look like CO2 rises precede warming… since they’re being fraudulent to begin with, it should be no surprise that hey care not for science.)

            1. Wow. Water vapor and CO2 have more differences than you cite. Here’s some actual information. http://www.skepticalscience.co…..se-gas.htm

              For those who won’t follow the link, basically water vapor actually serves to amplify what CO2 does. In addition levels of water vapor can vary greatly in a matter of hours or days. You know, evaporation, rain and snow. Addition and subtraction of water vapor. The processes that subtract CO2 from the atmosphere take much longer to work. Longer as in years, decades or even centuries. As far as someone rigging the historical record, no one has done that. Actual scientists, or even those who simply didn’t fail logic, realize that just because a natural warming event will cause an increase in CO2, which will then help it warm up even more until something breaks that cycle it does not follow that mankind adding CO2 to the atmosphere won’t cause an increase in the rate of warming. To deny that is to deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which ignores science that has been understood for over a century and a half.

              1. I don’t doubt that the Earth has warmed in the last century and the evidence does suggest that the rise in CO2 has played some part in this warming. But a lot of different variables humans have no control over also affect the Earth’s climate.

                Humans have been lucky for that last 12,000 years are so in that the climate has been fairly hospitable for the development of civilization. But sooner or later the climate will change, whether we control CO2 or not.

                Therefore, it makes no sense to me that we should slow economic growth via carbon taxes in a vain effort to control the climate 100 years from now. We might be able to reduce CO2 but that isn’t a guarantee the climate won’t change in unpredicatable ways.

      2. “swatting away a few billion humans like some inconsequential gnat.”


  2. God, I hope it’s the end. I’m sick of hearing about how WE’RE ALL DOOM’D BECUZ UV RICH PEOPLE DRIVIN SUVS! and other bullshit.

    Oh, wait, is that Tony coming down the hallway?

    1. Don’t count on it ending or dying quietly. As more and more time goes by and more and more people come to realize just how completely full of shit all of these guys are, the perps will only become more and more shrill and hysterical, because their gravy train will be in grave danger of coming to the end of the line.

      1. Exactly. They’re in too deep; they cannot stop now.

        1. Precisely. The mark of an unthinking fundie.


          1. Follow the gourd!

            1. This far and no indication that any commenter read the article. And it’s a short article.

              1. I read it. I’ve been commenting on Chicken Littleism, though.

              2. I read it and am wondering how Bailey can straight-faced refer to anything that came out of Berkley as “Science”.

                Closet liberal?

      2. Apparently neither of you RTFA.

        Koch-backed climate scientists admit the science was right all along.

        In other words, they’ve joined the ranks of ExxonMobil in no longer denying climate change.

        That leaves only you guys.

        1. Re: Brainless,

          Koch-backed climate scientists admit the science was right all along.

          Which science? It only shows the temperature readings from 1950 onwards are correct, not that the Mann model is correct, which relies on temp proxies to “reconstruct” temperatures beyond 1950.

          Your frontal-lobe lobotomy is starting to make itself obvious.

          1. Yeah I think they are falling for this. Whatever else, you can’t say the Koch’s aren’t tricksy.

            1. The whole Koch thing reminds me of tin-foil hats and the like. Its the other side of the same coin that pins George Soros as this master-socialist manipulator.

              Same retarded psychology animating the exact opposite ideology.

              1. The Koches and Soros DO fund projects outside of their business interests, Zeit.

                The ONLY good thing Soros funds, though, is anti-WOD projects. Everything else the man does, is harmful bullshit.

                And, considering what he escaped in his childhood, it’s all the more disgusting what he’s trying to accomplish.

        2. Actually I think you fell for a trick, and being an evil Koch project you should have suspected it.

          The data doesn’t show what it is claimed.

          Note the graph in the middle

          This is not disputed and it is what the data shows. The trend is down over 10 years from BEST data. The trend is too small to be significant, but by the same token it certainly doesn’t show an increase.

          Granted 10 years isn’t long and the overall trend is warm. But the problem is CO2 has increased and T has not. This is problematic for you.

          If I were of a conspiratorial bent I would suspect the characterization of the data, which is contrary to the data itself, was a trick to get you faith holders to buy in.. then pull the rug out from under you.

          Which seems to be exactly what is happening.

          1. Figures Tony would come along with more hand-wringing over one of the various Doomsday Topics he bleats about on a regular basis.

        3. I RTFA’d it, Tony, and my point is it’s still pointless doomsaying.

          It’s going to take a fuck of a lot more than burning fossil fuels to destroy the planet. Like, say, unleashing every nuclear weapon after unleashing every biological and chemical weapons. Driving gas-powered cars and burning coal ain’t gonna cut it… if you wanna get serious, you gotta unleash everything else.

          1. Interesting, and where is your PhD from again?

            1. Where’s yours, Mr. Appeal to Authority?

              1. Oh, here we fucking go again:

                “You didn’t go to college, so you’re a stupid fucker who should just shut the fuck up and let the adults tell the gullible how the world is coming to and end, because they said so.”

                Jesus, am I sick of that.

                1. Well, when everything you write tends to reinforce that you are willfully ignorant on the subject and understand nothing of the science, tough.

              2. Appeal to Authority isn’t a logical fallacy.

                Appeal to FALSE Authority is.

                FIFY made some unsupported assertions about the earth’s climate and biosphere. Why should I believe him over a bunch of PhD’s?

                1. Oh, great… White Idiot chose yet another fake handle to spew his bullshit.

                  1. Oh great… FIFY made another content-free comment in a global warming thread.

                    1. Is that thing *still* here, pretending to give half a shit about humans?

                    2. AGW is a diabolical liberal plot to replace all humans with gay androids.

              3. Yeah I appeal to PhDs, who do you appeal to? Obese morons on the radio? Because if you don’t have a PhD in a somewhat related field, then I don’t see why I should take your word over the experts. Can you explain?

                1. I haven’t listened to Limbaugh in twenty years, Tony.

                  Try again.

                  1. Also, White Indian was half-right above, except for the part about gay androids, which don’t exist.

                    1. SERIOUSLY? Shit.

                    2. Oops… sarcasm fail in White Indian’s AI program.

                      Better get the programmers to look at the coding.

                    3. I’m not the one failing to detect sarcasm.

                      Perhaps you could take a class at community college?

                    4. Seriously, gay androids don’t exist. Though gays with Androids are seen in the wild from time-to-time.

                2. Tony, you stupid fuck, you don’t appeal to me.

                  -PhD Chemistry

                  “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” Richard Feynman

                  1. We’re WORking on it, oKAY?

                    Do you realize how difficult this is??

                    1. It’s suggesting I take courses at something liberals snub – community college.

                      How clever!

                3. Because if you don’t have a PhD in a somewhat related field, then I don’t see why I should take your word over the experts.

                  IIRC your degree was in something useless, non scientific, which likely explains why you can’t think for yourself. To you “more letters” = “more truthy”

                  For anyone who has a degree in science, math, or other logic based field we judge issues on merit. EG we can actually run our own regressions from data.

                  In fact to anyone who has enough numeracy to run his own business judges issues on merit. They have to. If they still survive it was certainly because they ignored the asinine Keynesian predictions of a permanent housing boom.

                  You can have all the phd’s in the world saying 2+2=5, or that you can borrow and spend your way out of debt, and it doesn’t make it so.

                  But it would certainly convince you.

                  Here’s what the facts are, and plenty of ‘phds’ agree, btw.

