Slashdot Mirror

What qualifies you to make that judgement better than a scientist working in the field?

Well, apparently, I've got rational thought processes that I can exercise :) But if you want to hear from someone in a lab coat, you could do worse than Curry: http://judithcurry.com/2010/09...

In any complex system there are things that have large effect on down to things that just tweak those larger effects but don't make for a significant difference in the final outcome.

You misunderstand the nature of chaotic systems. http://www.math.cornell.edu/~l...

"One day, Lorenz tried to recreate an interesting weather pattern, one he had seen previously, by re-entering the values the computer had previously calculated and reported. However, when he ran the program again, his results were different from the initial run. Lorenz suspected a bug, but after checking the two plots, however, he realized his "error": on his previous computer printout, the one he had used to enter the initial conditions into the computer for the second trial run, the figures were printed with three significant digits. In the program, all values were calculated to six significant digits. Lorenz had assumed that the difference, only one part in a thousand, would be inconsequential. However, due to the recursive nature of the equations, little errors would first cause tiny errors, which would then affect the resulting next calculation a bit more, which would affect the output of the next run even more. The final result of a long string of recursive calculations would lead to a weather pattern totally different from the expected values."

By their nature, chaotic systems result in significant differences based on very very small differences in initial conditions.

You might not believe this, but it is quite possible that climate is a non-computable problem because of its chaotic nature.

I agree, we should stick to the science. Here you go:

• The peer-reviewed Journal "Nature Climate Change" includes and references thousands of scientific papers on the subject.
• The IPCC's 1,500-page "Physical Science Basis" report cites hundreds of references and is authored by hundreds of experts. It clearly states what we know, don't know, and how we know it. It reviews its past predictions, notes where its models have errored, and takes into account an incredible wealth and scope of scientific observations over 150 years.
• The IPCC also makes all of its data and models available for review. So you can see for yourself.
• The US Government also recently updated its regularly scheduled report written by over 300 experts.
• The USGS has a Climate Model Browser that lets you try out all the different simulated predictions for Global Warming. You'll notice the specifics vary widely, but they all predict dramatic temperature rises.
• The NOAA has a National Climate Data Center where you can watch the temperature trends. Here's a visualization based on the data.
• The United States Defense department has several reports on the risks posed by Global Warming (see here, here, here, and here).
• The Center for Coastal Resources Management (CCRM) has produced some excellent reports on sea level rise due to Climate Change to inform local communities like Norfolk VA, where flooding is already a major issue, what to expect in the near future due to Global Warming.
• You can also watch the sea levels rise at the NOAA's Sea-Level Trends website.
• If you don't trust the government, then I recommend The Berkely Earth Project. It was funded by the liberal's favorite bad guys, the Koch Brothers, but its results were so compelling that the lead Climatologist, Richard A. Muller, wrote a piece for the New York Times announcing he was no longer a skeptic.
• Of course, it's always good to have a contrarian viewpoint in the mix, and for that, I recommend AGW skeptic Judith Curry, who presents valid challenges to the consensus with her strong scientific background. I don't find her convincing, but her challenges make for good food for thought.

If you dispute this science, then I recommend publishing your own peer-reviewed papers, your own models, and your own alternative hypotheses in the scientific journals. I see a lot of skeptics nit-picking the science, but not many actually taking the effort to publish in the scientific forums.

I eagerly await one of the skeptics out there to please post an equally substantive list of references to "balance" my citations, so everyone can review and compare them.

As for being "correct", Schmidt himself said: "Models are not right or wrong. They are always wrong. They are always approximations. The question you have to ask is whether a model tells more information than you would have had otherwise. If it does, it is skillful."

And this is EXACTLY why the models are bullshit. Because they have not been JUST consistently wrong, but consistently HUGELY wrong.

I actually DO give credit to the models as being "guesses". But if we are to accept them as science, they are terrible guesses. If you have ever read Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong, and actually looked at how weel the models have reflected reality (or, more properly, failed to do so), you could only conclude that we are going back to the Stone Age in our understanding of what is correct.

Wrong may be relative, but when it's that wrong, it's just wrong. Period.

