Will the BEST project kill the global warming denier myths about surface temperatures?

Lets not jump the gun, these are preliminary results so they have not confirmed anything.

Muller is a scientists who supports the position of the IPCC, but I respect and trust him. His data and codes will be of public record for anybody who want to audit him. If his temperature record matches that of HadCru and GISS I will respect that. But what if the final results do not match that of GISS or HadCru? What if the warming trend is less, or the mid century cooling was greater. Will warmers respect that? Or will they start attacking his credibility?

http://climateprogress.org/2011/02/14/exclusive-ri...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuuR5...

Vampire man.

You say you do not like what if questions. If you click on my link to climateprogress, Romm is highly critical of Muller. Now Romm is dancing with joy. I find this dishonest. Conversely, if Watt were to attack Muller because he does no like the results, I would also find this dishonest. All I am asking is for believers to do the same.

Edit: It appears Joe Romm has once again jumped the gun. Anthony Watt is one of the biggest critics of UHI and the temperature record. This is what he said about the results of the BEST record:

And, I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step [providing my surfacestations data to them] because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results. I haven’t seen the global result, nobody has, not even the home team…

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/22/the-not-evil...

I live within walking distance of the Pacific Ocean, and I have lived here when the alarmists/leftists were proclaiming global cooling. Over 30 years ago they started chanting global warming and predicted that where I live would have a serious rise in ocean levels, flooding lowlands, that would happen within twenty year or less. That was 25 years ago and I'm still waiting. Nothing has changed, not the ocean level, not the water temperature.

The state climatologist, George Taylor, exposed the scam, and he is a real scientist, not a politician. The state governor read Taylor's report, and fired him, or tried to. Taylor wasn't politically correct.

Also, I studied Earth Science in college as a minor. Also, I'm not new to science; I've spent my live working in Science and Technology. All my friends are scientists or technologists. So, don't repeat Al Gore's lies to me. This climate change hoax runs along leftist political lines, and it is fed by liars and morons. Believe it!

I think that it is a mistake to put political spin on a scientific study. The effect of the BEST study on deniers is irrelevant. Deniers can and do believe what they want in some alternative universe. For scientists, Muller is performing a useful function by providing another independent check on surface temperature trends published by others. If Muller has a skeptic bias, let him take his best shot and we'll decide on the evidence. If he finds legitimate errors in prior work, I want to know about it. If Muller does not find legitimate errors in prior studies, that will strengthen the consensus position. I intend to read Muller's paper in full before giving an opinion.

Dana, you and I both know that there is no amount of evidence that will change a denier's mind. Even when the GW denier's own God, Richard Muller, agrees that the data is correct and that one study had unintentionally UNDER estimated the warming, the deniers will denounce their God and find another. I suspect Steve Goddard is about to ascend to the level of "God" and that Richard Muller will become a cast out angel.

I am glad you posted that link. I have also posted the link in other questions. The "deniers" were there to quickly give a "thumbs down" without offering any reason as to why. I had more "thumbs down" than actual posters to the question. Hit and run tactics? Or, simply no answer to the new study? See, it simply does not change anything, for the deniers. The skeptics will heed the new study and adjust accordingly. The deniers? Not so much. Their primary concern has nothing to do with intellectual honesty or with integrity.

Jimmy, that is not a denier that you are describing. That is a skeptic. You are far from being a skeptic and to state that the Earth's climate has not been stagnant throughout its history truly is an understatement. I can not fathom why anyone with the slightest understanding of science would not realize that mankind's activities can and do have an impact on our environment. This impact also includes the atmosphere.

Do you deny that CO2 is greenhouse gas?

Do you deny that mankind's activities, on nearly every level, have added a significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and have destroyed natural CO2 sequestors, such as rain forests.

How can this NOT have an impact?

Can you deny your way past this?

I'm a staunch AGW denier. I am totally in favor of the project as they are trying to make the raw data and the methodology used in adjustments transparent (which is the way it should have been done in the first place.)

Unlike True Believers I don't just blindly trust data put forward by organizations with no way to substantiate the findings. The final report should be interesting to see. I know Richard Muller (what disinformation did he spread?) believes in global warming but has been very critical of the James Hansen temperature adjustments (as well as Michael Mann's fraudulent Hockey Stick graph).

My bet is...No warming since 1998 and around maybe a 0.5 degree Celsius increase for the century.

Why is it when people who don't buy global warming don't listen we're "ignorant" but when we present scientific studies that argue against it...those studies are labeled as "bias"? I don't want to start a huge fight here, as the GW debate has already run into the ground, if you want facts google it. Here's what I will say on this issue... The scientist themselves can be bias... Especially depending on who is funding the research. An environmentalist group can approach researchers with a outcome in mind and say "help us prove this" instead of "tell us what you find."

