Richard Muller mis-represented himself to the Koch Brothers, took money from them to create a temperature record, and hired a non-scientist to be his chief scientist. (Update : Zeke says Mosher is not the chief scientist.)
Since the global warming pause started, Berserkley Earth has been diverging from satellite data at 3.3C/century.
www.woodfortrees.org/data/best-upper/from:1995.5/plot/rss/from:1995.5
Update : Zeke wants land only vs. Best, not Best Upper. Same story.
www.woodfortrees.org/data/rss-land/from:1995.5/plot/best/from:1995.5
Muller was always a wild-eyed alarmist.
By Richard Muller on December 17, 2003
Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.
Medieval Global Warming – Page 2 | MIT Technology Review
11/03/11
“It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic“
Richard Muller, Climate Researcher, Navigates The Volatile Line Between Science And Skepticism
Less than a year after announcing that he was never a skeptic, he announced that he was a converted skeptic.
The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER
Published: July 28, 2012CALL me a converted skeptic.
THis is how it should be told.. THE TRUTH…. with evidence to back it up well done SG
I think Best needs to go back to the drawing board. But they do have a handicap. They rely on the HADCrut and GISS data sets which are already adjusted beyond recognition.
After 1945, Stalin’s propaganda agents took control of science at major US academic institutions (The University of Chicago’s Enrico Fermi Institute, Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics, etc) and funds, tenure and Nobel Prizes went to support pseudo-science like
1. The Standard Solar Model
2. The Standard Nuclear Model
with garbage discoveries of
_a.) Super-heavy elements
_b.) Ne-A, Ne-B, Ne-C, etc.
_c.) Oscillating solar neutrinos
You don’t think that experimental results at various times at different institutions would show up these discrepancies ‘spread’ by purported disinformationalists? Given how ‘science’ works, with the old prevailing theories being overturned on the basis of new experimental evidence, one would have to expect that all the experimental evidence would have to be ‘faked’ or fabricated to continue the deception to this day. But, this would seem to fly in the face of reality, as it is impossible to infiltrate an industry to that degree or extent.
ALL this is not just an ‘exercise’ on paper you know …
.
Nine pages (pp. 19-27) of precise experimental measurements in Chapter 2 of my autobiography show exactly HOW ‘SCIENCE’ WORKED over my research career (1960-2014):
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf
Like JosePH’s PHoney PHysics PHd Generator
Corruption was not limited to physics. One prestigious eastern University gave a PHoney Phd for PHinding PHantom Technetium in Nature
Not addressing the issue raised; please address how ‘research’ has been falsified by Stain-inspired disinformationalists despite hundreds of thousands of independent lab experiments by researchers NOT under the control of ‘Stalin’ …
Jim,
You can find the answer to the question yourself by asking distinguished members of the US NAS, UN’s IPCC or the UK’s RS to address precise experimental data that show the pulsar at the core of the Sun:
1. Made our elements 2. Birthed the solar system 3. Sustained the origin and evolution of life 4. Still controls every atom, life and world in the solar system today, a volume of space greater than that of ten billion, billion Earths !<
Sent from my iPhone
>
“You can find the answer to the question yourself by asking … ”
I have concluded you have no answer, no case. It appears you buy into wide-ranging conspiracy theories, too, and when faced with the ‘logic’ in an opposing view revert to the ‘grand hand wave’ as all conspiracy theorists eventually make their retreat.
.
I just got off the phone with “distinguished members of the US NAS, UN’s IPCC or the UK’s RS” and they said you’re wrong. Thanks for pointing me in the direction to find out the answer for myself.
Shanna … did they mention crazy as well 😉
We have heard the same old story from you hundreds of times. I have no idea whether you are right or wrong, you seems sincere but it is off topic and the constant repetition is getting tiresome.
Jim,
Naaaah, no one ever messes with data or misleads the public. Oh wait, what about Gorebull Warming again?!?!