If you're interested in the science of Anthropogenic Global Warming, I suggest you read the science, not blog posts. I've read both WattsUp and SkepticalScience, and they are both very poorly written and lack rigorousness. If you are reading these two blogs, you are reading the work of bias amateurs.

Here's what you should be reading:

• the peer-reviewed Journal "Nature Climate Change," which includes and references thousands of scientific papers on the subject.
• he IPCC's 1,500-page "Physical Science Basis" report, clearly states what we know, don't know, and how we know it. It reviews its past predictions, notes where its models have errored, and takes into account an incredible wealth and scope of scientific observations over 150 years. I highly recommend downloading this 0.5 GIG report and at least skimming it. I consider it the model of good science.
• The IPCC also makes all of its data and models available for review. So you can see for yourself. Take this data and give it to a machine-learning algorithm. The science of AGW is actually shockingly simple.
• The US Government also recently updated it regularly scheduled report written by over 300 experts.
• If you don't trust the government, then I recommend The Berkely Earth Project. It was funded by the liberal's favorite bad guys, the Koch Brothers, but its results were so compelling that the lead Climatologist, Richard A. Muller, wrote a piece for the New York Times announcing he no longer a skeptic.
• Of course, it's always good to have a contrarian viewpoint in the mix, and for that, I recommend AGW skeptic Judith Curry, who presents valid challenges to the consensus with her strong scientific background. I don't find her convincing, but her challenges make for good food for thought.

Science, published peer-reviewed science, not blogs, is where we should keep this discussion.

The ice sheet may be coming apart up in the whitw continent, but that's where several volcanoes are located. Active volcanoes. As in HOT. As for the rest of Antarctica, the ice is at a 30 year high. Here: chew on some better data http://judithcurry.com/2014/02... http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... http://wp.me/P7y4l-5Kc http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

The Watts example was based solely on what looks to me to be a forged document.

Well, thanks once again for describing your feelings.

We have no evidence that forgeries always state the truth and plenty of evidence that instead they are almost universally intended to commit some variation of fraud.

And you leap from speculating that the document might be forged to assuming it was. Nice one.

Meanwhile (as noted) we have Watt's own admission that he took money from The Heartland Institute.

It's true - there might be another explanation - that she is mentally incompetent.

She posts with regular frequency on her blog. If the above were true, we would have noticed.

The veracity of this statement is undetermined. I suspect that someone could easily parody the writings of a denialist blogger for months at a time and none of the gullible readers would recognise the difference. As I previously noted (and you apparently agree) : Watts himself has made no statement applicable to the topic of his blog (climate science) that both contradicted the mainstream science and was true. Yet even on slashdot readers will reference his blog as proof against science.

Dr Judith's approach is slightly different. She likes to frame ordinary statements in a tone of scandal, as if she has made some groundbreaking statement, or make reference to some ordinary fact in a tone of disbelief without actually contradicting or even disagreeing with it. Reference this one - which is about someone's hurt feelings and decision to resign from sham organisation set up to try and smear a layer of apparent respectability over the ridiculous, self contradictory clutter of assertions that is climate denial. Oooh the scandal.

Or this - meant to be a summary of the NCAR - except Judith tells us she didnt read it. Well, thanks for the tip. That's a devastating critique of a paper you didn't read.

Ok, show me these bales.

Dr Judith openly admits she takes money from big oil for expressing her views. I also note that she openly admits she doesn't know whether climate is forced by anthropogenic means and to what extent. Well Judith, maybe do some reading before commenting on it.

The Watts example was based solely on what looks to me to be a forged document.

Well, thanks once again for describing your feelings.

We have no evidence that forgeries always state the truth and plenty of evidence that instead they are almost universally intended to commit some variation of fraud.

And you leap from speculating that the document might be forged to assuming it was. Nice one.

Meanwhile (as noted) we have Watt's own admission that he took money from The Heartland Institute.

It's true - there might be another explanation - that she is mentally incompetent.

She posts with regular frequency on her blog. If the above were true, we would have noticed.

