“There were good reasons for doubt, until now.”
With that characteristically hubristic opener, Richard Muller, director of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project starts a piece in the Wall Street Journal.
Our work covers only land temperature—not the oceans—but that’s where warming appears to be the greatest. Robert Rohde, our chief scientist, obtained more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world. Many of the records were short in duration, and to use them Mr. Rohde and a team of esteemed scientists and statisticians developed a new analytical approach that let us incorporate fragments of records. By using data from virtually all the available stations, we avoided data-selection bias. Rather than try to correct for the discontinuities in the records, we simply sliced the records where the data cut off, thereby creating two records from one.
We discovered that about one-third of the world’s temperature stations have recorded cooling temperatures, and about two-thirds have recorded warming. The two-to-one ratio reflects global warming. The changes at the locations that showed warming were typically between 1-2ºC, much greater than the IPCC’s average of 0.64ºC.
To study urban-heating bias in temperature records, we used satellite determinations that subdivided the world into urban and rural areas. We then conducted a temperature analysis based solely on “very rural” locations, distant from urban ones. The result showed a temperature increase similar to that found by other groups. Only 0.5% of the globe is urbanized, so it makes sense that even a 2ºC rise in urban regions would contribute negligibly to the global average.
What about poor station quality? Again, our statistical methods allowed us to analyze the U.S. temperature record separately for stations with good or acceptable rankings, and those with poor rankings (the U.S. is the only place in the world that ranks its temperature stations). Remarkably, the poorly ranked stations showed no greater temperature increases than the better ones. The mostly likely explanation is that while low-quality stations may give incorrect absolute temperatures, they still accurately track temperature changes.
When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.
Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.
As Peter points out, that really says a lot about Dr. Muller, and it isn’t complimentary. Dr. Muller should have at least read Spencer Weart’s book on global warming if he didn’t have time to read the actual peer-reviewed material himself (or lacked the background to understand the material). There were simply no good reasons to doubt. Calling it “hubris” is an understatement that a Brit would envy (WW2 was a bit of a tiff, for e.g.).
I’m of the mind to publish my findings on orbital mechanics showing the earth orbits the sun. There were good reasons for doubt, until now.
Just joking. I don’t do orbital mechanics. But I am a biologist and so should publish my work on evolution showing it happens. There were good reasons to doubt, until now.
btw, on my last flight, I could see the curvature of the earth and it is actually a globe. There were good reasons for doubt, until now.
It all makes me think the flaws that lead him to smear scientists, to misquote them, to misunderstand (or not even look) at their work, to embrace denialist claims so readily without any evidence of critical thinking, are still there—it is just that this time he has a team of credible scientists who won’t let him get away with misrepresenting their work.
Or, the more generous explanation is that he saw the need to win the “skeptics” over, jumped into their camp and play-acted the denialist/contrarian, and then reverted back to the scientist in the hopes that some of the “skeptics” he had won over would follow him back into the real world. Noble fellow, if you don’t mind breaking a few eggs to make an omelet. [/cynicism]
That last suggestion seems a little implausible but, at least it avoid accusing him of being stupid or deceitful. I am still awaiting an explanation from his daughter Elizabeth whom I emailed yesterday (accusing her of being his wife – embarrassing or what!). I have had 2 replies so far but neither has actually answered my question.
Can you believe it, WUWT censored my light-hearted comment in which I repeatedly replaced the word “denial” with “******” . This time Anthony Watts himself (acting as Moderator) has told me “if you have something to say just say it…” If this were not such an important issue, his stupidity would be utterly hysterical.
Martin, you might try my trick of substituting for ‘denier’ a cumbersome phrase that meets their requirements but is ridiculously long. Here’s a more ambitious attempt: ‘those persons who may have some misgivings about some aspects of the science related to the hypothesis that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the average temperature of the earth’s surface’.
Use this at least three times. It’ll get across.
You might also note while there that the words ‘alarmism’ and ‘alarmist’ are not similarly banned, a serious anomaly if the purpose of banning the work ‘denier’ is for reasons of civility. Of course, if banning the word ‘denier’ is political in purpose, then there is no asymmetry.
Thanks for the suggestion, sinchiroca. You are spot-on to point out the asymmetry of it all (another word would be hypocrisy). I think, however, that it may be too late!
I responded to Anthony by pointing out that there was only one word repeatedly omitted (i.e. the one word I am not allowed to use). That was fair enough. However, I then went on to say that if WUWT was going to be so ridiculous they might as well block my IP address but, if they did so, I would know that they were not interested in debating the implications of current events; they were just another echo chamber for the latest conspiracy theories. This comment has not appeared at all, so they may indeed have decided to silence me.
Meanwhile, who is it that has spent a large portion of their day reviewing my entire blog? It would seem that 1 person has read over 60 different posts today; could it indeed have been Anthony Watts himself?… OK, so it does not have to be one person viewing all 60 different posts but, if not, it is a very unusual viewing profile/distribution for one day…
I went over to your blog to have a look at it, just out of curiosity, so that’s two more hits today. I can think of two plausible hypotheses to explain the extra hits on your blog:
1. Mr. Watts wants to know if you’re a serious person, and is just checking out the content of your blog to get a measure of your seriousness.
2. Mr. Watts and/or his cohorts want to dig up some dirt on you, so they have scoured your blog looking for something they can hang you with, or at least prove that you’re unworthy of consideration.
My money’s on #2, but there could be a third explanation. Check out WUWT to see if any dirt appears in the next few hours.
