One month ago I wrote this about the Berkeley scam.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
- Rewriting The Northern Hemisphere
Recent Comments
- Allan Shelton on NASA Sea Level
- Disillusioned on “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Ulric Lyons on Technology Advances
- oeman50 on NASA Sea Level
- Gordon Vigurs on NASA Sea Level
- Lasse on NASA Sea Level
- Scott Allen on “getting smaller”
- Greg in NZ on NASA Sea Level
- arn on “getting smaller”
- Gordon Vigurs on “fair & equitable”
Yeh, after his testimony yesterday, it is confirmed. Our bias against Berkeley is well founded.
LOL!
When I 1st heard that this project was from Berkeley, I got suspicious. That city reminds me of Moscow-West. Same for San Fran…
why do climate scientists all seem to have the “rode hard and put up wet” look?
I had been hoping there might be a rare glimpse of reality because Judith has dallied with truth here and there….
Don’t give up hope yet. The written testimony from Dr. Muller yesterday is a lot more complete than the words that the press so happily picked up. The full test is realistic, it highlights the unknowns and outlines all of the work that still has to be done before we have reliable results.
Except for that “surprise” that the initial, randomly selected data fits the well-known curves BEFORE any of the biases have been removed–that’s not much of a surprise to much of the world.
If the project is up to its promise it will all be lain out for everyone to poke at before long now. We can only hope.
You guys do know that Muller is a physicist, right? And that he taught a class that was podcasted in which he lambasted Al Gore over and over for using misleading tactics? And that that might be a strong indication that he is not in the pocket for one side or the other?
But now that his data is in, and it seems to support the notion of manmade global warming, he must be a complete idiot, right?
Reality — what a bitch.
I see the man made fingerprints all over the graph.
Why do you even bother with this site if your mind is so firmly decided already? “Real Science”? lulz.
Why did Muller’s team declare it to be the “most important problem in the world” before they had any results?
being a physicist doesn’t automatically make you right, you do know physicists don’t all agree and can come up with opposite interpretations of results, RIGHT? Reality sucks for people who assume things and really on emotions to get facts. Stop making dumb assumptions and stereotypes
Dunno. Don’t really care. What I do know is that Muller is a Real Scientist, and there is every indication on this site that you are probably not. So I’ll take Muller’s word over yours. You should listen to his classes, btw. You might learn something!
A real scientist? That is exciting.
You don’t care that he came to an earth-shaking conclusion before he did the research – particularly one which is not supported by his research?
Real scientists believe in CAGW and receive funding towards that end.
Greg Lauzon says:
April 1, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Dunno. Don’t really care. What I do know is that Muller is a Real Scientist
Richard Lindzen is a scientist, a climate scientist. Muller is not a climate scientist. Read up on everything from Richard Lindzen.
“So I’ll take Muller’s word over yours.”
===========================
Here’s an ideal, genius. Instead of taking anybodies word, look at the numbers and facts yourself.
Well it’s clear from your response Greg that you have no scientific training at all. Real Scientist???? What is a Real Scientist Greg?
I hate to say ‘I told you so’. Scorpion, meet frog…
If a huge place like Russia is virutally 100% snowcovered on April 1st, it doesn’t seem apparent that we are getting catastrophic AGW. The warmists were more than happy to talk about Russia last summer.
Huh, good point.
This has some elements to grow into a ‘BerkeleyGate’… ? 😉
How many more billions of dollars must be spent on the study of something that is not?
Every department of our federal government has already spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the study of “Climate Change”.
The state university that I graduated from with my degree in Chemical Engineering has a web page with a search engine. I searched for “climate Change” and fount that it has received multiple government grants to study the effect of climate change on different things and found millions of dollars, including 20 million dollars just during the past year.
Yes Muller’s testimony was a shocker to me. He not only said it was the worst problem ever, but that the temp rise was really big over the last century or so.
But he hasn’t done the tests yet.
I suspect he is just being politically correct to continue receiving fuinding.
There is a problem here, as the vast majority of the funding does not come from government sources.
“The group has compiled 1.6 billion temperature measurements from 39,028 stations around the world, but used only two percent of these in the analysis. The stations used were picked at random, to avoid any bias towards older instruments (which have longer temperature records), poor quality stations, or any particular geographical region. But apart from these, no other sources of bias have been dealt with yet.”
Muller is pretty open about the fact that these are preliminary findings and that his expressed views are a personal assessment rather than a definitive statement. This whole issue over the integrity of the temp record seems like a dead letter. If their is an argument to be made against the prevailing concensus over AGW, this is not the one.