A Climate Soap Opera

By Keith Kloor | October 30, 2011 7:50 am

Is Judith Curry throwing Richard Muller under the bus in this newspaper article, as Anthony Watts chortles here? Or has Curry been played by the notorious David Rose, the author of the Mail piece?

Either way, Watts, ever the dramatist, channels his inner Godfather with this faux exasperation:

I try to get away to work on my paper and the climate world explodes, pulling me back in.

Can the climate world please control itself, so Mr. Watts can get back to his serious work?

As for the Mail article, Curry is reportedly accusing Muller, as Rose puts it, “of  trying to mislead the public” with selective release of data from the BEST study. I’ll leave it to Curry to explain which parts of her interview with Rose have been taken out of context or utterly misrepresented (if either is the case). She will likely feel compelled to respond (at her blog) to Rose’s article, which crows:

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious “˜Climategate’ scandal two years ago.

I’d say a soap opera is what seems more certain.

UPDATE: Curry has responded at Climate Etc: She writes:

I did not say that “the affair had to be compared to the notorious Climategate scandal two years ago,” this is indirectly attributed to me.  When asked specifically about the graph that apparently uses a 10 year running mean and ends in 2006,  we discussed “hide the decline,” but I honestly can’t recall if Rose or I said it first.  I agree that the way the data is presented in the graph “hides the decline.”  There is NO comparison of this situation to Climategate.

 

 

  • Barry Woods

    Anthony words.. that is not exasperation, that is humour.. imho

    Like Jo Nova’s (when 10;10 video happened)
     ‘I just had to stop by’

    It does seem to be a pass th epopcorn moment. Keith You’ve interviewed Judith Curry before, why not ask her, her thoughts DAil Mail and why she agreed to it.

  • Joshua

    Fascinating.

  • sharper00

    One wonders if Muller will acquire a new understanding of “the bunker mentality” in climate science. 

  • Keith Kloor

    David Rose and the Mail have a bit of a reputation.

    What surprises me about that Mail story is that it is at odds with what Judith has written on her blog about BEST (except the two papers she said were “not ready for primetime). 

  • Ian

    Gotta luv the juxtaposition of mugshots! 

  • Ian

    Judith Curry has just posted a reply on her site.

  • Nullius in Verba

    You might also want to consider whether Muller’s words were quoted in context, too.

    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’.

    That was one of the claims Judith seems to be objecting to. It’s not a case of selective data release – all the data has been released which is where the GWPF got it – it’s a question of selective data presentation. They showed a graph where a combination of smoothing and scale blurred the behaviour in the last decade and then (apparently) made statements to journalists saying there was no such pause.

    Did he say it and what did he mean by it? He may have said something meant to refer to the 30-year trend, that journalists interpreted as refering to the 10-year flat line and misrepresented. We won’t know if the 30-year trend has stopped for another couple of decades, but if Richard meant to say there was no sign of the 10-year levelling off (which is what the sceptics mean by the expression), then that’s just wrong.

    Personally, I suspect Muller was trying hard to give the false impression that sceptics had been proved wrong by making technically true when-interpreted-a-certain-way statements that he knew would be misinterpreted, which then got passed through the journalistic digestive system.

    But he who lives by the sword…

  • Keith Kloor

    He/she who talks to David Rose gets cut by the sword…

    This latest turn in the soap opera is juicy gruel for Dead Enders.

  • OPatrick

    Interesting you should question Muller’s choice of phrasing Nullius in Verba, I was about to ask a very similar question about Judith Curry’s quote:
    “There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped.”
    This seems chosen to mislead, presumably by Rose, unless it comes with the corollary ‘and there is no scientific basis for saying that warming has stopped.’ 

  • Louise
  • huxley

    I think that Nullis in Verba @7 gets it right:

    Personally, I suspect Muller was trying hard to give the false impression that sceptics had been proved wrong by making technically true when-interpreted-a-certain-way statements that he knew would be misinterpreted, which then got passed through the journalistic digestive system.

    I’m glad the BEST work was done, but it is hardly the end of skepticism or the debunking of Climategate or other such statements that have made on the BEST news release.

    Dr. Curry presents her side in Mail on BEST.

  • Nullius in Verba

    #9,
    It depends on what you mean by “warming” and what time scale you define it over. This statement was (presumably) made in the context of Muller’s remarks, which were (presumably) made in the context of sceptic claims about the last 10 or 13 years.