The veracity of this statement is undetermined. I suspect that someone could easily parody the writings of a denialist blogger for months at a time and none of the gullible readers would recognise the difference. As I previously noted (and you apparently agree) : Watts himself has made no statement applicable to the topic of his blog (climate science) that both contradicted the mainstream science and was true. Yet even on slashdot readers will reference his blog as proof against science.

Dr Judith's approach is slightly different. She likes to frame ordinary statements in a tone of scandal, as if she has made some groundbreaking statement, or make reference to some ordinary fact in a tone of disbelief without actually contradicting or even disagreeing with it. Reference this one - which is about someone's hurt feelings and decision to resign from sham organisation set up to try and smear a layer of apparent respectability over the ridiculous, self contradictory clutter of assertions that is climate denial. Oooh the scandal.

Or this - meant to be a summary of the NCAR - except Judith tells us she didnt read it. Well, thanks for the tip. That's a devastating critique of a paper you didn't read.

Ok, show me these bales.

Dr Judith openly admits she takes money from big oil for expressing her views. I also note that she openly admits she doesn't know whether climate is forced by anthropogenic means and to what extent. Well Judith, maybe do some reading before commenting on it.

Poor people, both in the USA and elsewhere in the world are already paying dearly for alarmism. In Germany hundreds of thousands have no electricity due to crazy pricing. More people die every winter when they have no power. In Africa, instead of reliable electricity, wells and hospitals, wind turbines are being installed.

As Richard Lindzen puts it
"Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest." Ref: http://judithcurry.com/2012/02...

Care to share links to some serious reviews "written by the skeptical contingent of climate scientists"? (An honest request, I'm not trying to imply there are none...).

It's pretty soon yet, since the "sky is falling" report was released just this morning(?), but I'm sure if you keep on eye on http://judithcurry.com/ you'll find a response. She seems to enjoy blogging about her field, and isn't afraid to tell the boys when she disagrees with them.

Dude, you'll get modded "troll" here at slashdot if you make sense on things like "climate change". When science displaced religion, all of the Inquisitors became climate scientists. Judith Curry is quite concerned about it actually.

"Essentially all scientific papers that it is possible to tell whether or not they support the consensus view unambiguously support the consensus view. That's what has been shown."

Yes, that is what was shown. But it doesn't mean anything. The only useful thing that shows is that doing a survey of the published papers on the subject does not give you an accurate picture of how many people think what.

See, the PROBLEM here is that these surveys claim to show that there is a "consensus" on greenhouse gas warming. But they don't actually show that. What they show is that people who have been publishing papers about greenhouse warming agree about greenhouse warming. Well, duh. Who'da thunk it? What they don't show is the overall scientific opinion about greenhouse gas warming... even though that's what they are pretending to show.

I will repeat what I wrote in an earlier reply above: the only way to know what people in that field of study actually think about greenhouse gas warming is to ask them. And that's what THIS STUDY did. The result? 52%. Hardly overwhelming and probably different from half by not much more than the standard error.

"If the paper doesn't mention climate change, how are you going to determine whether or not the paper is in support of the consensus view?"

You don't, because there is no way to tell. THAT IS THE POINT. Oreskes' paper is not a reflection of actual "consensus view" because there is no way to tell merely from the published papers. That's not the way science publishing works. And I'd be willing to be she knows that, and knew it then.

If you want to find out what meteorologists and climatologists actually think about greenhouse warming, you have to actually ask them. (Interesting, is it not, that neither Oreskes or this more recent "97%" paper did not actually ask anybody what they think, even though they were supposed to be about what people think?)

But that has been done. They were asked. And the results are very different from "97%".

"Publishing a paper about the climate is not promoting climate change. I see nothing wrong with the methods. If you do, please point them out."

I already did point them out. It just went over your head. That's not "flippant", it's a factual observation.

The POINT is that in 2004, the only climate papers that mentioned "climate change" were papers about greenhouse warming. But there were lots of papers about climate that did not mention "climate change" at all. Those were excluded from the study.