                  We may be in a warming period, but it has not warmed in recent years. Clear from the data. Especially clear from the BEST data in question.

                  The warming may be man caused. But the data doesn’t show this, as yet. No theory or model claiming AGW has been remotely correct in predictive ability. That doesn’t mean they are wrong, it could be that the time interval is too low. But what it doesn’t mean is AGW has been proven. Just the opposite.

                  We are overdue for a cooling period. It may be now, it may be a few thousand years.

                  The current warming has followed the historical pattern of warming for the end of an interglacial period.

                  Those are the facts. The facts boil down to: we don’t know yet.

                  However we do have a definite man caused disaster that needs immediate attention.

                  That man is Keynes. (and Friedman)

            2. I’m sellin PhD.

            3. Aha! For you see, Tony has mail-order degrees in both meteorology and meteoronomy!

        4. So what if they do? Consensus means jack. Pretty sure there was a consensus among physicists before quantum theory.

    2. …wants you to say, FIFY.

      1. Did White Idiot say another stupid-shit sentence?

        1. “This ad paid for by the American Council of Gambolin”

  3. I had Muller as a professor at Berkeley a decade ago, and he is a brilliant guy and a great teacher. However, I wouldn’t exactly describe him as neutral on the climate change issue….

    1. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with taking one side or the other. What’s bad is when you put your finger on the scales and manipulate or cherry pick the data so as to get the conclusion you prefer. So from that perspective, “Climategate” is hardly dead.

      1. Clarifying some: the “Climategate could dissipate if probing by outside researchers” trope propagates a broken model of science. If you arrive at the right conclusion using the wrong method, it’s still bad because it’s less likely to get you to the objective truth later on. So essentially what we’re being told is that it doesn’t matter what the IGCC people do, which is terribly far from the mark.

        Finally, I wanted to throw in Steve McIntyre’s blog comments on this paper (he got it ten days before publication):

        Finally, an editorial comment on attempts by commentators to frame BEST as a rebuttal of Climategate.

        Climategate is about the Hockey Stick, not instrumental temperatures. CRUTEM is only mentioned a couple of times in passing in the Climategate emails. “Hide the decline” referred to a deception by the Team regarding a proxy reconstruction, not temperature.

        In an early email, Briffa observed: “I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.” Climategate is about Team efforts to suppress this thought, about Team efforts to promote undeserved certainty ? a point clearly made in CRUTape Letters by Mosher and Fuller.

        The new temperature calculations from Berkeley, whatever their merit or lack of merit, shed no light on the proxy reconstructions and do not rebut the misconduct evidenced in the Climategate emails.

  4. On the other hand, Pielke added that Climategate could dissipate if probing by outside researchers…

    There is no “outside” of this thing. Either you consider it a cult or belong to it.

    But the economic downturn did more to bury AGW than faulty computer modeling, suspect data sources or bad academic behavior ever could.

    1. Yep. Very few people have been willing to talk about the potential costs of fighting AGW, if it exists. Instead, the fight has always been over whether it exists at all. Now, it’s a moot point. We never were productive enough to make the CO2 emission cuts that were demanded without killing off a bunch of poor people. Now we are even less productive and would have to kill off even more poor people. Even if AGW is real, fighting it through emission cuts is a non-starter.

      1. The costs of fighting AGW are large in absolute terms, but are small compared to the economic and human impacts of doing nothing.

        1. Aww… it hates mankind, yet claims to care about the continued existence of mankind.

          It’s so confused. Probably bisexual, as well.

          1. I don’t hate all of mankind, just you.

            Composition fallacy.

            1. Now it’s personalizing, claiming to only hate ONE human.

              Damn that crafty White Indian.

            2. Derider,
              You hate me as well.

  5. The whole “climate” thing is a sideshow compared to the real problem: the interior of the earth is hotter than the sun!

    1. If Al Gore says it’s so it must be so. Only one of those skeptic Luddite Holocaust denying Zionist Jew rat bastard capitalists would deny that!

    2. 13,000 > 15,000,000

  6. wez always hated that pinko muller…even BEFORE we loved him. herpty dippy derp…

    1. Rev. Sharpton?

  7. I read about this earlier. If the ground is getting hotter, why can’t we all just wear higher heels?

  8. Well it had better start warming soon, or my grant money that I use to write papers that says there’s more warming coming based on my climate models is at risk. I need my guv’mint funds to do my research.

  9. However, it seems that Curry has learned a rueful lesson about answering leading questions from reporters.

    Or she is now backpedaling in “damage repair” speed.

    A new study [PDF] just now being published by a leading group of climate modelers argues that “temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”

    “Let’s move the goal posts oveeeeer… here!”

    1. One of the biggest signs of shoddy science is repetition of the phrase “We need more data.” You get to say that once and only once before you reveal yourself as a sharlatan.

      1. We always need more data. No problem with that. When the conclusion is not supported by existing data, however, then it is a cop out.

        1. But… but… we only have ten years, and THAT stopwatch started forty years ago!

  10. It’s surprising how quickly people jump to (apparently predetermined) conclusions when it comes to a slowly unfolding phenomenon like climate change.

    And here I am, thinking – oh, stupid of me – that Climate Change was this disastrous event because of how fast it was unfolding.

    I guess it’s now slow enough to obscure the fact that it is just another natural phenomenon.

    1. In other words: You can’t have it both ways, Bailey – either climate is changing fast or is changing slowly. You may want to snicker at the skeptics, but it was the warmists who set the tone of the discussion with their exaggerated claims. Don’t blame the skeptics for their (ever so reasonable) skepticism:


      Climate change is happening faster than scientists’ predicted. Meltdowns in Greenland and Antarctica are well ahead of climate science projections and overall warming continues to accelerate?we have just endured the hottest year and hottest decade on record. About the only thing that isn’t happening faster than expected is increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, still steadily ticking upwards by roughly 2 parts-per-million (ppm) per year.

      1. That phrase caught my eye as well. It’s a slowly unfolding phenomenon compared to, I dunno, changing seasons. But the whole point of it is that it’s much faster than the “natural” climate variations you want to claim it is.

        1. Re: Stoopid Piece of Lying Pimp-Owned Trash,

          But the whole point of it is that it’s much faster than the “natural” climate variations you want to claim it is.

          What’s the speed of natural climate variations, sockpuppet?

          1. There have been abrupt climate variations, and it appears we’re going through one now. Whether natural or human-caused, it’s not good. But we know it’s human caused because there are no non-human-caused explanations.

            A graph. Which part of that relationship do you dispute?

            1. But we know it’s human caused because there are no non-human-caused explanations.

              Assuming the conclusion. Have all possible explanations been ruled out?

              1. You don’t have a degree in those sciences, Groov, therefore you should just shut the fuck up and let Tony bleat his chiseled-in-granite doomsayingness.

              2. Nope, not the one about human greenhouse gas contribution.

            2. “A graph. Which part of that relationship do you dispute?”

              It depends what “relationship” you’re talking about. If you’re merely pointing out that CO2 concentrations and temperatures have been correlated in the past, I’ve got no dispute.

              However, if you’re implying that the carbon dioxide CAUSED the temperature increase, then I’ll dispute the part that defies the law of causality (i.e. causes have to precede effects).

              You might not have known this, but the ice core data show that CO2 concentrations lag temperatures by around 800 years, which pokes some holes in the overly simple theory that higher CO2 concentrations were the primary cause of global warming.