  • ThePowerofX

    David Rose: “The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of  trying to mislead the public… Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.”
    Judith Curry: “The fact that my name appears as second author on some of these papers is attributable to my last name starting with the letter “C”. [...] My contribution to these papers has been in the writing stage and suggesting analyses. [...] In my relatively minor role in all this, I have had virtually no input into the BEST PR strategy.” 

  • Shub

    NiV

    You are right. When faced by a simple question from BBC journalist Justin Webb, Muller overplayed his hand and said things to support the concept on an unrelenting rise in temperatures, which given the global data, cannot be supported at all.

    The interview transcript is here: https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20111021_r4

    Read Webb’s question, Muller’s answer and judge for yourself instead of just mindlessly bashing Rose etc.
     

  • Shub

    NiV

    You are not bashing Rose. 

  • NewYorkJ

    A disinformer (Rose) misrepresents a disinformer (Curry)?  This is all so confusing.  Rose may have added some additional spin to her comments, but what she said was spin nonetheless.  We get a dose of “hide the decline” that she doesn’t remember saying but agrees with…but no, she never meant to imply it’s similar to the gigantic scandal (in her and Rose’s mind) of ClimateGate. 

    Then we get quotes like this, custom made for a David Rose article.

    “˜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.’

    Have fun with that one.  Lazar calls her on it, but in usual form, she has no reply.

  • sharper00

    Curryquotes has an interesting side-by-side regarding “hide the decline”

  • http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

    Well, I’m just glad we have Judith Curry around to decide what’s scandalous and what isn’t.

  • Lazar

    I guess that’s a no, then.

  • Jarmo

    If this stasis in global warming continues, people will start to ask questions. CO2 increased by 20 ppm in atmosphere from in 2000-2011, faster than in 1990′s or 1980′s. It’s close to 20 % of the presumed increase since pre-industrial times.

    If this divergence of CO2 and temperature continues, models will have to be adjusted downwards.
     

  • Lazar

    McKitrick talking nonsense in the Mail…
    “Prof Ross McKittrick, a climate statistics expert from Guelph University in Ontario, added: “˜You don’t look for statistically significant evidence of a standstill.
    “˜You look for statistically significant evidence of change.’”
    The null can be set to any trend value. It even makes slightly more sense to set the null as the thirty-year trend and test for “change” from what we have seen.

  • huxley

    NewYorkJ @16: Lazar does the lazy thing and throws out links without explanation. I gather his point is that there are models that aren’t broken by a decade or so of sideways temperatures, but that is not the same as models that predicted that temps would level off after 1998.

    According to scientists from the Global Carbon Project, “CO2 emissions increased at a rate of 3.4% per year from 2000 to 2008, in contrast to 1% each year in the previous decade.” I assume this trend continues.

    So I’d have to go with Dr. Curry. Ten or so years of flat temps in spite of accelerating amounts of yearly CO2 emissions “doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.”

    Perhaps you can explain.

    Again I ask, if climate change is the slam-dunk its advocates claim, why all the rhetorical shifting, spinning, and name-calling like “disinformer”?

  • sharper00

    #22

    “So I’d have to go with Dr. Curry. Ten or so years of flat temps in spite of accelerating amounts of yearly CO2 emissions “doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.”
    Perhaps you can explain.”

    The statement “Ten or so years of flat temps in spite of accelerating amounts of yearly CO2 emissions “doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.” should be in response to a claim of “10 years of temperatures will be dominated by C02″.  Who has made that claim?

     

  • Lazar

    “Lazar does the lazy thing and throws out links without explanation.”
    No Huxley, I can guarantee that most everyone understands why models are run multiple times under different initial conditions, and what those error bars mean. If you don’t understand, look it up. Pick up a book. Use google.

  • Jarmo

    #23

    The claim is simply that CO2 dominates global temperatures and has been made numerous times. 

    CO2 dominates Earth’s climate, NASA reveals

    Almost 200 years after the greenhouse effect was discovered, and 150 years after its experimental proof, NASA scientists have finally demonstrated that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas. That’s despite the fact that it only accounts for around one-fifth of the Earth’s greenhouse effect, whereas water vapour accounts for about half, and clouds ““ water in its solid or liquid forms ““ contribute a quarter.
    “It often is stated that water vapour is the chief greenhouse gas (GHG) in the atmosphere,” write NASA’s Andrew LacisGavin SchmidtDavid Rindand Reto Ruedy in top journal Science on Thursday. “This would imply that changes in atmospheric CO2 are not important influences on the natural greenhouse capacity of Earth, and that the continuing increase in CO2 due to human activity is therefore not relevant to climate change. This misunderstanding is resolved through simple examination of the terrestrial greenhouse.”