Here is a rather interesting story told by a reputable gentleman. Still not sure just how far to believe him although we have the Taiwan Cobalt 60 incident, the final reports on the research on Tokyo and Nagasaki, and Chernobyl that appear to at least partially support his claims…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejCQrOTE-XA
re: kuhnkat July 16, 2014 at 2:06 am
I’m afraid you’ve jumped ‘a bridge too far’; I don’t see the applicability. Maybe you joined this discussion a little too late? Suggest start further up-thread …
Here are the links and oh yeah, I meant Hiroshima and not Tokyo above.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Chernobyl-Accident/
https://archive.org/details/TheEffectsOfTheAtomicBombOnHiroshima
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/
Three Mile Island there is no link for as there was so little radiation released there was no expectation of harm, even though envirowhacktards still screech about it. Fukushima has also had an absolute lack of radiation effects.
Jim,
I am not a scientist or educated enough to run down Omanuel’s claims. Just showing that what we read, are told, and what the gubmint claims are all manipulated heavily especially when it comes to technology that has “national security” implications.
Your claims that measurements in experiments are absolute God’s honest truth is laughable. If the gubmint comes in and tells you to change the data you will. If you have an ulterior motive to change it to gain money or recognition you might. If your group, whether geology, high energy physics, Cosmology, etc. tells you that you must fit your findings into the existing paradigm or lose funding and support you probably will.
Then there are the mistakes, bad experiments, poor calibration, bad equipment, and all the other problems with being human in the real world…
re: kuhnkat July 16, 2014 at 2:39 am
I’m sorry, you seem to have jumped overboard along with the other fellow. Too bad this is not real life as I would throw you a life preserver.
As it is, good luck, but it looks like you’re going down.
Next time choose a better ‘conspiracy’ to support.
.
Oh and Jim:
“Not addressing the issue raised; please address how ‘research’ has been falsified by Stain-inspired disinformationalists despite hundreds of thousands of independent lab experiments by researchers NOT under the control of ‘Stalin’ …”
Please show us those hundreds of thousands of experiments you CLAIM disprove Omanuel as there probably haven’t been a tenth that many that apply in any way??
The sword cuts both ways big talker.
re: kuhnkat July 16, 2014 at 3:05 am
Good night. Besides science, logic is not your strong suit either. Enjoy the conspiracies of your choice …
.
No problem Jim. I accept I am not a really sharp knife at either logic or science.
Now, when are you going to support YOUR arm waving trying to smear Omanuel. You claim a huge amount of evidence against his claims and present NOTHING but rhetoric. Could it be possible you know even less of science and logic than I??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“But they do have a handicap. They rely on the HADCrut and GISS data sets which are already adjusted beyond recognition.”
True, but even if they had the very best starting data they would still produce fraudulent data. Look at this post, it shows that Richard Muller is a liar with absolutely no respect for the truth. And remember that the fist rots from the head down.
fish? fish rots?
My fist rots from the top down. .;-)
I prefer tator tots – dipped individually in catsup – or is that ketchup? Toasted not roasted. Served steaming hot.
Today’s trivia:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/29649/whats-difference-between-ketchup-and-catsup
That is why I read this blog. You learn something new every day!
I always called it ketchup, even when the bottle said catsup. Now I know it is the same thing! 😉
The sad thing is how mosher went from a sensible teacher to a crazed greenie. His encounter with Muller and the BEST team changed him completely.
I have a completely different perspective than that.
So do I. Mosher is a talented communicator of misinformation.
Stephen,
We would have to ignore Moshpups continuous urging to only consider RTE as the whole understanding of the atmosphere and energy balance long before Moshpup hooked up with Muller to believe that.
Comments similar to “All you need to know is Radiative Transfer Equations” were common fare for Moshpup for at least the last 7 years.
Reblogged this on CraigM350.
Please define non-scientist. How long does one have to work in “science” before they become a “scientist”?
Most universities (including Berkeley) normally consider a science degree to be a prerequisite to be considered a scientist.
So the degree is all that counts. Without one, Mosher never gets there?
Do you have some other evidence which provides some reason to believe that this person Mosher is familiar with the relevant subject material upon which he writes and conducts analysis?