              Reality is a bit more complicated, and causality probably runs in both directions.

              1. An interesting caveat to ice-core data: It only exists when its cold enough to make ice. How thick were the icesheets of Greenland when Manhattan was covered under a mile of the stuff?

                Wonder what that CO2 level read? Too bad it melted away. Back to the tree rings!

            3. The alarmists haven’t even satisfactorily proven the “it’s not good” portion of Tony’s ASSertation.

              We hear all manner of bullshit about rising sea levels and sad polar bears based on the same shaky anti-data they use to “settle” the climate “science”. Meanwhile, no mention of the potential benefits of a warmer earth (More food production, more ideal land, etc)

        2. Keep on moving those goalposts, Tony. Make sure and buy personal carbon credits to cover your increased CO2 expiration.

        3. So Tony, what is the speed of ‘natural climate variations?’ Is the current rate of variation 2x, 3x, 10, that rate. What a bullshit statement.

          The study confirms a 1-degree C rise in the past 60 years. How does that compare to temperature variation in the past? We will never know because any proxy record of temperature variation has neither the accuracy or precision to detect a 1 degree variation in temperature. I could easily argue that a 1-degree variation in temperature over 60 years is evidence of and unusually steady period in the earth’s climate and easily provide anecdotal historical evidence to support this argument.

        4. Real climate change:

          The termination of this cold event around 11,500 years ago occurred as an even more abrupt warming, most of which took place in a single 5-year period. The entire transition to a warmer, more modern climate took no more than 40 years. During this transition, snow accumulation in Greenland doubled in a single 3-year period, with 90% of that increase occurring in a single year. This abrupt transition to a warmer world led to a three-fold drop in wind-blown sea salt, a seven-fold drop in wind-blown dust, and a climate warming of 9-18?F (5-10?C) in Greenland, all in less than a decade. Within 30 years following this transition to a warmer climate, atmospheric methane (another greenhouse gas) levels increased, as a result of the creation of more wetlands globally. Conversely, the climate cooling associated with the onset of the “Younger Dryas” event resulted in a loss of wetlands worldwide, and a drop in the concentration of atmospheric methane. Numerous climate records from other parts of the world confirm these abrupt climate events recorded in the Greenland ice cores, and extend the signature of these events to other regions of the globe.


          1. Fucking Koch brothers…

              1. Fucking Derider!

                Oh, wait… no, that sounds right.

      2. Ok I haven’t posted in over a year but this great piece of research has sucked me back in. Now that we have settled the science can we plseas get on with instituting the global carbon tax that will be paid to the Bank of International Settlements where they will use it to help mankind….and also can we please get on with culling some of this stupid herd? we need to get back to like 1 billion people. Good work Bailey…I always knew you were on our side!

      3. Ok I haven’t posted in over a year but this great piece of research has sucked me back in. Now that we have settled the science can we plseas get on with instituting the global carbon tax that will be paid to the Bank of International Settlements where they will use it to help mankind….and also can we please get on with culling some of this stupid herd? we need to get back to like 1 billion people. Good work Bailey…I always knew you were on our side!

  11. The scandal is hardly over. As for the latest episode, it’s argued that Muller subverted the peer review process, which is one of the key issues raised by Climategate. He released papers to the news media while they were still in review for publication. The reviewers were bound to confidentiality, effectively ensuring that the most knowledgeable critics were silenced. It will be some time before the truth of BEST’s findings gets sorted out. The BEST project still holds a lot of promise, but going to the news media before the papers had passed peer review dealt a blow to Muller’s credibility.

  12. This whole thing strikes me as pure misdirection.

    The issue in ClimateGate wasn’t temperature records over the last 60 years. It was the attempt to reconstruct temperatures using proxies over thousands of years.

    Saying “Look! Their data taken from actual instruments isn’t actually as shitty was we thought it might be!” contributes absolutely nothing to the dispute over their use and abuse of proxy data.

    1. Eyeballs! Bacterial flagella! Aren’t sunsets pretty!

      –The pathetic route of the creationist. You sound just like them.

      1. Actually, if the creationists had the billions of dollars in government funds to research their cause that the AGW alarmists have gotten, I’m sure their case would have much more evidence behind it too.

        1. No it wouldn’t. The US government funds science. Corporations fund pseudo-science. Now even the corporations that are responsible for your confusion believe in climate change, like ExxonMobil. Or are they part of the conspiracy too?

          1. The US government funds science. Corporations fund pseudo-science.

            Says Tony as he types away on his computer that can’t possibly exist because scientist from Bell Labs, Fairchild, Texas Instruments, Intel, Analog Devices ?. far too many to list ? were just funding “pseudo science”.

          2. This is on the “Holy fuck!” level of stupid. What is your PhD. in again?

            1. Shorter Tony:

              Put your faith in Government, and It will provide all you need.

              1. Shorter FIFY:

                Government must always fail.

                1. Did White Idiot say something stupid again? I was busy taking a shit.

                  1. NO UR STOOPID!

                    1. Did it just use o2’s posting method?

          3. I always lie. I’m lying now.

          4. Tony, you stupid fuck, warmists are like creationists who say the ‘science’ is settled.

            1. The creationists don’t say the science is settled. They say there still are questions. They are skeptical of the mainstream scientific opinion. Who do they resemble, again?

              1. You do realise, though, that creationists aren’t wrong because the consensus says they are, but because the evidence says they are?

                1. You do realise, though, that the a scientific consensus exists not independently from the evidence, but because of it?

                  1. Yes. I just don’t like the argument that one should agree with the consensus because it’s the consensus. Throughout history that’s been a poor discriminator of truth – there’s no reason to trust it. It’s the evidence or nothing.

                    1. Most people do not have the requisite skills and knowledge to accurately discern the evidence. For them, relying on the scientific consensus is more likely to accurately inform their opinions than the evidence itself.

                    2. As I say, historically consensus has proven a poor discriminator of truth, so I’m not actually sure that it’s the case that relying on scientific consensus is in fact more likely to inform accurately. I’m not entirely sure – there are problems of reference class. If you use ‘expert opinions since the 1950s’ as your reference class as opposed to ‘expert opinions since the enlightenment’ no doubt consensus would perform better, but I’m not sure what exactly would justify that move. I suspect it may be the case that if you don’t have the requisite skills and knowledge to analyse the evidence, you may just be screwed when it comes to forming true opinions – reality has no obligations to give you a fair shake.

                  2. Among other things, e.g., fear of upsetting the guardians of scientific orthodoxy, fear of being unable to get funding for a study that doesn’t support scientific orthodoxy, fear of being unable to get tenure, to name but a few.

              2. Creationists do not invite examinatino of their ‘theories’, just like the warmists. Skeptics are constantly looking to add data, challenge hypotheses, and refine evaluations, which is science as practiced by evolutionary biololists.

                1. If you have an analysis of the data that disproves AGW, get it published in a peer-reviewed journal and you will become the most famous scientist in recent memory. Smarter, more qualified people than you have tried and failed.

            2. Dude, creationists argue that evolutionary biology ISN’T a settled science.

              That’s bullshit because no science is ever “settled”. Theories are constantly refined to explain new data.

              1. Tony, was the temperature data collected from instruments placed next to heat-generating sources, excluded?

                1. Oh, and Hidalgo and BigT and everyone else… you’re replying directly to another of White Idiot’s fake personas.

                  Use the indirect method instead.