    “The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth,” added Lacis. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general.” 

     http://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/co2-dominates-earths-climate-nasa-reveals/

  • Lazar

    Gotta feel sorry for Muller, being dumped on by both sides.

  • http://scienceblogs.com/stoat William M. Connolley

    Curry is a bozo,but Rose (and the Mail in general) simply should not be believed. They make things up, and I think they have in this case.

    If you care about the science – unlike the GWPF – then see http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/judith-curry-opens-mouth-inserts-foot/ 

  • Lazar

    Following up on Santer et al. paper on decade trends, JC claims, and repeats the claim in her Uncertainty Monster paper, based on Figure 9.7 AR4 WGI…
    “The point I want to make (and I made this point point in the Uncertainty Monster paper) is  globally, the modeled spectral density of the variability, when compared with observations, is too high for periods of ~ 8-17 years, and too low for periods of 40-70 years. [...] The model’s failure to capture the observed level of power in the periods 8-17 years and 40-70 years has biased Santer et al.’s conclusion towards the low end of the spectrum.”
    This is clearly wrong in ignoring the stated uncertainty in those spectral estimates. Estimated model spectral densities are within the error bars of the estimated observational spectral densities … and contra JC’s claim…
    “one might argue that this is all within the range of uncertainty of the climate models and the climate models and observations agree “˜ok.’”
    … it is sufficient to include the uncertainty in spectral power density estimated from *observational* data alone.

    No error bars… What happened to uncertainty :-)

    JC links through to this by Pielke Sr.

    A) “Santer et al continue [...] “Claims that minimal warming over a single decade undermine findings of a slowly-evolving externally-forced warming signal [e.g., as in Investor's Business Daily, 2008; Happer, 2010] are simply incorrect.”
    *If* ‘minimal warming’ is consistent with expected variation under a hypothesis of a ‘slowly-evolving externally-forced warming signal’ then the claim that ‘minimal warming’ ‘undermines’ the hypothesis is clearly false.
    Pielke claims…
    B) This is quite an overstatement
    C) as later in the paper (and in the abstract) Santer et al conclude that “”¦.temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”
    D) If one accepts this statement by Santer et al as correct, than what should have been written is that the observed lack of warming over a 10 years time period is still too short to definitely conclude that the model’s are failing to skillfully predict this aspect of the climate system.
    D) is not dispositive of A). C) is not dispositive of A) nor of D). B) is unsupportable.
    Why is skepticism so unconvincing…

  • Fred

    The BEST story seems to be that temperatures have been flat over the last decade.  Curry is honest and does not want to see the truth obscured.

    I hope somewhere a social psychologist is studying the decline and fall of the AGW theory just as they have studied the followers of millennial cults after the world did not end on schedule.

    It is surprising that, given the billions spent on AGW “research,” the scientists behind it still have not been able to offer proof that CO2 can cause harmful warming.  This created the need for “findings” like Muller’s.

    NewYorkJ and Keith:  I am happy that the very early snowfall missed your city, although the 3M without power this morning from North Carolina to New England were not so lucky. 

  • Lazar

    #25 Jarmo
    That text does not claim CO2 dominates ten year trends…
    Here we go round the mulberry bush, at 4am in the morning.

  • Tom Fuller

    Hey, #27–stop being a d**k. Take it back to your own sty.

  • Lazar

    WmC…
    “the direct quotes attributed to me are correct.”

  • sharper00

    Whatever complaints people want to make about Rose it appears Curry is still more interested in criticising Muller.

  • Lazar

    Muller is ascribed ugly motives by my side and buttered to high heaven by the skeptics, and still calls the truth as he sees it… he may be kinda hasty, but at least he’s honest :-)

  • Keith Kloor

    In her post and replies at the Climate Etc thread, it appears that Judith is trying to have it both both ways: in other words, admitting that Rose mischaracterized what she was saying–or that he read too much into it–while still standing by her actual quotes.

    This comment by her probably sums things up:

    I’ll translate what she means by it:

    There’s a reason why I don’t talk to reporters on the phone, and Rose reinforced why. But at the same time, I don’t like the hay Muller has made over all this in the media, so what I’m doing is splashing cold water on the triumphalist pro-AGW stories and talk that he has inspired these last few weeks. 