There is enough data on both sides to say (without fear of being labeled ignorant or....what is the phrase used here? Going "lalala i can't hear you"?) that GW is a theory and has not been proven. Any other Michael Crichton fans here? I think his novel "State of Fear" does a great job in illustrating how media hype can influence fear in people to believe radica; scientific data without proper proof....solong as you do it in for "A Good Cause"

Who remembers Eugenics?? Anyone?

http://www.crichton-official.com/essay-stateoffear...

(ok i said i wouldn't post links...but this isn't "anti-GW proof" just a very insightful article from a smart guy who shows us that we all need to take a deep breath and calm down)

Well, it evidently is having some effect already. I note that several of the "myth" believers are coming up with all kinds of "what if"s in response to the news regarding the preliminary results. I think that it's reasonable to accept that there are some who will simply never accept that they were wrong and there are fewer still who will openly admit to it, even if they stop claiming that it's not warming or even that it's cooling..

Also while it may cut a large portion of those claiming cooling, you probably won't see any improvement with those who deny AGW openly correcting others who make blatantly wrong arguments like, "it's been cooling for 15 years" (even though they're using 1998 as their origin).

[re: I expel's answer]

I thumbed you down for the, "what if...". Re-reading your answer, I probably wouldn't have clicked at all since it's kind of a non-answer.

Edit:

*sigh*

>>Wow, It entirely answered the question

"Not sure what the effect will be." - non-answer

>>and there is no "what if" statement in my answer<<

"If they get nearly the same answers"

"if they get an answer of global cooling"

Not exactly "what if", but certainly close enough, and you weren't answering the question here, but going off on your own little tangent.

>>(or do you not know what placing in quotes means?)<<

I was quoting myself quoting another answer (Eric's)...

>>but thanx for demonstrating your inability to read.<<

Demonstrating? I thought I mentioned outright that I hadn't really properly comprehended what you were trying to say the first time I read it, and that as a result, clicking on the thumb down was a mistake. You see, I can admit when I make one...

>>In case you did not notice, I am saying that these people will likely be biased in the other direction, but it may demonstrate how much biased assumptions may affect the results.<<

Which doesn't answer the question posed. And I did notice that the second time I read it.

>>This is how scientists actually think.<<

They think that attacking someone for giving them a thumb down on Y!A is a proper reaction?

>>You might want to try for once.<<

I really try not to get emotional here, so no thanks.

>>OH sorry, that would mean thinking for yourself instead of thinking whatever your politicians tell you to think.<<

Which politicians would those be? I guess you forget that I agree with you on many political topics...

Also, I practically apologized for giving you a thumb down after admitting that I didn't quite catch what you were trying to say the first time I read it.

What was that you were saying about reading?

Edit 2:

Accepted. It's easy to misinterpret intent and even meaning on the internet as there is nothing at all to go on besides words.

I'll try to be a bit more direct.

When I thumbed down your answer, it was because I misinterpreted what you were saying. Upon re-reading it, I would have instead not clicked a thumb at all, as I didn't think you answered the question posed. The only reason that I said anything was to indicate that one of the thumbs down was from a single account and was more or less in error.

_

This new Berkeley project may have some slight effect on "skeptics" (if there actually are any), but other than a modest divergence from lies about temperatures to other lies about climate science, one can safely predict little effect on deniers. The way to stop deniers is to name and shame them, while stepping up public education regarding the true facts. This approach has worked fairly well against Holocaust denial (although even there, not 100%, see, for example, the History category of YA). One key difference, of course, is that an entire U.S. political party is not making Holocaust denial a central plank of its platform (as the Nazis did in the early 1930s with Jews and the Backstab Legend, or as Congressional Republicans are doing now in endlessly denying the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change).

No. It won't do a single thing to deniers. Skeptics, yes, politicians hopefully. At least even despite Muller's rather egregious errors when it comes to less formal discussion on the topic of AGW, he hasn't attempted to pull a Jedi mind trick and spin it (so as we see so far). I think he has too much self-respect and professionalism about him to do so. There will be, of course, and unfortunately, those who can't help themselves:

*waves hand* These are not the data you're looking for.

I imagine that the deniers on here will either, A) think It's a scam. B) misinterpret the findings. C) won't bat an eyelash at it. Or D) La la la la I'm not listening!!!

I am sure some "skeptics" (the sensible ones) may have to change their views slightly. they will still have their questions, but they will be a bit more certain that AGW is happening.

to think it will kill off denier myths is a bit over zealous, I'm afraid. the amount of reason for believing in them is minimal at best. no amount of proof before changed their ways before. what chance does this have? perhaps deniers will think, "they have gone to the darkside..."

peace!