So Oreskes' sampling method (and similarly, another such "study" this year) SELECTED for papers that were about greenhouse warming. Keep in mind here that if somebody writes a paper about climate, and does not conclude that climate is significantly changing, they aren't going to mention "climate change" because the paper is not about climate change. They won't mention it because they aren't trying to disprove it... their paper is about something else.

There was a study done, however, using proper statistical methods. And the "consensus" they found was hardly overwhelming... 52%. That is the difference between the statistical error you did not see, and a properly done study. And that difference is pretty damned large.

"Are we to infer, then, that you believe a large majority of climatologists don't believe in ACC and are, for some reason, refusing to set the record straight by collectively pointing out flaws in the already-published literature?"

No. That would be an incorrect inference.

First, "majority" has nothing to do with it. Consensus is not science. But second, and more important, is that I was referring to scientists in general, not necessarily climatologists.

Trying to say "listen to climatologists about climate science" is disingenuous. Because you don't have to be a climatologist -- or even a scientist, for that matter -- to see that an improper statistical method was used, or that the math is inconsistent.

But even if you ARE confining it to climatologists, the whole point of this discussion was that they do NOT all agree. Or even 97% of them. Those are "statistics" that came from statistically invalid "studies".

I'm not making broad claims about how many do believe and how many don't... although I there is good evidence that it is nowhere near to 97%. Just for example: if it were, they wouldn't have to fudge their "studies", as it has been clearly shown they have.

But as it turns out, other people ARE making those claims. A comprehensive study of meteorologists HAS been done, which did not use fraudulent statistical methods. And the "consensus" it found amounted to 52%. Not exactly overwhelming,

"Except that's not actually a thing" There are quite a few people who disagree with you.

Those who claim existing studies include significant cyclical components are simply ill informed. One went so far as to challenge"cite even one" or words to that effect. Very well then, a widely respected Midwestern professor attacked the latest IPCC report as ignoring the solar cycle, which he asserted could explain much attributed to anthropogenic climate change. This is doubly odd since in 2007 the IPCC thought the opposite. For a critical discussion of this point see the deservedly sarcastic critique at http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/01/ipcc-solar-variations-dont-matter/

Funny. The IPCC puts its certainty at 95%, which is somewhat confusing as it's unable to show any accounting for that figure. According to Professor Judith Curry, the figure is arrived at by getting a load of climate scientists into a room and asking them what their certainty is!

What did my physics professor always say? If you don't know how accurate your measurement is, you haven't made a measurement.

It gets worse. The discrepancy between models and actual reality continues to grow. Surely this makes the science more uncertain, not less. Yet somehow the IPCC find themselves increasingly confident that they're right, even as everybody else becomes increasingly confident that the models they use are wrong. The whole thing is an absolute farce.

I stopped reading or listening to the bastards years ago. It's a religion to people at this point. I've never seen a Christian or Muslim fundamentalist get as foaming at the mouth rabid as some of the climate fundamentalists do. It's shocking to see how the discussion as devolved into what it is now.

I literally have friends that think the world is going to end within the next 5-10 years thanks to Al Gore and Prince Charles running around the world screaming that the sky is falling.

Climate science right now is nothing more than the worlds newest fucking death cult. These fuckers are praying for the end of the world to happen to justify their "models" (or prophecies if you will). Makes me sick.

Funny. The IPCC puts its certainty at 95%, which is somewhat confusing as it's unable to show any accounting for that figure. According to Professor Judith Curry, the figure is arrived at by getting a load of climate scientists into a room and asking them what their certainty is!

What did my physics professor always say? If you don't know how accurate your measurement is, you haven't made a measurement.

It gets worse. The discrepancy between models and actual reality continues to grow. Surely this makes the science more uncertain, not less. Yet somehow the IPCC find themselves increasingly confident that they're right, even as everybody else becomes increasingly confident that the models they use are wrong. The whole thing is an absolute farce.

As far as storing CO2 from mobile sources, the best proposal i've seen for this comes from the idea of sequestering CO2 in the arctic where, during the coldest points of the year, the air temperature is close to the temperature needed to produce CO2 snow. Which could then be dumped into an insulated pit, refrigerated, and buried. Antarctica also provides a large source of nearby power in the form of downhill winds near the coast which can develop to hurricane force, probably allowing wind turbines to power the entire operation. The proposal I read purported to be able to freeze out 1B tons of CO2 per year.