    Judith (or anyone else) should feel free to correct/affirm my interpretation.
     

  • Lazar

    Meantime the temperature record is as we thought it was, rising much as the models predict.
    It’s like watching A Midsummer Night’s Dream.

  • sharper00

    If we take her at face value:

    1. Her direct quote on a pause in warming contradict the paper she’s listed as an author on.

    2.  Her direct quote on C02 dominance of a 10 year period is a significant mischaracterisation of what the science claims.

    3. She doesn’t disavow any of her direct quotes.

    4. Her comments about being misrepresented by Rose are very vague and quite mild. She doesn’t agree with the Climategate comparison but she “doesn’t remember” who introduced “hide the decline” nor presumably did she differentiate the situations at the time.

    I think it’s likely she’s stuck in her normal bind: Evidence versus Followers (and thus influence). If she attacks the Rose piece she risks alienating her “skeptical” followers (who are declaring her a hero in the comments section on WUWT). If she backs off from her claims about the last 10 years of temperatures the same will happen.

    Would anyone publish a paper with Judith Curry as a co-author after this? 

  • Keith Kloor

    Seth Borenstein of the AP just tweeted:

    Just talked with  who disputes Brit press reports quoting her saying Muller hid decline; updated story: 

  • Keith Kloor

    Just saw this one from Judith at her site:

    “At the moment, I’m feeling manipulated by both Rose and BEST. This is one reason I started a blog, to get my words out there and minimize my personal exposure to manipulation.”

     

  • grypo

    This isn’t really a soap opera.  Soap operas have twists and turns that are so unbelievable as to be unable to predict.  Everything here is very believable and predictable.  Each character is acting just as they have acted all along.  It is better described as a farce.  It should be rather embarrassing for the players, but it isn’t.  The entire climate debate is a farce and completely disconnected from what should be being discussed.  And we continue to spin our tires in the mud because of it. Sorry to poor countries.  Sorry to the next generation.

  • EdG

    Well, well. As I observed the other day, it is a long journey from Muller’s publicity blitz to actual legitimate publication of these so called BEST results.

    On the bright side, Muller’s ploy has now made this a very high profile and thoroughly scrutinized litmus test for the peer review process. Peer review or pal review, that is the question.

    These attacks on Judith Curry are pathetic and predictable, and the juvenile ‘bozo’ comment by the former Wiki Revisionist wins the prize for the lowest and most laughable.

  • Jeff Norris

    This kerfuffle illustrations several problems in Climate Science as well as science in general
    1.       Science via press release.
    2.      The  media over hyping a study as definitive or close to it
    3.      A Scientist failing to express a humble portrayal of their work and dissuade the media from over-hyping.
    4.      A Scientist  who thinks the  work is good science but feels her colleague failure on points 1-3 may  hurt the  overall reputation of Science and continues to contribute to the  politicalization of her profession

  • EdG

    Keith,

    Your desperate attempts to ‘lynch’ Watts makes me wonder if your middle name is Karl.

  • EdG

    #42 – Jeff – Excellent summary.

  • OPatrick

    For someone who feels manipulated by Rose she’s not making a lot of noise to express her discontent. Had I been misrepresented so badly by someone willing to make up stuff so freely I’d be using my blog to make it absolutely clear that I was unhappy with them.  As it is she barely gets aboved miffedness. I wonder why this is.

  • hunter

    Keith,
    Do you realize that it seems pretty clear an increasing number of posts here and at other believer blogs are devoted to defending yet another hole in the consensus?

     

  • David Palmer

    David Whitehouse over at the GWPF has a graph of global land temperatures drawn, he claims, from the BEST data minus statistical smoothing which clearly demonstrates that land temperature has not moved upwards at all in the past 10 years. If he is correct then I’d say this is the big news out of BEST, and confirms what the sceptics have been saying regarding temperature over the past decade or so.
    Any comment Keith?

  • sharper00

    #45

      I wonder why this is.

    #1 “Judith Curry is a hero.”
    #2 “Judith Curry is, in my opinion, a global hero.”
    #3 “I’m glad she has come out and denounced Muller’s chicanery”
    #4 “Dr. Curry has guts and integrity.”
    #5 “Judith Curry is stellar “
    #6 “God bless Judith Curry!”
    #7 “Hip Hip Hurra for Dr Curry, an example to us all !!!”
    #8 “Judith Curry ““ you are a woman of integrity. Queue here for your Nobel Prize.”