Generally, that is what a ‘degree’ confers, some minimal level of proficiency and familiarity with the subject material.
.
Exactly. In the 1700 and 1800 they were called antiquarians, gentlemen scientists or othe less precise terms but never scientist. In the same way, you cannot become a member of a scientific institute without a science degree.
Just asking a question, not picking a fight.
Still asking the question: what differentiates Mosher from your average man on the street with an opinion?
Well-written articles he has penned to date? Has he written anything original of a technical nature? By what measure is his word golden (or silver or brass even) versus someone else? The continued testimony of friends? Do you know his friends?
.
I don’t know anything about Mosher. I was simply inquiring about how he is described in this piece and whether someone without a degree can work in the field for a period of time and earn the same respect as one with a degree.
If you want to turn me into a closet supporter of Mosher, you will have to work harder.
I have questions too, and I thought you might have answers … I can’t ‘read you mind’ either so I have to ask questions as well. One wonders where this quite-obvious self-promoting creature Mosher who inserts himself in the center of various ‘debates’ derives his understanding and insights, that’s all. It wasn’t apparently through a program of ‘formal study’, so, he looks to have ‘picked it up’ along the way.
Like a lot of us have.
Capisce?
.
I probably would have provided such information if I had it. But instead, I asked anyone (particularly Tony) about the characterization.
Be well.
How logical…..truly bizarre.
Please define “work in science”.
Ha. Good one.
Please explain how “Berkeley” and “normally” belong in the same sentence
😉
It isn’t called Bezerkeley for nothing. I was hearing that in the 60s. Hmmmm. Maybe the era had something to do with it.
I was there myself in the 1960s. Not one of the so-called scientists will come here now and explain in public why the Sun was misrepresented as a ball of hydrogen, instead of the hydrogen generator that birthed the solar system.
It seems there should be a minimum time, but, I think the real question is whether what MoshPup, Muller, and many other “Climate Scientists”, are doing is SCIENCE. Are they using or abusing the scientific method. Is it science or pseudo science or Junk Science that they are doing??
Not sure why I bother, but..
1) Robert Rohde is the chief scientist at Berkeley Earth, and has a PhD in physics.
2) You are comparing the upper bound of the uncertainty range from a land record (not even the temperature!) to a land/ocean record (RSS). Here is what you were actually looking for (using the Berkeley land/ocean record: http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/globaltempcomps1979-2013_zpse255427b.png
1) Robert Rohde – “chief data analyst” or “scientist” at BEST? I see references on the web to both …
2) What position does Mosher officially fill or occupy? What is his title there?
The “chief data analyst” moniker can be seen here about half way down:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/scientists-find-an-abrupt-warm-jog-after-a-very-long-cooling/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
I get exactly the same number of 3.3 degrees/century divergence.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/best/from:1995.5/plot/rss/from:1995.5
Agreed. There is still a clear divergence when comparing “RSS land only” to “BEST land only”
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/trend/to:2080/plot/best/from:1979/to:2080/trend
Zeke?
Use the same time interval as the article, please
My bad. I was experimenting at wood for trees, and forgot to reset the time interval before pasting.
You have a much better attention to detail than most of is.
The problem is that according to global warming theory, the mid troposphere trends should be greater (slightly) than the land based trends. Because the opposite is happening, the most plausible explanation is that BEST is measuring incorrectly adjusted for UHI effects.
Thanks Zeke.
1. Instead of the “Berkerley New” label, may I recommend versioning with release date, so we can compare BEST-to-BEST and BEST-to-Others with greater clarity?
ie BEST v2.1, 20140715
2. RE: “You are comparing the upper bound of the uncertainty range from a land record”
This still implies a divergence between land and sea atmospheric temperatures (@ 2 meters?). Could you elaborate on the forces maintaining the land/sea gradient divergence?
From http://berkeleyearth.org/team present organizational titles up to Mosher’s:
Berkeley Earth Team
Berkeley Earth team members include:
Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director
Elizabeth Muller, Founder and Executive Director
Robert Rohde, Lead Scientist
Don Groom, Physicist
Zeke Hausfather, Scientist
Robert Jacobsen, Professor of Physics
Steven Mosher, Scientist
…
.