Here's the piece I read.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/24/a-modest-proposal-for-sequestration-of-co2-in-the-antarctic/

Whenever someone posts a link to SkepticalScience, I'm immediately reminded of George Orwell and 1984. That website is nothing more than propaganda, full of cherry picked science and disingenuous commentary from The Usual Suspects. I prefer to get my information from someone like Professor Curry, who isn't a propagandist with a political agenda.

"How do we non-experts decide when to take the pronouncements of the scientific consensus with a grain of salt? The reader may well find the following rules of thumb quite helpful. Be skeptical of scientific research, even that which supports, and is favored by apologists for, the scientific consensus, whenever:
1. the people paying for the research have a vested interest in the results.
2. vast concentrations of wealth and power hang in the balance on the results.
3. a prominent scientist's professional reputation and career is on the line.
4. the dominant paradigm is threatened."

Are you referring to Judith Curry? Her comments in the that blog post don't seem to indicate she actually believes that Muller has done anything of the sort. She does, however, have a history of retracting her inflammatory comments shortly after making them.

1 - The climate has warmed.
2 - CO2 absorbs infra-red energy at certain wavelengths
3 - More CO2 will lead to warming

Most skeptics will agree with the above points. The application of pretty simple physics leads to the following: Doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to about one degree celsius of warming. That's hardly alarming.

To get the amount of warming necessary to cause alarm, it is necessary to have positive feedback. That's where the skeptics part company with the alarmists.

The evidence for positive feedback is very tenuous. The evidence for negative feedback is just as strong. Judith Curry comes as close as any serious climate scientist to being completely open minded and she thinks the case is far from clear either way.
http://judithcurry.com/

Glaciation cycles are an example of one that's longer than a year.

If you look at the charts and graphs earth basically has two modes: coming out of an ice age and having an ice age. We're still coming out of an ice age so of course it's getting warmer. At what point did you think earth's climate was static? It doesn't work that way.

The next glaciation event seems on track for 300 years from now, so yeah the weather will be a bit weird for a while. Nothing you can do about it though except prepare. Evolution reward those who adapt the best, not the strongest.

The cause and schedule of glaciation and how it impacts clouds in general and climate specifically is explained here: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/poles/ - note that this is the famous model that CERN validated then put a gag order on. The commercial forces behind carbon markets are very powerful, move in the shadows and leave no fingerprints.

Also, this seems to me to falsify the AGW argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I I've not yet seen anyone refute it. Be the first on your block!

As to why there is such a carbon hysteria, this author makes the case for manufactured consent: http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/16/manufacturing-consensus/ and the Adam Curtis docco (BBC, 4 hrs, well worth it) "Century of the Self" shows the principles of how and when this was done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmUzwRCyTSo

That's your line?

1. No statistically significant warming since 1995. BBC interview.
2. BEST confirmation of no global warming for 13 years. Prof Curry confirmed her objections to Prof Muller's assertions, and the quotes used in the published interview:

   ‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

   .

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/29/uh-oh-it-was-the-best-of-times-it-was-the-worst-of-times/

Lets look at what one his team members had to say about his come to god paper.

"But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.
Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

See, that's the problem with you denialists, you're always taking things out of context. Honestly, I don't know whether you're helplessly deluded or being deliberately misleading, but it's grossly irresponsible.

How about we just do a little Ockham's razoring and think for a second. Tell me which is the more likely:

1) a carefully constructed body of research over the last 60-odd years demonstrates that human CO2 emmissions are forcing temperatures up, in accordance with modelling and with atmospheric science; or

2) there has been a cunningly-hidden global conspiracy amongst climate scientists that started 60 years ago when suggestions of potential temperature increases brought no money or funding as it was going against the prevailing scientific opinion at the time, and which has been continued as a vast pro-Green pro-Global-Government secret society that indoctrinated all of the world's leaders?

