He finally came around to what other climate scientists have been spouting for years. Richard A. Muller, a physics professor at the University of California-Berkeley, announced over the weekend that his much-publicized investigation into climate data has found that humans' production of carbon dioxide is causing the world to slowly warm up. And this process could speed up dramatically in the coming years.

Muller's conclusions attract special attention because of his vocal self-styling as a converted climate change skeptic. Muller criticized global warming studies for sloppy and self-serving data selection and a lack of transparency that obscured errors; he then lambasted fellow scientists for circling the wagons and calling any climate change deniers wrong. Muller says he's still upset that the American Physical Society declared the evidence for warming "incontrovertible" a few years ago in an official statement.

"We don't do things in science that are incontrovertible," Muller said in an interview with Yahoo News.

Muller took matters into his own hands and embarked on his own investigation into the data with his daughter Elizabeth and a team of scientists two years ago. His Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project attracted funding from the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, the nonprofit outfit of a wealthy businessman who denies that global warming is happening. Three years later, Muller ended up surprising himself when his research confirmed everything those same studies that drew his skepticism concluded, and then some. Muller says his study's results are more reliable than many previous ones because he intentionally avoided the data pitfalls he objected to, such as only using a portion of the global temperatures available. (He expounds on his methods here.)

Muller's study has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but he says he plans to do so at some point. One climate scientist, Benjamin D. Santer, told the Los Angeles Times he thinks posting the study online and not in a journal is in "the spirit of publicity, not the spirit of science" and may do more to hurt the global warming cause than help it. But Muller wants to get feedback on his methods and to share his results with everyone, avoiding what he sees as a secrecy and lack of transparency that surrounded earlier climate change studies.

Though Muller is now entirely convinced that the Earth is warming due to man-made causes, he still expresses disdain for people who try to raise passions around the issue by pointing to local weather events, such as the drought scorching up America's Midwest right now, as proof of the phenomenon. (He attributes the drought to La Niña, a temporary cooling of the ocean.) The effects of global warming on local weather patterns are unknown, and even as two-thirds of the world has heated up, another one-third has shown a gradual cooling over the past 250 years, he says. The overall effect is a troubling global warming, but Muller has no patience for simplifications that stray from the truth.

"I'm personally very worried," he says of global warming. Muller says that so far the warming has been "tiny," but that everything points to the process speeding up. "I personally suspect that it will be bad."

Muller is now wading into another controversy, by endorsing the process of natural gas extraction called fracking for developing countries, which tend to rely more on coal. Coal production creates more carbon dioxide, but fracking has also drawn its share of environmentalist critics.

"I believe the only kind of action that is sustainable is that which is profitable, and fortunately we can do that," he says. "We can become much more energy efficient."

..

Probably due to the increase in politicians and protestors. Good...now that we know the problem, let's find a solution to eradicate these global warming freaks. =d>

Jackass....

His critics are right, his data needs to go through peer review. I'm very skeptical of someone who is unwilling to submit their study to peer review. Until that happens it is suspicious results.

Jesus went through peer review...you see how that worked out for him. Jus' sayin.





































😂


























[sarcasm]

Wasn't it Alexander Fleming who said, "if it weren't for these government built roads and bridges, nobody would ever see the benefits of my penicillin."

"... One climate scientist, Benjamin D. Santer, told the Los Angeles Times he thinks posting the study online and not in a journal is in "the spirit of publicity, not the spirit of science" and may do more to hurt the global warming cause than help it...."


Why does the study of climate change attract so many yahoos?
From the guy that the article is about, to this quack Santer.
But at least Santer is honest. He admits that there exists a "global warming cause" within the scientific community.

Lets any of you forget, if someone belongs to a "cause", wouldn't their opinions be biased? Wouldn't the interpretation of data be skewed in order to support their cause?

This is true from both sides of TW's fence, but due to politics there are many more that support the "cause" of man-made climate change.

Global warming skeptic and meteorologist Anthony Watts, whose wattsupwiththat.com website has been called the "world's most viewed climate website," released a scientific discussion paper yesterday that crushes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's [NOAA's] "global warming" data claims. The study, co-authored with Dr. John R. Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Evan Jones of New York, concluded that "reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward."