Mosher is not even listed in the original About Us page, but Rohde is always listed as lead scientist. Verified using the wayback machine.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110205043551/http://www.berkeleyearth.org/aboutus
Berkeley Earth team members include:
David Brillinger, Statistical Scientist
Judith Curry, Climatologist
Don Groom, Physicist
Robert Jacobsen, Professor of Physics
Elizabeth Muller, Project Manager
Richard Muller, Professor of Physics (Chair)
Saul Perlmutter, Professor of Physics
Robert Rohde, Physicist (Lead Scientist)
Arthur Rosenfeld, Professor of Physics, Former California Energy Commissioner
Charlotte Wickham, Statistical Scientist
Jonathan Wurtele, Professor of Physics
Good find; I was going to ask Zeke when those ‘titles’ were effective, as things on a webpage are open to continual revision and ‘update’. Actually, one only need know the ‘web designer’ in order to get something on a webpage changed (in most organizations; direct access on an open sever being oh-so trivial for self-performed ‘updates’.)
Another thought just came to mind: ‘all chiefs and no indians’ (derived from the saying “Too many chiefs and not enough Indians”) are listed (meaning: all managers and higher-level staff; who does the actual work?)
Mosher? He looks like the low man on the totem pole … well, him and Zeke maybe. Same ‘rank’ on the org listing.
.
Zeke Hausfather says:
July 15, 2014 at 2:36 pm
. Here is what you were actually looking for (using the Berkeley land/ocean record:
====
thanks Zeke…it clearly shows that Berkley cooled the past…and warmed the present
Mosher says “There are no adjustments.”
http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/29/a-new-release-from-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature/#comment-223460
So, who’s right? Mosher has been repeating this for two years as often as he can. WTF?
You can adjust the temperature record to produce anything you want by selecting the right set of stations.
Let me see if I can clarify. There are no adjustments to the adjusted data. I think that about sums it up.
Exactly. The level of effort to spread misinformation is very telling to me. It never stops. Every comment has to be answered by the team. It rivals Nick Stokes.
because infilling etc is not considered an adjustment….they call it a correction
It depends on what the definition of is is…………..
Nor do I.
Not sure why I bother but…
1) Zeke Hausfather is employed by a serial liar.
2) He gets paid to come onto weblogs & engage in meaningless diversions in an attempt to distract from the scam he is employed in perpetuating.
SG has opened a real can of worms here again. ZEke will not reply. He definitely lost the last encounter 100 to 0. I am actually surprised he turned up here again they must be getting extremely upset. Godd on ya SG. LOL
Zeke does not believe he is wrong and believes he won 100 to 0.
Of course he will reply hahahah with more “excuses” for adjustments LOL
Anyone can “do science”, even Steve Mosher. One of the main knocks against skeptics is that it is all blog science by non scientists, and all the real scientists believe in blah, blah, blah. Don’t know why we can’t take the high road, some of you sound like Mann. Our motto should be “It’s the data, stupid”. I really do not care who brings the solutions and what their title is, show me the work, the data, and the code, and please justify your assumptions.
Can you show a graph of adjustments to the BEST temperatures vs. the divergence of BEST from RSS? I would expect a one-to-one, high correlation (better than 0.9 R-square value), assuming the RSS data reflects reality.
Jim,
We do not know why you try to defend them, but we do know that public grants and international awards enticed scientists to lie after 1945 about:
Nuclear, particle, planetary, radiation,
solar, stellar and theoretical physics.
See: “The Nuclear Scare Scam.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ejCQrOTE-XA&feature=player_embedded
Still not addressing the issue raised; please address how ‘research’ has been falsified by Stalin-inspired disinformationalists despite hundreds of thousands of independent lab experiments by researchers NOT under the control of ‘Stalin’ or funded by public grants.
For your ‘theory’ to work , everyone must be compromised and every experiment must be rigged; it just ain’t so …
.
In thread bomber Omanuel’s bizarro world it is so Jim 😉
I thought NOAA was the only agency to introduce a “Fudge Factor”.