This is what your climate skeptic had to say

I don't understand, that's not my climate skeptic, you linked to an article from 2004 written by Richard Muller. I merely provided you the results of his research, I didn't even indicate whether or not I sided with him!

So lets just ignore the part that the greens were pushing about the climate skeptic who had a come to god moment.

What the fuck are you talking about? You brought Richard Muller into this conversation -- are you "the greens"? Furthermore, you used an article he wrote seven years ago to summarily discredit everything apparently even somehow validating "the emails demonstrating knowledge of the fraud that was ongoing." What the hell, man?

Lets look at what one his team members had to say about his come to god paper.

"But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped. Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1eTMUgUpc"

When you identify me as a "green" that you "can't talk to" I don't know why I continue to help you but here's another article you might find informative that follows your Daily Mail article by a matter of hours. It's a little more valuable because instead of it being some news organization (WSJ, Daily Mail, whoever) hell bent on making a story and cherry picking comments to make them sound the most inflammatory, it's actually Judith Curry actually telling you how she actually feels. She has reservations and that's good but she opens with:

I had a 90 minute meeting with Richard Muller this evening. I have to say that there isn’t much that we disagree on.

Judith Curry, the co-author in question, is not disputing his comments; the Daily Mail took her statements out of context. You can read her blog for the real story from her perspective here http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/discussion-with-rich-muller and the previous post; in short she says the only thing they disagreed about was the relatively minor one of interpreting hurricane data. Otherwise, she writes, "I have to say that there isn’t much that we disagree on."

The media don't always play a positive role in conversations among scientists - they tend to look for the controversial and sensational and that plays into the hands of people who wish to deny the growing scientific consensus around climate change.

How very repetitive. "Prune" has astro-turfed this link on the article 8 times so far. The answer is here:
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped [berkeleyearth.org]
Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ [judithcurry.com]

Talk about deceptive titles. The Daily Mail gets it wrong; read the other scientist's own blog here http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/discussion-with-rich-muller/ and here http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best

Or if that's too much information for you, here's the money quote: "I have to say that there isn’t much that we disagree on."

Talk about deceptive titles. The Daily Mail gets it wrong; read the other scientist's own blog here http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/discussion-with-rich-muller/ and here http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best

Or if that's too much information for you, here's the money quote: "I have to say that there isn’t much that we disagree on."

Mod "Prune" redundant or troll. He's astro-turfed the same link 8 times in this thread. The answer is here:
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped [berkeleyearth.org]
Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ [judithcurry.com]

"Prune" has astro-turfed this link on the article 8 times so far. It seems only reasonable to rebut them all the same way:
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped [berkeleyearth.org]
Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ [judithcurry.com]

Another "Prune" astro-turf post. The answer is in the FAQ:
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped [berkeleyearth.org]
Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ [judithcurry.com]

"Prune" has astro-turfed this link on the article 8 times so far. The answer is here:
http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped [berkeleyearth.org]
Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/ [judithcurry.com]

Rather than get your knowledge of the study from the Daily Mail, you'd do better to consult the FAQ,

http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#stopped

Furthermore, you should note that Prof Judith Curry, who is the "colleague" in that article, has complained that the Daily Mail misrepresented her.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/

I'd raise your sights in terms of the quality of your reading material if I was you.

Richard Muller is President of Muller & Associates, Professor of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley and Faculty Senior Scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.

He has expertise in energy, environment, geophysics, applied physics, technology, and fundamental physics, including energy efficiency and conservation, solar power, nuclear power and waste storage, coal and clean coal, natural gas, oil, batteries, fuel cells, transmission lines and smart grid, bio and other alternative fuels, and more. Richard Muller, President and Chief Scientist

GreenGov is a service offered by Muller & Associates for Governments, International Organizations, non profits, and other organizations that work with Government. GreenGov helps governments and other organizations with:
Clean Energy – demystifying emerging technologies and avoiding costly “misinvestments”
Energy Security – reconciling reliable energy provision with environmental concerns
Industrial Strategy – analysis of high technology opportunities in manufacturing and delivery.
Helping governments build energy strategies that are right for them

While it does seem that Muller has a dog in this fight, Judith Curry said

My most important statement IMO is this: ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’ My main point was that this is a very good data set, the best we currently have available for land surface temperatures. ....
My continued collaboration on this project will be discussed this week with Muller and Rohde. My joining this group was somewhat unusual, in that I did not know any of these people prior to being invited to join their team (although I very quickly figured out that they were highly reputable scientists). I thought the project was a great idea, and I still do, but it currently has a tarnish on it. Lets see what we can do about this. Mail on BEST

so possibly the dataset is unbiased and we should wait for peer review before hyperventilating.

