Revealing the decline

From greenman3610, Climate Crock of the Week gives a thorough review and debunking of "hide the decline" including the latest on Muller and the BEST project.

Also, if you are interested in the unfolding nuclear calamity in Japan, ClimateCrocks blog has been providing great coverage.

More like this

Josh Nelson has set up as a clearing house to correct disinformation about those emails stolen from CRU. Peter Sinclair's Climate Denial Crock of the Week is on the stolen emails. It certainly seems true that the quote miners almost always misrepresent what "hide the decline" refers…
When I said BEST is boring I was primarily thinking of the science. I'm not too surprised to find that many other people aren't. For such folk, there is much fun to be had, so I suppose I'll join in too. I was going to take the piss out of Watts (h/t KK) for Nature pans BEST and Muller PR antics,…
The Inspector General of the National Science foundation has completed an investigation into falsifying research data, concealing or deleting emails or other data, misusing privileged information, and seriously deviating form accepted practices in relation to climate change research by climate…
"After all, facts are facts, and although we may quote one to another with a chuckle the words of the Wise Statesman, 'Lies - damned lies - and statistics,' still there are some easy figures the simplest must understand, and the astutest cannot wriggle out of." -Leonard Courtney, 1895 "The first…

I'm glad I watched this one. Not for the "Hide the Decline" stuff (which is old news around here), but for the back end of the video, which charts the rise and fall of Dr Muller, once sceptic poster boy, and apparently now pariah. Fascinating. Thanks for the link.

Shame on Bill Gates....

"Greenman3610" is undoubtedly a world-renowned climate scientist with many years of experience researching climate change, right?

I think 'Name' is on to something here, and I intend to follow his unstated suggestion.

I will not accept what Greenman3610 says about climate, because he is not a world-renowned climate scientist. In fact, I will not take the word of anyone on this issue unless they are a climate scientist.

You should follow your own advice 'Name'.

I think it is pretty sad the way some true believers tarred and feathered Muller before his recent congressional testimony (this is clear from the clip and from sites such as Climate Progress) and now they back track.

I heard Muller a couple of years ago plugging his book "Physics for Future Presidents" on the local NPR station. It was pretty obvious that he knew and understood the basic science of global warming, i.e., absorption and emissions spectrums and how increasing CO2 concentration would affect the effective temperature of the last emission into space. And that he was not skeptical of the fact that global warming will occur if you increase CO2 concentration.

Although he didn't go past this point in the discussion, I pegged Muller as someone skeptical but not a skeptic. (Presumably it would be with the modeling of negative and positive feedback loops and lack of rigor in data collection). It is good to have Muller analyze the existing data with rigor. Assuming Muller's results hold over the remainder of the data, then maybe only the kooks will be left on the denier side.

[I will not go into Greenman3610's setup except to say that while the use of the term "hide the decline" was benign, it takes a very careful, complicated analysis to show this. Muller's assuming a different, more ordinary, meaning to the language is understandable, though not fully excusable. So long as Muller shows more rigor in his data analysis than his textural analysis, I will be happy.]

This gets me to my point. The climate believer's side should never have run the discrediting pieces against Muller before he testified. Shame on them. Leave that crap for the anti-science types.

Thank you Bill Gates.

This gets me to my point. The climate believer's side should never have run the discrediting pieces against Muller before he testified. Shame on them. Leave that crap for the anti-science types.

Muller was criticised because he talked a lot of nonsense. The fact that he finally got one thing right doesn't exonerate him.