                  1. Please believe my paranoia guys! Guys?

                    1. Wow. What an irritating non-entity.

                  2. I think the Derider was around here quite a while before White Indian turned up, if I remember correctly. If he is White Indian, at least in this persona he’s not repeating the same incoherent bullshit over and over again.

                    1. It’s just as irritating as White Idiot, and since anyone can assume a joke handle, we might as well blame White Idiot for these pointless Derider posts.

                    2. Thank you?

                    3. It also understands uncertainty… or DOES it?

                    4. It’s only incoherent because propertarians don’t generally like being confronted with their cognitive dissonance. Tends to shut down their mental faculties. Which makes cogent critiques appear incoherent.

                      Your mistake.

                    5. And it switches names yet again.

    2. R C Dean|12.2.09 @ 1:47PM|#
      Because the Climategate shenanigans have made it much more difficult for us to know how bad whether man-made global warming might really be occurring.

      C’mon, Ron, time to admit that, with the core data set rendered scientifically unusable with undocumented edits and destroyed originals, and a computer model that is, apparently, a piece of junk, its time to back the truck all the way up.

      Everything that used, or relied upon, CRU data or modelling cannot be relied upon as real, serious science. Their work cannot be tested or duplicated, therefore it is not science.

      1. CRU analyzed data from other sources. There was no original data destroyed. Many researchers besides CRU, using different data sets came up with similar findings. CRU is constantly attacked yet the people who do so never seem capable of explaining anything, including how several different investigations of Hadley found none of the malfeasance that deniers claim.

  13. Independent reviews found nothing wrong. Koch-funded scientists concur. H&R denier club? Still finding reasons to disbelieve. But it’s obviously the near-unanimous consensus of scientists worldwide that’s the cult.

    1. I’m happy to believe that the earth is warming, Tony. I just don’t give a shit.

      1. Re: Ballchinian,

        For Tony and his ilk, it is not enough to know – they want action!

        1. The Climate Armageddon: Attack of the Care-Bears!

        2. The world never stops acting. We’re acting on climate change as we speak. We’re choosing to do nothing. That’s action. Why do you get your way, when it’s quite obvious you’re a shameful consumer of snake oil on this subject?

          1. Shorter Tony:

            We’re fucked because people drive SUVs, but I’m not giving up *my* gas-powered vehicle because I’m a-special.

            1. Because it wouldn’t make a difference. I don’t care about gestures, I care about actually doing something.

              1. Then you *should* do something, Tony…

                Kill yourself.

                Think about it… your very existence is contributing to the End of Mankind Itself. If you’re dead, you can’t create carbon dioxide or other poisonous substances.

                But, who will feed your pony?

                1. I believing having children to be the most selfish act a person can commit. But I’ll take your suggestion under advisement.

                  You’re absolutely right, you know, you are better than me because you just don’t give a shit and you have no intention of being forced to give a shit by cracking open a book!

                  1. Ahh… more elitism. Which isn’t unexpected, coming from a liberal.

                    Do you hate yourself, given that your parents were “selfish”? Is that what really fuels your liberal gas tank?

                  2. “I believing having children to be the most selfish act a person can commit.”

                    This obviously came from a person who has never raised children. “Having” children might be selfish, but RAISING them is not. A billion mothers and fathers might dispute your claim.

                    1. I find it a disgusting POV, especially considering how much liberals claim to care about “the children”.

                  3. I find it ironic to find Mr. FIFY and all of the others like him here, given that reason is something that they have completely abandoned. You can’t reason with the perpetually unreasonable and ignorant.

                    1. Oh, great… another purist.

                      No one hired you as a gatekeeper, Jim.

          2. “We’re choosing to do nothing. That’s action. ”

            You have hit on THE MAIN POINT! By doing nothing we are affecting interstate commerce, ergo the feds have jurisdiction here.

            1. ME, bitches.

    2. Independent reviews found nothing wrong with instrument data over the last 60 years.

      As for the proxy reconstructions? Well, who the fuck knows.

      Because the ClimateGaters altered the proxy data and destroyed the raw data, we can never know.

      But, yeah, nothing to see here. A totally unrelated issue was addressed, outside of the peer review process, so its time to move on.

    3. Denier, this word is just sick, the 21 century “N” word. It is used to discredit people and associate them with holocaust deniers. It is synonyms with “unbeliever”, but maybe that is just to obvious. If you go around calling people unbelievers, you might just be in a cult yourself.

      1. It is synonyms with “unbeliever”, but maybe that is just to obvious.

        It would be even more obvious if they just plainly said “heretic”.

        1. You have to realize how ridiculous you guys sound.

          You don’t have a good reason to disagree with 97% of the experts in a field on a question of fact. Doesn’t matter what the subject is. You are not smarter than they, and if you approached the sources with the slightest amount of objectivity you’d realize that you’re relying largely on ideologically-driven outliers. You have no right to have your views taken seriously by serious people, because they just aren’t backed up by the facts.

          1. Shorter Tony:

            You’re stupid. Shut up. We’re doomed. And it’s YOUR fault.

          2. You have to realize how ridiculous you guys sound.

            One could ask the same question of you, eco-theological fundie.

            You don’t have a good reason to disagree with 97% of the experts in a field on a question of fact. Doesn’t matter what the subject is. You are not smarter than they

            That’s rich Tony; you would have been right at home with the Spanish Inquisition. I wonder who really is the flat earther here, as the verbiage is consistent with one who screams “DISSENT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!”

          3. Tony,

            Can you provide a source for your claim that “97% of experts in the field” agree, and clarify exactly what it is that they agree on?

            1. This should explain.

              1. Well, of COURSE you’re going to believe that, Tony… they’re singing your song.

                1. The National Academy of Sciences? You’re a walking confirmation bias. What other fields has the NAS corrupted, do you think? Or are there not fat radio people vomiting ignorance into your head about any other subject in science, so you couldn’t say?

                  1. *yawn*

                    Sorry, not going to join your Church, Tony. Not interested.

                    1. You’d have to give up your membership in the Temple of Koch. Fat chance!

                    2. White Idiot IS persistent.

              2. This should explain.

                It explains a lot about Tony. The authors:

                William R. L. Anderegg:
                Student of Stephen H. Schneider Stanford University Department of Biology.

                James W Prall:
                Senior Systems Programmer
                The Edward S. Rogers Sr. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
                University of Toronto

                Jacob Harold:
                BA from Duke University, where he designed his own major in ethics and intellectual history, and earned an MBA from Stanford’s Graduate School of Business.

                Stephen H. Schneider:
                Stanford University Department of Biology.

                For Tony if the scientist isn’t a “climate” scientist the scientist can be ignored for his or her views on climate science. But when a bunch of non social scientist do a paper, where the subject is clearly in the domain of social science, it is a okay with Tony.

                FYI, I actually read the paper. Its rubbish.

                1. Hell, I read it and I’m supposedly not even smart enough TO read it… and came to the same conclusion.

                  That’s peer review, bitches.

                2. That paper wasn’t studying climate, it was studying the distribution of attitudes about climate change among scientists.

                  1. That paper wasn’t studying climate …

                    No shit Tony … the paper was social science that was not done by social scientist. Got that? The science that was done was social science. The authors of the paper were not social scientist. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the climate science community, and in general the church of climate change, to dismiss any work done on climate science by people without climate science “credentials”. OTOH, when climate scientist who are not ‘credentialed’ in social science do social science the same standard doesn’t apply (provided of course they come up with the politically correct answer).