Actually the only thing Judith Curry has been "distancing herself" from is that piece of trash article in the Daily Mail. Look at what she wrote on her blog. It's clear that she holds the highest opinion of her colleagues and she looks forward to seeing the impact of her work.

Actually Muller's co-author says that the Daily Mail is full of it and that their headlines misrepresent her statements. Not surprising since the Daily exists to publish sensationalist trash.

Curry has taken to her blog "To set the record straight"

In her post Curry criticizes how media outlets have sensationalized and distorted her views:

“Hiding the truth” in the title is definitely misleading, I made it pretty clear that there was uncertainty in the data itself, but the bigger issues are to analyze the data and interpret it. I made it clear that this was not a straightforward and simple thing to do.

If you read the post you see that her disagreements with Muller are disagreements entirely about the interpretations and connotations of Muller's remarks, and not at all about the data. Curry goes out of her way to defend the integrity of her colleague and she's probably pissed off at the dailymail for trying to stir-up resentments.

Here is the co-author condeming the very article you are linking to! http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/#more-5526

If you actually read the co-author's blog about the her differences with Muller, the one which starts "I have to say that there isn’t much that we disagree on", it becomes quickly obvious that it's you that is full of it.

Indeed, what about Prof Curry herself. She blogged about that particular Daily Mail article and the fact that it misquoted and misrepresented her.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/#more-5526 [judithcurry.com]

In a nutshell she is in full support of the report. She just had a problem with some of the things Muller said about the report. Ergo: She accepts global warming is happening, and she's not claiming that global warming stopped over the last 10 years.

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious âClimategateâ(TM) scandal two years ago.

The Mail on Sundays CLAIMS she said that. Prof Curry herself says that she was misquoted and misrepresented by the Mail On Sunday on this and several other things.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/#more-5526

For those not from the UK: The Mail on Sunday, and it's Sister paper The Daily Mail are are pretty much the Fox News of British journalism.

You really should check the links on /. articles. If you would have done that, you would have seen the source of that claim is the huffington post (no capitals deserved).

'huff said:

Muller said that he came into the study "with a proper skepticism," something scientists "should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism" before. There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently

He was being a proper scientist, not a denialist. Gosh.

Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry, accused Muller of another Climategate-like scandal and trying to "hide the decline" of recent global temperatures.

And here is what Curry had to say about that article:
'[David Rose] brought up hide the decline in our first interview, in the context of the plot that ends in 2006. He called me back specifically to discuss this and teased the “hide the decline” out of me.'
'My main point was that this is a very good data set [..] Showing preliminary results is of course fine, but overselling them at this point was a mistake IMO.'
'And finally, this is NOT a new scandal. [..] The main issue seems to be Richard Muller’s public statements.'

It really sounds like they were writing a cheapish MAFIAA script.

One of the co-authors of the paper, which by the way hasn't been accepted for publication, or peer reviewed, has attacked Muller for this. Judith Curry says it's nothing more than a pure PR operation, with no basis in fact. The actual data shows there's been no warming over the last 10 years, despite an increase in CO2. But Muller "hid the decline" in the graph that he published, by changing the scales on the graph to make it look insignificant, and use a 10 year average, thus cutting off the last 5 years of data. I know slashdot is astro-turfed by global warming cretins, but get your facts straight on this for once please.

I told Rose that I was puzzled my Muller’s statements, particularly about “end of skepticism” and also “we see no evidence of global warming slowing down.”

J.Curry.