Nine pages of precise experimental data on pages 19-27) expose the source of energy – NEUTRON REPULSION – that:
1. Is clearly recorded in rest masses of atoms for all to see;
2. Destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki from cores of uranium and plutonium atoms;
3. Made our elements, birthed the solar system, and sustained the origin and evolution of life from the core of the Sun;
4. Produced this galaxy of stars from the core of the Milky Way;
5. Causes the cosmos to expand and fill interstellar space with the neutron decay product, hydrogen.
I’ve seen no evidence more damning regarding Muller’s attitude to “science” than his contribution to the “documentary” – “Nemesis: the Sun’s Evil Twin”. It’s available in several copies on Youtube. Muller continually ignores the perfectly reasonable dismissals of the idea of the solar system having a second star by astronomers on the basis of current evidence, going on to whine and assert that it’s true, it’s true, it’s true – because I say so!
Watch it, it’s an absolute hoot.
Several days ago I repeated a question here that was asked in the comment section of Zeke’s artilce Understanding adjustments to temperature data.
The paraphrased question initially posed by “DocMartyn | July 8, 2014 at 6:47 pm” was: Why does 1950 Portland-Troutdale data differ from the hand written record?
Steven Mosher gave a plausible answer which David Springer rebutted. I checked the thread several days ago, but didn’t see any more info. Does anyone know the outcome of that discussion?
These two guys (Mosher, Springer) seem to hold each other in such low esteem it made it difficult to separate truth from snark. To Mosher’s (and Berkley Earth’s) credit, he wrote if anyone finds an error, to report it. I assume Berkley Earth have an error reporting/investigation/escalation system in place and are willing to entertain fact-based and reproducible issues. This seems like the right approach.
How about asking this:
According to the thermometers Swansea is half a degree C cooler than London.
After moshering the data with Zekian adjustments, BEST tells us London is half a degree C cooler than Swansea.
Which is right?
(Bet you get no answer.)
It’s called a honeypot. Find out where the weaknesses in your positions are to remedy them in a future edition of the gospel. There is no discernable reason to assume that anyone in that circus of doomsayers intends to ever work scientifically.
The telling sign of any pseudo-scientific scam is that the presented hypothesis has no clear path to falsification. The “theory” of AGW lags falsifiability completely and gets mended ad hoc to explain away any possibly problematic observation. Like, say, vast amounts of additional antarctic sea ice every year.
“It’s called a honeypot. Find out where the weaknesses in your positions are to remedy them in a future edition of the gospel.”
If true, it’s too bad. (Honeypot is a cool term. Makes me think of honey trap which makes me think of Bond Girls.)
“Honeypot” also has another meaning which is even worse to be trapped in.
They’ve been shown they are wrong. They don’t care and will defend their methods until their last breath. I ain’t kidding.
It is pretty obvious the RSS and Best land trends are diverging through 2010. UAH not so much.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1996/to:2010/trend/plot/best-upper/from:1996/to:2010/plot/best-lower/from:1996/to:2010/plot/best/from:1996/to:2010/trend/plot/uah-land/from:1996/to:2010/trend
This one pulls the end points in. Still diverges.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1998/to:2008/trend/plot/best-upper/from:1998/to:2008/plot/best-lower/from:1998/to:2008/plot/best/from:1998/to:2008/trend/plot/uah-land/from:1998/to:2008/trend/plot/rss-land/from:1998/to:2008
And one more 99-09. It appears the divergence does not depend on the end points. Obviously, we would like to have a longer period to compare.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1999/to:2009/trend/plot/best-upper/from:1999/to:2009/plot/best-lower/from:1999/to:2009/plot/best/from:1999/to:2009/trend/plot/uah-land/from:1999/to:2009/trend/plot/rss-land/from:1999/to:2009
Muller was known to me a a scam artist long ago trying to ingratiate himself with VP Gore
I have not looked closely at Mosher’s technical work. But I have read a lot of his blog comments. Hopefully the intelligence inherent in those comments aren’t representative of his technical work.
They are.