A completely independent panel of research scientists from related fields was assembled to collect and analyze global temperature data to check on the pros and cons of global climate change. What do you suppose they found when they checked NASA’s results?
What came out was a graph remarkably similar to those produced by the world’s three most important and established groups whose work had been decried as unreliable and shoddy in climate sceptic circles.
Results from the Berkeley Earth project data fits existing NASA and NOAA temperature records like a glove
It’s a match! Of course this will get little press. But imagine if there had been any divergence for any reason whatsoever. It would have been a good old-fashioned right-wing freak-out jamboree.
My friend Michael Mann notes in his response to the study that these findings specifically undercut the claims of apologists like Anthony Watts. Watts runs one of the leading climate denialist sites on the web today, Watts Up With That, and has repeatedly promoted the now falsified idea that heat from urban regions was not taken into account by climate researchers. In other words his speil seems to be researchers either “forgot” — or are so silly they thoughtlessly put — the thermometers at thousands of global weather stations too close to industrial heat sources like heat pump exhaust outlets.
And there’s many other climate skeptics, inevitably they seem to either finally repent in the face of overwhelming data or double down and go for the gold. For example the Anthony Watts’ of the world would have us believe scientists in dozens of countries are faking warming data in some vague international conspiracy to keep that sweet grant money trickling in. Presumably, this happens even as money geysers funded by industry think-tanks spray cash all over anyone willing to trade their scientific integrity for an easy buck — Off Sarcasm.
And what would Anthony Watts say?
Well, in March, he said …”I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/06/briggs-on-berkeleys-best-plus-my-thoughts-from-my-visit-there/
And now? “…I consider the paper fatally flawed as it now stands, and thus I recommend it be removed from publication consideration by JGR until such time that it can be reworked.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/20/the-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature-project-puts-pr-before-peer-review/#more-49601
I wonder what real scientists will say? Something like – Yes, it confirms what we knew already, but glad that this is being demonstrated in other ways. Watts will continue to try and shift the goalposts, (‘the time period is too long’,’they didn’t verify every station each week for siting quality’,’Data from Tuesdays is always flawed’), but we need ot keep hammering away at his first statements from March 2011, and demonstrate his hypocrisy.
Maybe that could be a fun game, we should play “Guess the next excuse for why there’s no need for regulation”
I might start with the crazy, its satan. Seriously, all these attempts to enact pro-gay, pro-poor, pro-glimmer-of-sanity politics is actually opening cracks into hell thus heating the planet! The only reasonable course of action is to put gay people into death camps, grind the poor even more and go batshit crazy at every opportunity
Nice catch Itn, thanks!
Watts plays politics – he says many things about the future, and hopes you don’t remember what he said in the past. More review on Open Mind:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/berkeley-team-says-global-warming-not-due-to-urban-heating/