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News this morning, co-author Dr. John R. Christy, an internationally recognized climate change expert, explained the significance of the findings:


In 2010, the World Meteorological Organization adopted a new standard for temperature collection stations. This discussion paper is the first to apply that standard. The finding is that when the new class scheme was applied to weather stations, the stations considered compliant had cooler trends than non-compliant stations.
In a press release issued from his offices in Chico, California yesterday, lead researcher Anthony Watts explained the significance of the new standards and the resultant findings of the study:

A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recent WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France's Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends...

Today, a new paper has been released that is the culmination of knowledge gleaned from five years of work by Anthony Watts and the many volunteers and contributors to the SurfaceStations project started in 2007.

This prepublication draft paper, titled An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends...is to be submitted for publication [in an academic journal]. . .

Using Leroy 2010 methods, [this paper] concludes that these factors, combined with station siting issues, have led to a spurious doubling of U.S. mean temperature trends in the 30 year data period covered by the study from 1979-2008. (emphasis added)

Co-author Christy explained that the decision by lead researcher Anthony Watts to release the discussion paper for public review was an innovation in academic research, pioneered, ironically, by global warming "converted skeptic" Richard Muller:






Releasing this as a discussion paper is like a pre-vetting process. If legitimate things are found, corrections will be made prior to submission to a peer reviewed academic publication. Richard Muller is the only one who has done this before. For me it's an experiment. So far, it's a wild ride. If you look on the blogs you'll see there are already hundreds of comments. We're looking through those comments.



The bits of responses I've gotten from academic types so far are mainly curiosity because this is a whole new world. Responses are all over the map. Some have thought it's been strange. For me, it is a way you can find errors quickly.

Christy added that when and where the study will be submitted for peer reviewed academic journal publication will be determined by lead researcher Anthony Watts:







"That's up to Anthony Watts. He's the lead researcher. I imagine he'll look at publications such as Science, the Journal of Geophysical Research, and the Journal of Climate. What you're seeing here is the evolution of the academic publication process with this kind of [public release of a discussion paper]."



In yesterday's press release Watts acknowledged that "the pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller, of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project." Watts quoted Muller's 2011 Scientific American interview, where he described the practice:


I know that is prior to acceptance, but in the tradition that I grew up in (under Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez) we always widely distributed "preprints" of papers prior to their publication or even submission. That guaranteed a much wider peer review than we obtained from mere referees.

Look for the mainstream media to give this new study by Watts and his colleagues a very cool reception.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/30/New-Study-Crushes-Global-Warming-Data-Claims 

Imma gonna invent a car that rund on ground up spotted owls and prius owners!

Because there's big [government] money available.



HGAF 🤣

F&cking idiots.

Both of them are absolute media grabbing, pandering idiots.

"use it to find errors quickly"? That's bs. If there are errors in your scientific paper which can be identified by a jackass on the internet then your work was sh%t to begin with.

The only reason to publish on the internet before peer review is because they don't think it will actually pass peer review and they want to try to get the public exposure before that. They're hoping that no one will notice when it never makes it into a real journal.

Both of them are ass-clowns.

And for the record, Watts is a weatherman. He has no education beyond an undergrad so probably has no understanding of a peer review process. Additionally, an admittedly cursory look at wikipedia points out that the study of weather stations he was talking about ended up with results pointing in the opposite direction of what he's claiming.

Some individuals might claim that he won't be able to get his study published because of a "cause". I say it's most likely because he has no education and likely has no idea how to put together a basic publishable research paper using rigorous scientific methods.

That's right! You tell 'em! Expose them for what they are! The ENTIRE world is waiting with baited breath for YOUR response on this matter. You're the subject matter expert on everything! You're a GOD among mortal men! When you walk into a room everyone bows before the greatness that you are. If a beam of light were to shine out of your butt it would be a beacon of YOU so everyone would know where to find you and they could ask you questions instead of logging on to Yahoo! or AskJeeves.com for help!

Please...continue and bore us all to death with your point of view! Do you really think anyone takes you seriously?

The world has warmed and cooled for how long ? What makes you think we have anything to do with it ? It's all speculation and not a one of us will be here long enough to confirm either way, relax!!

smog has always existed

Maybe Watts should go underground

and LEAVE the Rolling Stones?

That's crazy talk!

yea he doesn't fit well with the velvet or digital underground

But then he'd get to blow stuff up