“Why should I give you my data when you only want to find fault in it?” -Phil Jones

I was on the fence on AGW until I read that, now I can only conclude that AGW is a fraud. AGW cannot be falsified and is therefore not science. I'm certain I'll be modded flamebait or troll or whatever, but that inconvenient fact remains, AGW cannot be falsified. When the rules of science changed to allow people to "prove" things without even trying to falsify them? The way I learned the scientific method is you must try to falsify, not present anecdotal data to "prove your theory". If your theory cannot be falsified than you're not even dealing with a scientific theory.

The lies must stop! This is not science! It lessens the impact that real scientific research will have on the general public because now they'll say "oh ya, just like global warming" and science will begin to loose the respect it deserves.

Let me stop you there. I'm no trying to convince you of anything.

So, you don't have a hypothesis of AGW or CAGW that you're trying to defend, and your argument with me is a purely devil's advocate exercise?

Fair enough.

So now you are back to asserting that some unknown factor is limiting the forcing from anthropogenic emissions.

No, I'm asserting you don't have a rational basis for your assumption of forcing from anthropogenic emissions.

From a comment at judithcurry.com http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/03/sceptical-about-scepticism/:

"This increased from 372.9 ppmv in 2002 to 390 ppmv in 2011.

According to IPCC the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity = 3.2C and the CO2/Temperature relationship is logarithmic

From 2002 to 2010, CO2 increased from 372.9 to 390 ppmv
372.9 / 390 = 1.0459
ln(1.0459) = 0.04484
ln(2) = 0.69315
dT(2xCO2) = 3.2C
dT(2002-2011 theo) = 3.2 * 0.04484 / 0.69315 = 0.2C

So we should have seen 0.2C warming, if the IPCC assumptions on CO2 climate sensitivity are correct..

But saw none"

If there is no effect, then CO2 acts with full force in the atmosphere just as it does experimentally, including our own contribution of CO2. In other words, AGW is real and happening.

Again, you're trying to be clever by dodging the null hypothesis. Asserting that CO2 acts with full laboratory force in the complex system of the world unless some other unicorn effect is identified in exactly the same magnitude, but opposite sign, is a trick, not a proof.

Think of the example of heat traveling through a solid, and how the complex system of the human body does not simply transfer heat from a left hand in hot water, to a right hand sitting in the air.

Did I say that? Because if you can't find a reference to me saying that, then you are lighting up a strawman.

I'm simply extending your rationale to its final implication. You have asked about what the models fail to account for, implying that they account for everything. But let me give you a chance - what do *you* think the models fail to account for?

If you give me more than an empty suit to fill with straw, I'll argue against what you're willing to defend :)

They are reporting (incorrectly as it turns out!) the sensitivity. This is not the same as the radiative forcing.

Sigh. Back to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

"Radiative forcing can be used to estimate a subsequent change in equilibrium surface temperature (Ts) arising from that radiative forcing via the equation:

Ts = F

where is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in K/(W/m2), and F is the radiative forcing.[5] A typical value of is 0.8 K/(W/m2), which gives a warming of 3K for doubling of CO2."

Your claim started of with the statement, "The direct impact is this: Delta F = 5.35 * ln(C/C0)W/m^-2, And yes, measurements confirm it."

Except that the thing we measure is Ts, and that depends on *and* F, neither of which are measured directly. Lindzen pours cold water on 5.35 - btw, can you actually find a reference to how this was modeled? Curry seems to understand this 5.35 as calculated rather than measured: http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/10/lindzen-and-choi-part-ii/

"The result can be determined by fitting a regression line through the simulation results from radiative transfer models with no reference to changes in the Earth’s temperature. the use of this expression is mainly as an hueristic in the context of simple back of the envelope arguments."

Oh no. I know better than to try to prove anything to you. It cannot be done.

It certainly can't be done when you don't have a falsifiable hypothesis statement! :)

None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.

No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed climate change] to anthropogenic causes.

While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions for which there is little justification.

Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.

When will an anthropogenic effect on climate change be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, We do not know.‘

Ben Santer was instructed to prevailed upon to change it to:

The body of evidence now points to a discernible human influence on global climate.

Of course, you are probably completely unaware of this.