              3. Thanks for the link Tony.

                If you’d read through it yourself, you’d realize that the “97%” number is bogus…

                1. This study wasn’t a survey of climate scientists… it relied on data gathered using Google Scholar.

                2. The authors arbitrarily defined who is and isn’t “climate researcher” (n=1372) without explaining how this sample was constructed.

                3. The authors applied different standards for classifying “climate researchers” as members of the “convinced” or “unconvinced” groups. (Their standards were so inconsistent that a small number of researchers ended up in both groups).

                4. The initial split was 903 convinced to 472 unconvinced (or only 65.7% convinced).

                5. They then chose to exclude anybody with less than 20 publications to their name, reducing the sample size to 908.

                6. After culling the herd, the results were 817 convinced to 93 unconvined (or 89.8% convinced).

                7. They further reduced the sample to only the top 50, 100 and 200 publishers (by total number of publications) to get the 97% result they reported in the abstract.

                8. They made no mention that only 65.7% of the original sample of 1,372 were “convinced”.

                This study absolutely reeks of publication bias and cherry-picking.

                Real conclusion… papers authored by “convinced” researchers are much more likely to get published.

            2. All that proves is that 97-98% of Climate Scientists would like more funding for their research, please.

      2. They trotted “outlier” out of the lexicon gulag, just because it sounds like you’re calling skeptics “liars”.

        Yet another sky-is-falling scare tactic.

        1. Give up on your silly independent ways, FIFY. Join us. It’s glorious. You don’t even need to wipe your own ass if you become one of us.

          1. When you can’t win an argument with facts and logic, create an actual strawman.

            1. Did it just accuse me of spoofing?

    4. The Kochs and I have invested lots of lobbying dollars in tax and trade scheme creation. We plan on using grandfathered carbon credits to deliver us perpetual guaranteed billions. This is how regulation works…we create barriers to entry for our crony-facists companies and convince comtards that we are attacking “big bizness”.

      You are a tool of those you claim to hate tony.

  14. Without the authoritarian-minded stuff, climate science is mostly trivia, though.

    “Trust” doesn’t matter a whole lot, unless someone is trying to do something to us, by force.

  15. Is there any science behind the idea that any variation must last seventeen years before it can be seen as a variation? It sounds like they pulled that number out of their ass. With no warming for thirteen years, haw many years off would the tipping point be now?

    1. I’m having a hard time digging this out of my brain after 20+ years, but I think it is based on statistics, not just yanked. When I do a dispersion modeling study, I am required to use five years of data, and I believe that was a compromise because data sets long enough to be representative (17 yr?) would just take forever to assemble and run. I know that the National Climatic Data Center uses 30 years as a basis for producing a representative summary for an individual station. But, again, I’m foggy on details.

  16. You know what, I’ve been thinking of buying a second-hand Lincoln Town Care for a few thousand bucks. It’s a titanic, 19-miles-per-gallon luxury car, and I love big cars. Fuck the statists, fuck the apocalypse-chanting shitheads and alarmists, and fuck the CAFE standards. The previous model L (specially extended back seat area variant) was fucking awesome.

    I hope I don’t bring about the climate armaggedon.

    1. *Car

    2. oh yeah – I use to drive a Buick Roadmaster, all 4200 delicious pounds of American steel. Then I switched to the Marquis. I’m living the American Dream (of yore).

      1. Did you get the de Sade option, Lord H?

  17. I’ll leave climate science to climate scientists. I’m entitled to my skepticism, but I’ll be humble and say that it is likely that AGW theory proponents are correct.

    That being said, I’ve always been a little bit peeved as the ad hominem attacks on the funders of science research. Putting aside the fact that government-funded research is about as likely to benefit the government as Koch-funded research is the Koch brothers, aren’t we forgetting that these scientists are always open and non-secretive about their data-collecting methodology, which is required as part of the peer-review procedure in publication? If they don’t share their data and accompanying methodology, then there is sufficient grounds to dismiss their research. But if the scientists do share their data with their peers, judge the data on its own merits and not on the source of funding.

    1. The methods of science are fine. No wrongdoing was ever uncovered in this controversy, because it was manufactured. I think people have a right to their indignation over corporate-funded fake science that will cause them harm.

      1. Why does it have to be “corporate-funded” fake science? What’s so safe about “government-funded” fake science?

        1. Because a huge portion of the basic research done in the world is government-funded. You’re claiming that there can be no such thing as unbiased science (since it will always be funded by someone). It’s an absurdly relativistic position.

          1. No, Tony, what I’m claiming is that the veracity of scientific research is determined by the ability to reproduce data under controlled settings. Whether research is funded by the government or by corporations, it is still subject to peer review and debate.

            Are you are willing to admit that the government is just as self-interested as any corporation and as capable as any corporation to force scientists to draw conclusions that are beneficial to them?

            1. Careful Caleb, you’re attacking Tony’s deity; eco-theologists are as dangerous as Islamo-fundies and other religious fundie nutbars.

            2. Absolutely not. Under Republicans, maybe. They’ll politicize anything, and they believe humans coexisted with dinosaurs. But under a normal government, science funding is pretty straightforward and transparent. Corporations do research too, but they don’t even have a pretense of social concern, which contrary to the underlying assumption around here, is not always the same thing as maximizing their own profits. Industry has tainted the science and the political narrative for self-interested reasons. Why would you expect any less?

              What is government’s motive? A rube-goldberg-like conspiracy to enslave us to Al Gore? To prove the supremacy of the state? Government is not acting here, even though the scientists are begging it to.

              1. Your definition of “normal government” is one run by Team Blue.

                Shit, life just gets weirder by the moment.

                1. Republicans have been working to destroy the state for the past 25 years. They aren’t exactly exemplars of the government Tony is advocating.

                  1. No, some republicans have talked about decreasing govt. Instead they increased it in areas they thought were important and also increased it in areas where they said they would decrease it. Bush spent a shit-load of money and Obama has only increased that. Just like FDR and Hoover.

                    Saying someone cut something when they did not does not make it true. Look it up.

                    1. I’m talking about tax policy and “starving the beast”.

                    2. We take in more from the tax slaves than we ever have and we have plans to bring in much much more. Look it up.

              2. Corporations do research too, but they don’t even have a pretense of social concern,

                Real science depends on social concern and consensus not the scientific method, repeatable experiments or falsifiable theories.

                Only greedy corporations care about the latter three.

            3. Not only is the govt interested, the process to get govt funding are highly politicized. Not so in industry, where you have to make money, not simply publish.

              And much more R&D is done in industry than gov, it is just kept secret.

              Even Wiki sees this:

              ” the OECD, around two-thirds of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industry, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government,”

              Fucking moron.

              1. …the process to get govt funding is highly politicized. Not so in industry, where you have to make money…

                Remember all that unbiased research the tobacco industry gave us about the health benefits of cigarettes? Thank god they disproved all that Government bullshit about cancer.

                1. The tobacco industry did quite a few good studies on tobacco and health. But they PUBLISHED very selectively, and with purely economic motives. Get your facts straight.

                  1. And by relying purely on economic motives, they hid the truth and killed thousands with fraud.

                    On the other hand, the Government faced a similar economic motive– they made tax money from the sales of tobacco. They published the truth anyway.

                    In this instance, government research was clearly superior to private industry research.

                    1. On the other hand, the Government faced a similar economic motive– they made tax money from the sales of tobacco. They published the truth anyway.

                      The government didn’t publish crap. Sixty plus years later the government doesn’t have any problem taking the credit and the fools buy it.