Dr. Muller really ought to put out a statement that retracts his previous spreading of misinformation in seminars, op-eds, or whatever. He should acknowledge that, while his contributions were useful, the work of others was unfairly judged at the outset.
Will he do that? Who knows. Dr. Muller has already put out his pre-release info on his BEST papers, and he has been accused of a “media blitz” promoting the results to publications like the “Economist” before peer review. So, it seems some potential is there for some corrections on past mistakes.
http://www.economist.com/node/21533360
Dealing with Muller is like dealing with any guys that consistently flout the peer reviewed science, like Monckton. Their misinformation has to be contained, highlighted, and debunked in a professional, yet stern way. In the scientific world, there is no forgiveness for incompetence.
Between Skeptical Science and John Abraham’s at-length rebuttal to Monckton’s presentation in St. Paul, those are the gold standards of cold hard misinformation containment via extremely solid peer-reviewed citations. The Climate Rapid Response Team is another great effort, born out of Dr. Abraham’s bravery.
Peter’s videos and tireless efforts to address comments on Youtube reach a more visceral visual/emotional level. Still, the commentary is always stern and unforgiving of incompetence in understanding the best peer reviewed science and datasets. There is tough love for whatever think tank, political party, or person wants to bypass what the scientists say.
Sinchiroca – Dare I ask if you think I am a serious person? As I am quite open about not being a “Watermelon” (etc), I don’t think they will find anything that fits their stereotype. Meanwhile, no dirt has appeared on WUWT, but they have now published my comment… One particular WUWT correspondent seems very agitated about attempts to demand sceptics prove we are not causing climate change (as it would be a violation of the null hypothesis rule of science). He also cites Vostok ice core data as proof it has been warmer within the last 10,000 years (as if that is relevant)…
Otter17 – It has occurred to me that, in publishing his animation of 1850-2010 surface temperatures, Muller has admitted that the blade of the MBH98 Hockey Stick is real. What he has failed to do, as you rightly say, is admit that he either misunderstood or misrepresented the “hide the decline” email.
Everybody – Elizabeth Muller (daughter) has yet to resolve this question, but has informed me that he has a book coming out within in early 2012 Energy for Future Presidents, which will be interesting to compare with David MacKay’s Sustainable Energy: without the hot air. Furthermore, she refers to an interview soon to appear (in Nature?) in which he will be quoted as saying: “I have not done a scientific study but my own impression – based on reading the literature – is that some of the warming we have seen is caused by humans. To my mind, you can’t rule out half of the warming being caused by humans, but I think to conclude that most of it is – as the IPCC says – could be an overestimate. This is my personal impression; the other members of the team might feel differently.”
This tells you all you need to know about Muller – and all supposed “sceptics” – they think they can second-guess climate science and/or scienists.
First, Martin, my impression of your blog is that you most definitely are a serious person, in that you present well-reasoned ideas supported by evidence. If only ‘those persons who may have some misgivings about some aspects of the science related to the hypothesis that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the average temperature of the earth’s surface’ were so careful!
I’m glad that no dirt has appeared on WUWT — it seems that Mr. Watts or his assistant Igor was unable to find anything.
But there’s a larger question I’d like to pose to all. One of the reasons why I am so reluctant to condemn Mr. Muller is the scientist’s respect for genuine skepticism. It’s part of the culture of science: dissenters should be cherished, not condemned, because they keep the rest of us honest. Scientists as individuals can be petty and vindictive, but the culture as a whole has a powerful sense of the value of contrarian opinions. Among friends, Dr. Smith may call Dr. Jones an idiot, but with other scientists, Dr. Smith’s reactions to Dr. Jones will be more conservative.
Tolerance for weirdo ideas is relatively new among scientists; a hundred years ago, they could be pretty harsh about contrary opinions. Something about the shocks of the first half of the twentieth century drove a greater sense of humility into the culture, and that humility is now enshrined in the culture, manifesting itself as tolerance for plausible opposition. The discrimination between ‘plausible opposition’ and ‘idiocy’ is subjective, but the general rule seems to be: “Could I construct a plausible case supporting the claim?”
I agree that Mr. Muller went over the edge of that line in his attacks on Mr Jones and Mr Mann. But the criticisms involving UHI did constitute, IMO, ‘plausible opposition’. My own judgement has been that those criticisms were incorrect, but that doesn’t mean that I knew in my bones that they were wrong.
Anyway, Mr. Muller presents us with a tricky case. In some respects, he went over the line, but in other respects, his opposition falls within the range of what scientists consider acceptable behavior.
All very valid and commendable.
Somewhere or other, Peter (Sinclair) has alluded to the fact that deniers (why should I go to tortuous lengths to avoid the word when I don’t have to) are organising to attack their traitor (i.e. Muller – by posting his email address online, etc). Well, over on WUWT, this gives you just a flavour of the derision being heaped on him and anyone else that gets in their way, … “…Michael Mann is mendacious… and… a self-serving fraud who practices pseudo-science… Muller is not [one of us]; he is a backstabbing reprobate who cannot be trusted. Muller has no professional ethics…“ Yes indeed, that’s WUWT – As cool-headed, well-reasoned, and objective as ever…
P.S. Thanks for the vote of confidence – I hope you liked my spoof of Henson’s Rough Guide to Climate Change? If I could re-brand my blog, I would… (N.B. For legal reasons, my spoof now has my name on the cover, not Robert’s). 🙂