October 30, 2011

Muller, the snakes, the end: UPDATE

"Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

I often wonder why it is that the "skeptic community" is inclined to deal with the fraudulent alarmist community as if they somehow had to respect them as scientist. I guess it is that real scientist are trying to hold onto the idea that this a scientific dispute rather than an ideological one. That if they just present the evidence then their peers will see the error of their ways and be won over by such passe principles as seeking facts and evidence not to mention truth.

But sadly we no longer live in the age of reason where men are moved to seek truth. We now live near the end of the progressive age where the narrative of the accepted is the path to glory and riches if not honor. Honor and truth being of little value when trying to transform the world to your ideological bent or just make a buck

Having watched this battle for many years and having honed my instincts in observation of liars on the progressive scene, it was easily recognizabble that the BEST project put together by Richard Muller was just another front for the fraud of the global warming crowd.

Two things gave me pause, the fact that Dr, Judith Curry was involved as a team member and initially that Anthony Watts was drawn into the project as I guess, an observer. Having respect for both I like most hoped that this was indeed a legitimate attempt to ascertain the truth, though I had serious doubts which I expressed when I first wrote about BEST here where I noted:
This Berkley Earth Surface Group is part of the Novim Group. It appears based on a quick review of their literature that they are very much into Geo-Engineering. In fact  in a linked PDF which is described as a Novim Overview their Executive Director Michael Ditmore is quoted:

.... When it comes to climate change, he said, the world doesn’t have time to let politics and innuendo block the best available scientific thinking from reaching the public. 
“The problems are not unsolvable, but we’re running out of time,” Ditmore said.
It seems to me that Mr. Ditmore has already determined in his own mind that man made climate change/global warming is not something to be determined through study of the temperature records but rather an established fact in need of  immediate control.
Being just an observer I let it go until a short time later when  a video of a presentation by Dr. Muller was getting a lot of attention. It seemed as if the entire "realist community" was christening him as some sort of new skeptics hero for a few comments he made in the presentation and ignoring the over all warmist bias of the presentation.

I did a rather long analysis of his "talk" which received a lot of attention for a time, but I guess was not taken as seriously as I would have hoped because everyone seemed as if they were waiting on pins and needles for BEST to release their report, as if this might finally validate the skeptics points.
But the entire presentation by Dr Muller was nothing more than flim flam as I pointed out
The contradictions in Dr Muller's public positions on the science of global warming is obvious. On the one hand he says that virtually all the science flowing from the IPCC and the various proponent individuals and organizations is shoddy yet he believes that the science that underpins it which is the product of those same indviduals and organizations is accurate. 
Nowhere is this contradiction more obvious than in the next section of his lecture when the good doctor goes after the  "Hockey Stick" and "climategate".  This is what made Dr Muller an instant hero in the realist community. This portion of the lecture went viral though it only represents 5 minutes of a 52 minute presentation. 
He basically destroys the reputation and research of most of climate science's  most notable super stars and yet he believes the science they promote is sound, amazing.
 Here you had a man going through the science of global warming pointing out all the flaws, not only in the theory but also impugning the reputations of the scientist most responsible for promoting the theory and the manner in which they have arrived at that theory and yet he still found the theory to be valid, he is either a fool or a charlatan. Dr. Richard Muller is no fool.

In a later post I pointed this out
This has become the normal operating method in the climate science field, even when it does not involve climate scientist. For all his dramatic outrage at the scientist involved in the "climategate" scandal, Dr Muller seems  totally willing to ignore inconvenient truths in his own analysis on the state of the science underpinning  global warming. He is not alone as  the vast majority of the rest of the scientific community seems to accept the theory on it's face without the least bit of critical thinking.
 Why does the skeptic community continually do battle with scientist who will obviously lie, distort, fudge and use any Alinskyesk trick in the book to promote their agenda? It is not as if these people are ever going to say, "Oh wow, now I get it, thanks for straightening me out." They don't care about science. From the Daily Mail:
In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

‘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.’ 
However, Prof Muller denied warming was at a standstill.

‘We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. There was, he added, ‘no levelling off’...

...‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’
Prof Muller also wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal. It was here, under the headline ‘The case against global warming scepticism’, that he proclaimed ‘there were good reasons for doubt until now’.

This, too, went around the world, with The Economist, among many others, stating there was now ‘little room for doubt’.