                      Ernst L. Wynder, M.D. was an epidemiologist at Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and was a pioneer in researching the link between tobacco and disease. He was one of the first scientists to report in 1950 on the carginocencity of cigarette “tar” (smoke condensate) in rats whose skin was painted with cigarette “tar.” He was an assistant at Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research and directed the American Health Foundation (AHF) from 1984 until his death in 1998.

                      Sloan-Kettering Institute

                      In the 1940s, two former General Motors executives, Alfred P. Sloan and Charles F. Kettering, joined forces to establish the Sloan-Kettering Institute (SKI), which has since become one of the nation’s leading biomedical research institutions. Built adjacent to Memorial Hospital, SKI was formally dedicated in 1948.

                      For those who are to stupid to know a little history. GM wasn’t owned by the government back then.

                    2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm…..MC1732529/

                      Main results: The emergence of smoking as a priority issue on the American public health agenda can be largely attributed to Wynder’s research and publicity efforts. Philip Morris viewed Wynder as a prestigious scientist whose commitment to the pursuit of reduced harm cigarettes could lend legitimacy to its desire to position itself as a responsible company intent on addressing consumer concerns. Philip Morris courted Wynder with large equipment loans and grants for more than 30 years, and used its public relations agency to sanitise press releases to remove material unacceptable to the company. Wynder consistently failed to acknowledge industry support while routinely acknowledging other funding from the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society. In retrospect, Wynder realised the insidious effect of tobacco industry research support but failed to acknowledge this may have applied to his own association with the industry.

              2. Yeah, R&D. Government provides the bulk of the funding for basic research, though.

                1. Tony, if a government-funded study of the chemical makeup of marijuana, resulted in a cure for any disease… do you think it would be used for the good of mankind, or buried in a peat bog?

                  1. Marijuana policy is heavily politicized and influenced by corporate interests, just like climate change. The difference is climate change is accepted across the entire spectrum, government funded or not.

                    1. As long as climate-change data comes from your beloved government, right?

                      Marijuana policy is also influenced by that same gateway. Years ago, Israeli scientists posited that one of the cannabinoids might be helpful in preventing stroke-related brain damage – guess who stepped in to throw water on that?

                      Our. Government.

                      So, it only releases information it wants us to know.

                      Damned right, I’m skeptical.

          2. we were consistently turning out better science pre 1950- than post 1950. What is the most amazing scientific discovery we made since then? The human genome project. And even that was half-private.

            1. Shorter Tony:

              When Government funds things, It shits pure gold.

            2. Government funding created that big heavy calculator sitting in front of you right now, doofus, as well as the series of tubes that convey the nonsense you think to the rest of us.

              1. Apparently, The Derider likes it when the government hands out cash to tech companies.

                1. Burn the Heretic! Government can never do right!

                  1. Is White Idiot posting more bullshit? I’m busy cleaning the kitchen.

                    1. As the number of replies you make increases, your comments to content ratio is approaching zero.

                    2. Did it just say something stupid again? I wasn’t paying attention.

              2. No, the government did not create the series of tubes.


                The Internet is a trillion dollars of fiber optic cables laid in the ground and under our oceans. Fiber optic technology was developed by corporations, such as Corning Glasworks, not the government. The trillion dollars in capital that was used to pay for laying cable came from Wall Street, not the government.

                The one thing you might be able to credit the government with is standards.

                In much the same way, around 1980, governments around the world, working with international standards organizations, created the “OSI” or “Open Systems Interconnect” group. The purpose of OSI was to create a single standard for all networks, to create a world wide “internetwork” that all computers could be connected to.

                What’s important about the Internet is that the OSI standard failed. It’s not the standard of today’s Internet. The government backed the wrong horse, so to speak. Instead, today’s Internet is based on TCP/IP — a networking standard the government tried to kill off.

    2. “, aren’t we forgetting that these scientists are always open and non-secretive about their data-collecting methodology, which is required as part of the peer-review procedure in publication?”


      OMG. NO.

  18. Hmmmm…

    1.Libertarians are generally skeptical of global warming claims.

    2.Reason magazine is libertarian.

    3.Charles Koch funds (=has vested interest in) BEST.

    4.Brother Koch involved with Reason.

    Reason, unlike most libertarians, conveniently puts out article sympathetic to global warming claims.

    Follow the money?

    1. And you nearly got away with it you stinky buttholes.

    2. So, Reason must now be on the side of heavy government regulation of the economy to deal with the threat of global warming?…riiigggghhttt?…That is the next logical step after accepting the science?!

    3. Except that, you know, the Kochtopus funded Muller, too. Slashdot led with that fact on this article.

  19. Sorry Muller, but you’re not believable like curry said, well curry said at first then back pedalled so she can’t be trusted either.Climategate proved the scam, if as you say BEST confirms everything then why would CRU be doctoring numbers to make it look warmer when you guyz say it was already warm? And funded by the Koch bros.? There goes any credibility you thought you had 😉

  20. AGW is the Super Y2K bug… without an expiry date.

  21. So to sum, there was still fishy stuff about climate gate, but that doesn’t change the fact that the world has still been warming.

    In the same token, that doesn’t mean any and all measures to prevent climate change is ok.

    Me, I support a net zero carbon tax.

    1. You are in luck! I just happen to be running a special on net zero carbon taxes. Send me your tax money and I will redistribute it in a net-zero way for the good of humanity.

  22. The papers still need to go thru peer review!

  23. I think an important point is being missed here: no sane person is denying that the Earth is/may be warming within a historical context. What’s being denied is the state capitalism suggestion as the cure, and to make matters more rebellious is the data does not suggest urgency.

    This can be dealt with through the market and abolishing public property.

    1. That’s the whole reason for climate alarmistism, J… although “the market” should be replaced with “the state”, as this and – likely – future administrations HATE “the market”.

      1. You sound like a head case.

      2. You sound like a head case.

        1. Disprove it, Tony.

        2. I KNOW headcases!

          1. Yes, he does.

            Different kind of head, though.

            1. Waaaaaah Tony called me a bigot! I’m gonna cry about it for 3 days! How could he ever call me such a bad bad name?

              1. You called me a liar, you fuckstain.

                THAT, is why it was “bad”.

                1. Now… since you’re not going to apologize for that, let’s get back to the argument at hand, which goes something like this:

                  “The Earth is doomed!”

                  “How can you predict the future?”

                  “You didn’t go to college, you fucking stupid bigot! Just shut up and let the big people talk!”

                  Sound about right, Sparky?

                  1. I’ve posted more science on this thread than you have. You are comfortable immediately dismissing anything you disagree with as ipso facto part of the gigantic conspiracy. You are not an honest interlocutor, you are an insult-spewing troll. I don’t blame people for being stupid, but you take it to the level of whining if I dare treat your expertise as any less valuable than the experts, just because you don’t have any credentials or qualifications. You are a psychiatrist’s boring day.

                    1. I’ve posted more science on this thread than you have.

                      Tony never discusses science. In fact, it doesn’t appear he even knows what it is. Tony believes science is whatever the ‘consensus’ of scientist believe it is. The 2011 Nobel prize in chemistry is stark reminder of why judging science by ‘consensus’ is fatally flawed.

                      As Max Plank said “science progresses one funeral at a time”.

                  2. And let’s clear the air, so you won’t have to resort to using words in an improper manner:

                    I don’t care if people are gay, or if they get the right to get married or not. I’m against the concept of marriage, itself, as a government-approved institution.

