Right Thinking From The Left Coast
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them - Isaac Asimov

Monday, April 04, 2011

Can We Put This To Bed Now?

There’s been a few more pieces of information on Climategate.  About a month ago, James Inhofe—a principle AGW critic—got the results of the investigation he wanted from the Department of Commerce.  Conclusion?  Nothing.

On Feb. 18, the results of that investigation were released. “In our review of the CRU emails,” the IG’s office said in its letter to Inhofe [PDF], “we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data ... or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures.”

Well, they’re the government.  They’re in on the conspiracy.  What we really need is some real climate skeptics to investigate.  Someone like Richard Muller, a strong climate skeptic.  Until they look into it ... oh.

A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called “the legitimate concerns” of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is “excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.”

Muller, by the way, was funded by the evil Koch Empire.  This makes the Koch’s record of distorting science to support their interests far less sinister than, say, Obama’s.

This is actually a pretty staggering and thorough piece of work, although it’s not entirely complete. You can read Ronald Bailey for a summary. They looked at over 39,000 temperature stations (4-8 times what anyone else has used). They carefully investigated the assertions of Anthony Watt, who has noted that many weather stations are located close to heat sources (conclusion: yes they are, but no it’s not causing the warming).  They took random samples from the data to see if they could reproduce the measured trend.  And they keep finding the same thing, only more reliably than any of the more hyped climate scientists.

Now it hasn’t been subject to peer review and they have yet to finish the entire sample.  But this isn’t kool-aid drinking Algore disciples we’re talking about here—it’s a group of skeptical scientists who have done the most thorough analysis yet.  At the very least, it shows that the results of the CRU, NOAA and NASA are robust.  When skeptics look at the same data and draw the same conclusions, that kinda sorta disproves the conspiracy theories, doesn’t it?

(Standard disclaimer: even if global warming is real, the projections of future climate are highly uncertain and should be taken with large grains of salt. Current efforts should be focused on things that cost little, like cutting industrial methane emissions.  Electric cars and re-usable grocery bags are nice to have but are not going to save the planet.  If you want a ruined planet, then the collectivist solutions of such as Algore are the best way to get there.  And our political class has demonstrated, time and again, that they see global warming as an excuse for amassing power and wealth.  I doubt they understand or give a fig about the science.)

Posted by Hal_10000 on 04/04/11 at 06:15 PM in Science and Technology  • (0) TrackbacksPermalink
Page 1 of 1 pages