Such claims left Prof Curry horrified.

‘Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism,’ she said. ‘To say that is the biggest mistake he [Prof Muller] has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought, “Oh my God”.’

In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics’ arguments were now taking them much more seriously.

They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation – as they should have done, she said, a long time ago.
Yesterday Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.

However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.

‘I am baffled as to what he’s trying to do,’ Prof Curry said.
What he is trying to do Dr Curry is feed the narrative. We now have another temperature study (with your name on it) reportedly confirming global warming is caused by CO2, thank you very much.

I invite you to watch again Dr. Muller's famous presentation or read my anylysis of it here and here but all you  really need to know is what I pointed out after Dr Muller's congressional testimony:
Contradictions seem to be Dr Muller's method of operation. As an example during his recent testimony to congress he said: 

Prior groups at NOAA, NASA, and in the UK (HadCRU) estimate about a 1.2 degree C land temperature rise from the early 1900s to the present.  This 1.2 degree rise is what we call global warming. Their work is excellent, and the Berkeley Earth project strives to build on it.  
Putting aside the much commented on inaccuracy of the 1.2 degree C claim, he also claims that the existing work by NOAA, NASSA and Had CRU is excellent. So why set up a new study to compete with them?...
So that he and his solution to the problem of AGW can be the new authority. It is shape shifting, the old way of promoting the BIG lie has been discredited. So a new way of presenting the same lie is put forward, by garnering support of the skeptic crowd by pointing out the very distortions and lies which are the foundation of the original lie to begin with. It seems not to matter that  you can destroy the very foundation of the lie and still promote the lie itself! It is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

The global warming crowd does not need to be right to win, they just need to be the authority, When you are the authority then you have power and that is all this is about and always has been about... power, political and economic.

Truth only prevails when it is known and you can not unleash the truth from the bed of the devil. If you are looking for respect from those who wish to destroy you then you shall destroy yourself in the attempt.

The only way for this progressive beast to be beaten is through a new structure, the old system is corrupt and decaying, it can not be propped up. This distortion of truth is happening throughout our societal institutions, no more so than in academia and the media yet the realist scientist feel they must somehow play within it. This is not a time to convince the enemy of the rightness of your view, they know that they lie and simply do not care. How do you change a system that is willing to lie to have their way? You don't, you flee it and create new structures built on truth.

You do an Ayn Rand Shrug, a Tea Party Movement, a Pajama's Media, a NIPCC, you create new structures that can replace the old ones as they collapse which they inevitably will one way or another.

If you work within a corrupt system you are either corrupted or destroyed by the system. You can not be dependent on a lie for your livelihood and tell the truth, it never works. This may not be fair, but it is reality. When you live with snakes you are bound to be bit, it is as simple as that.

I suspect that like much of this progressive agenda it will come crashing down on society like an October blizzard. But for those who know the truth my advice is to cease to work from within and find or found new places from without. It is the best thing you can do for humanity and yourself.


I had meant to make a comment on this section of the Mail article talking about Dr. Muller:

However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified

One of the reasons it would leave other scientist mystified is that none of the models which are a large part of the foundation for the global warming theory predicted this. If temperatures have not risen over the past thirteen years the theory has in affect been falsified. But this is precisely what has happened as Dr Muller admitted even before the BEST Analysis was done which ironically is exactly what he is chastising Jim Hanson of doing in this segment of his "lecture".

Consider what he is saying here. He says "it is still happening. (global warming) The fact that you do not have warming for thirteen years does not mean that you don't have a trend."

The dispute is not whether or not there has been a warming trend over the past 150 years, the dispute is whether or not that trend is primarily the result of man made carbon dioxide introduced into the atmosphere. If ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not generate an increase in temperature over a thirteen year period then what does that say? A proponent can say that natural variables or atmospheric sulfates  counteracted the CO2 warming but then what does that say about the nature of the scientific models and scientific understanding which could not foresee this but wishes us to believe they see the increase in temperatures decades hence?

In real world terms, my grandchildren who are being the most indoctrinated by this theology have in fact never experienced the very thing they are being taught to fear.

1 comment:

  1. Hi Jer, excellent article. I have been trying to highlight the nonscientific nature of this business also. Great to see someone else who wasn't taken in by the BEST hoodwink.