                    Which you knew before you accused me of shit in which I do not engage.

                    Do you not understand the concept of “honor”, Tony?

                    NOW… back to the subject at hand.

                    1. “You need to read a book” assumes I have never read books, Tony.

                      Looking down your nose at me, just proves how dimly you view people who never spent tens of thousands of dollars on higher education and, therefore, are unworthy.

                      Elitist bullshit. [insert deity] save us from it.

                    2. Dude I live in the South, I encounter ignorance that makes yours pale in comparison. I don’t like whiny grievance queens either, but I especially don’t like it when you guys do it. I don’t expect you to understand that crying about bigotry against straight white males is just bigotry in another form. It’s a complicated subject. But pushing your buttons is just so easy.

                    3. It’s not grievance, and it isn’t whiny. It’s a matter of honor.

                      Not that you’d know anything about that subject.

                      But, do go on about how ignorant I am, based on your bias against people who didn’t go to college.

                    4. Wait:

                      “bigotry against straight white males is just bigotry in another form”

                      So… at least we *should* be in agreement that bigotry against straights AND gays, are EQUALLY wrong.


                    5. No, it’s not equally wrong. This is where it gets complicated. It’s not all about what’s going on inside your head. That’s not something that should be policed. It’s the social effects of bigotry that matter, and straights don’t have anything to worry about in that regard. Gays get bullied and killed for being gay. When are straights bullied and killed for being straight? What rights do straight people lack as a result of their straightness?

                      Pretending to be above it all–something I don’t claim about myself–is simply a cliched modern form of bigotry you hear on talk radio every day. Stephen Colbert’s “I don’t see color” is a satire of this attitude.

                    6. And, yes, it IS equally wrong.

                      What you’re trying to allude to is, to use racism as the basis instead of just bigotry, that white-on-black racism and black-on-white racism are not “equally wrong”.

                      Which is just as fucked-up as your theory above.

                      Either racism and bigotry and hatred are to applied equally, and be equally abhorrent… or they are not.

                      Argue out of that one.

                    7. What are you a Klingon? I do have a bias against people who didn’t go to college when it comes to getting the facts straight in a complex field of research. So should you.

                    8. No, it’s deeper that that, Tony… you have stated, several times, your disdain for those less school-educated than yourself or the authority figures you hold in such high esteem.

                      And, no, I’m not a Klingon. They don’t exist. But this does:


                      It’s a word, Tony. It has a meaning in the society you were on about in another thread about bees and shit.

                      But… you put blind faith in people *just because* they are “learned”. I’m skeptical of ANYONE who looks down with their glasses half-on and judges me or anyone else.

                    9. It’s not blind faith. It’s very well justified trust. Who else am I supposed to go to for information about a complex field of research other than the experts in that field?

                    10. From experts without governmental agenda bias.

                    11. Meaning the tiny segment of cranks who agree with you?

                    12. The Earth is not doomed, Tony. Not for millions of years, at least. Possibly longer, if the sun doesn’t go nova in less than millions of years.

                      Burning coal and gasoline is NOT going to destroy it.

                    13. “cranks”

                      More elitism.

                      Good thing liberals only have half of the elitist market cornered, though…

                    14. The sun is never going nova (it’s too small for a supernova, and normal novas only happen in binary systems). It’s gonna become a red giant in about 10 billion years and that will be the end of the world.

                      I learned that in college so feel free to ignore my elitism.

                    15. It understands the concept of condescension. Very good.

                    16. Stop posting stupid shit, and people will stop acting condescending towards you.

                    17. It has a judgmental protocol, as well?

                      Wow. Maybe it’s not as lame-assed as I thought.

                    18. No… it IS as lame-assed as I thought.

                    19. I think The Deridor is one of Tony’s personalities, rather than White Idiot/rectal.

                      Of course, it IS possible that all four are one in the same, but I think their posting styles are too different for that to be the case.

                    20. Didn’t figure Tony would be that twisted, though he is good at misusing words like racist and bigot…

    2. How are you going to assign property rights to the atmosphere? It’s non-fungible.

      Cans of clean air a la “Spaceballs?”

      1. Hush! You’ll awaken the sleeping White Idiot, and you know how cranky he gets!

        1. I agree. There’s no libertarian solution to AGW.

        2. Okay, I got drawn into that one. Apparently, White Idiot chose yet another gag handle, and It is posting yet more bullshit.

          Damn, he’s crafty.

          1. Respond to me, damn you! You’re negating my right to be heard if you don’t answer my posts directly!

            1. If you’re going to appropriate my name, at least use it to make humorous strawmen.

              1. Did it say something again?


                  1. It’s confusing reading with listening! How cute.

                    1. I’m not the one being confused by a metaphor here.

                    2. It almost SOUNDS intelligent… better poke it with a wooden spoon, just to make sure.

    3. Actually more than a few of the skeptics do deny warming exists. That’s why Watts started the Surface Station Project and why Muller started BEST, to see if they were right or not.

  24. biases identified by climate skeptics did not seriously affect their conclusions

    Wrong. The biases identified by climate skeptics did not seriously affect their data analysis.

  25. No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t restore my poor shattered trust in climate science because I never believed the Climategate story. Now, Texas burying climate information – that I believe.

  26. Libertarians will never believe in AGW because there’s absolutely no solution that doesn’t require state action. That the state is unnecessary is an article of faith– therefore the scientific consensus must be wrong, no matter what.

    1. Ronald Bailey, Matt Welch, and Nick Gillespie all believe in AGW and think the government has a role to play in solving the problem.

      1. By the way, I’m hoping I’m not misrepresenting their stances on the topic. I’ve heard them all claim to believe that AGW exists and that government has a role in at least dealing with environmental problems.

        1. Admiral Ackbar alert, Caleb… The Derider is White Indian, in another disguise, here to spew more anti-property bullshit.

          1. No, although I’m no longer the only person posting as “The Derider” in this thread. (Butthurt libertarians alert)

            1. Wow, it’s REALLY crafty.

          2. What have I said that implies “anti-property bullshit”?

            1. It’s White Indian… it HATES property, and everything associated with property.

              1. We are not the same person.

                1. It’s in denial. How cute.

                  1. Project much?

                    1. I heard it found the word “project” in the dictionary. Wonder if it ate the page.

                    2. It’s confusing reading with listening! How cute.

                    3. It referred to itself as a real person!

                      Man, it’s scary how *realistic* it appears…

                    4. Have you no HONOR, sir?

                    5. It’s really trying now. Better unplug it before it fries itself.

  27. This new data is the REAL truth….cross my heart. No kidding this time. AGW is real, you can take it to the bank. There now is absolutly no doubt that AGW is real. There were some problems before….but this is real….the sky is falling for sure this time.

    1. It’s a slam dunk…carbon taxes will make our weather better…don’t take my word for it…read the science.

  28. “Republicans have been working to destroy the state for the past 25 years… but Democrats will get the job done sooner.”

    FIFY’d. No charge.

  29. This study doesn’t make a bit of difference, because the problem has been and always will be unreliable station data. In the press releases they’ve given superficial attention to that fact by claiming that there was no difference in warming between the reliable and unreliable weather stations. The question I have is: how did they distinguish between them? Is warming evident in weather stations that have experienced no change in instrumentation and no nearby development? We will never know because the metadata is insufficient.

    The question of global warming is moot and meaningless anyway. Claims that the temperature or that the speed of temperature change are out of the range of pre-industrial revolution norm are bogus:



    There is ample documentation to support both of these facts, and this is really all that needs to be addressed on the topic of climate change, but these are the two points that everyone (even the so-called climate skeptics) ignores.

    Suck it.

    1. I asked along those lines upthread, concerning the data collected from instruments placed near artificial heat sources.

      Never got an answer.

  30. Y’all postin in a troll thread.

    1. YOU’RE a troll.

      1. YOU’RE a towel!

  31. “While statistical quibbling about its results will occur, the BEST project has set admirable standards of scientific transparency with regard to data and how it’s treated. This will help repair a bit of the damage to the public’s trust in climate science caused by the insular authoritarian-minded band of climate scientists involved in Climategate.”

    How exactly is no data and no code called ‘transparency?’ And how exactly does the BEST study have anything to do with Climategate, which was mainly about hiding the divergence of the proxy data, which made it necessary to graft the instrumental record to hide the decline? Or with the fact that the statistical methodology used created hockey sticks out of random phone numbers while the corrected method did not yield a hockey stick from the proxy data?

    Sorry but you are going to have to do a lot better than this.

  32. Climate modeling is a tricky business so a good dose of skepticism is entirely in order. You’d need a 1:1 simulation of reality to accurately predict anything – even if the data you have is perfect there are still too many variables not taken into account.

    How about Pascal’s wager when it comes to AGW? Cutting back pollutants, pushing industrial technology ahead to less messy and less wasteful means looks like a good goal in and of itself. At worst technological civilization moves forward to a more productive state and we end up with that even if AGW is a myth. If it isn’t, well, then we’ve saved ourselves a lot of trouble down the road.

    1. Foretelling the future is also tricky, but pretending to do so doesn’t require a higher education or a title.

      Isn’t Florida supposed to be at least half-underwater by now? I just realized that was one of the fortunes we were sold just in the last few years…

    2. Pollutants?

      How is carbon dioxide a pollutant?

      How is me not spending my money on stupid government-mandated idiocy like poisonous light bulbs something good?

      What is good about spending my tax money on crap like windmill farms or the biofuel scams?


      The climate changes on it’s own.

      You can’t speed it up.

      You can’t slow down.

      You can’t do anything about it.


      Get a grip.

      1. How much did Koch pay you to say that?

      2. CO2 isn’t the only component in industrial pollution. Even so, it can be toxic at high concentrations (as is oxygen, at high pressures) in addition to trapping heat.

      3. http://www.treehugger.com/clim…..video.html

        Please, stop being idiots.

    3. One thing I love about “short-view” type folks is that they never account for game changers. There has always been something that no one could have accounted for that totally redefines the game in an unpredictable way. Predicting anything more than a few years out has always seemed silly to me. Who in 1985 would have thought that computers would eventually be interconnected and that would mean massive loss of profit for record companies? Who in 1930 would have thought that we’d be able to see inside sick people? Who in 1776 would have thought that there would be something called a telegraph? Instead of trying to pass laws and force things to happen, why not get out of the way? We went from whale blubber to light bulbs right? Why won’t we go from fossil fuels to fission reactors to something else that we don’t even know about yet?

    4. okay, I vote for focusing on Mercury, SOX and NOX. Those pollutants are more dangerous than CO2 in my opinion.

      No need for global taxes…hmm wonder why the politicians and billionaires are so focused on the global tax thing?

  33. AGW is not science.

  34. Two great posts, Mr. Mark.

    Prepare to be called “cranky”, or something.

    BTW, did you go to college? Apparently, it’s a requirement.

    1. 1. I am cranky.

      2. I went to college – never got a degree, though

  35. This is very serious stuff. I suggest readers take a look at “Aliens Cause Global Warming” by Michael Crichton presented at Cal Tech in 2003 I believe. The thrust of his speech was about bullshit “science” and false “scientists” like Carl Sagen, et all. The speech is the finest example of critical writing I have ever read. I worked on accelerators at LBNL for 36 years as a staff scientist/electronics engineer. I emailed Mueller about the speech, but I expect he’s up to his ass in alligators now.

    Feedback really wanted a whole lot.

    Jim Hinkson
    El Sobrante CA

    1. Aliens cause global warming
      http://stephenschneider.stanfo…..on2003.pdf (PDF)

      1. Excellent, thanks.

  36. “[the sun will] become a red giant in about 10 billion years and that will be the end of the world”


    Global climate change?

    One or the other, alarmist.

  37. So far, it appears that the only position is still that there can not yet be any position.

    My position remains that there does not appear to be an event happening.

  38. After reading through this whole thread I think that most readers of Reason can’t reason well at all. Name calling, personal attacks, etc seem to be the norm. It’s the worst of the internet on display.

    1. I’d agree, but I understand why. When you have conversation after conversation with irrational people for your entire life you get frustrated. How do you get someone with no understanding of critical thought to question their basic assumptions? You can’t. Instead, you end up making a point, having it disregarded, and then you end up calling each other names. Sadly, I know this well. On this topic and the topic of atheism, the tone of the discussions are exactly the same. The rational people are the “crazy” ones. They are the unbelievers and are derided. We get sick of it and lash out. Think of it. Our position is wait and see. A trace gas in an extraordinarily complex system is vilified. We say, hold on a second, maybe there are other factors. You say catastrophe is looming around the corner. We say, maybe not. You say trillions of dollars of austerity measures are needed. We say that seems unnecessary. But we’re the “deniers.” We’re in the pocket of big oil and we want to keep using the dirty needle to feed our black oil heroin addiction. How did it come to be that the people NOT standing on a corner with a sign that reads “The End is Near!!!!” are the loons?

  39. Ron,

    Here’s a speech that Matt Ridley gave at the Royal Scottish Academy: link. It discusses pseudo science. It’s well worth a read.

  40. The Best Study has yet to undergo pier review. It was sent to the press without that important step. Are scientific studies now going to be reviewed by the press? This article and the many others like it, in my opinion, prove the point that this would be a dangerous trend.

    Nowhere in the study is there a statement that the obvious, steady increase in temperatures since the

    little ice age is caused by CO2 or the variability in solar output. Either of those connections have yet
    to be proven no matter what the opinion of one of the authors is. ( Other authors have started that they are not jumping to the same, unproven, connection of increase in temperatures and CO2 levels).

  41. So wait; they lied about global warming numbers, hid the fact that they were lying, but it’s okay because it turns out they didn’t have to lie in the first place?

    1. The thing is that BEST has nothing to do with Climategate.

  42. The temperature did not rise from 1998 – 2008 “They blame factors like natural variability and increased air pollution for the hiatus.”

    Was it not the air polution that “caused” the warminmg….?….oh wait it caused it to cool now……and Natural Variablity ….nice i bet that variablity was never added into any thrend that was going “warmer” was it? In fact that was what was REMOVED so a trend could be shown.

    We are not the best thing that happend to this planet, we are just one thing. Volcano’s put more stuff into the air in a day than we do as a whole in a month, the sun blasts us when ever it has a solar storm…..but those things are never part of the “study” when your dealing with a “warmer”.

    All I want in the straight sience and only the facts…..All of them.

  43. There are problems with the BEST data. Many with the statistical experience are studying their results and have found problems. So this is not the end of climategate. There are 2 new recent German studies which debunk the BEST project.

  44. http://www.treehugger.com/clim…..video.html

    Please stop being idiots.

  45. Time is the mother of thruth.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.