  • EdG

    #37 asks:

    “Would anyone publish a paper with Judith Curry as a co-author after this?”

    Only those who were concerned about the objective quality of their work and the legitimacy of the peer review process.

    A better question: “Would anyone publish a paper with Muller as a co-author after this?”
     

  • BBD

    Tom Fuller @ 31

    Ignoring WMC’s repeat use of provocative language, have you read the link he provides?

    If so, what are your views on the removal of the apparently unreliable April and May 2010 data points, and the sensitivity of the trend to the start point (eg 2000 compared to 2001?).

  • http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

    #40  Wow!  Whatever the occasion, Judith ALWAYS gets martyred!

  • Lazar

    grypo #39 +10.
    Scientists who are not defending non-holes of non-significant non-trends found by post-hoc (!!!) analysis, accused of doing the opposite. What is the ‘relevant’ period this time… is it plus or minus one month to what was being claimed a year ago? If there is a connection to reality, I can’t see it.

  • Keith Kloor

    Edg (43)
    “lynch”?
    You are as dramatic as Watts. You also mistake persecution for mockery.

  • http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/ thingsbreak

    @16 NewYorkJ:
    [Curry claims] “˜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.’

    Anyone want to defend this as being something other than a bozo statement, in WMC’s parlance?

  • Fred

    David Palmer has made the point that Whitehouse has demonstrated that the BEST data indicates that land temperature has remained flat for the last 10 years.  This is in line with Curry’s impression.

    Other data show that the more important ocean temperature and oceanic thermal expansion have also been flat for the last 10 years.  In the latter there has been a decline underway over the last two years at the rate of 5mm per year.  Rawls points out that these results fit Svensmark’s theory but not AGW theory.  See:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/28/explaining-muller-vs-muller-is-best-blissfully-unaware-of-cosmic-ray-cloud-theory/#more-50148


     

  • Keith Kloor

    Hunter (46)
    yes, the another- nail-in-the- coffin meme, which has been a screaming headline over at Climate Depot for the last two years. I suppose if you repeat it enough times…

  • Lazar
  • Lazar

    “the another- nail-in-the- coffin meme”
    Clearly climategate was not the final one.
    So many nails, so little time (willard-steve-ism ®)

  • EdG

    #53

    “Edg (43) “lynch”? You are as dramatic as Watts. You also mistake persecution for mockery.”

    Pleeeease. Was the term that fit the rest of my comment.

    You mistake sarcastic humor for literal meaning, or something.

    Judging from the comments, everybody loves a soap opera. This is going to get most entertaining.

  • Fred

    Lazar:
    What you and Keith call “mockery” I call “whistling in the dark.”  Whitehouse and Curry seem to agree based on the BEST data that land temperature has not moved up in the last 10 years.

    More importantly, the article you (and I in #54) linked to by Rawls makes the point that ocean temperature and oceanic thermal expansion have also been flat for the last 10 years.  In the latter there has been a decline underway over the last two years at the rate of 5mm per year.  Such results fit Svensmark’s, not AGW theory.

    For laughs why don’t you resurrect the “global warming causes extreme weather events” argument and claim that the current East Coast snowstorm is proof of global warming?
     

  • http://scienceblogs.com/stoat William M. Connolley

    Keith, your skeptics aren’t capable of reading what is in plain sight, which is dishonest of them. I’ll put the link in again to help the poor dears:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/judith-curry-opens-mouth-inserts-foot/

    Naturally, I feel the need to take the piss out of Curry too:

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/10/best_is_fun.php

  • Tom Fuller

    This sure seems to be spiralling out of any sane perspective.

    Everybody and his brother were predicting what Muller’s preliminary results would be. Everybody and his brother were right.

    Temperatures have risen. Urban heat islands don’t have too much of an effect. The shape of the trend line is in fact similar to what the ensemble of models predicted. It also is at about half the rate predicted by the models.

    Because the trend line is guaranteed to have a sawtooth (what some like to call sinusoidal, which always makes me reach for a handkerchief) and peak-to-peak and trough-to-trough can last more than a decade, the easily observed stalling of temperatures doesn’t mean very much right now. If it persists, it will mean something.

    What about any of this is new, other than the fact that we’re playing with a new toy? All of the interesting stuff is going to happen over the next few months and even years.

    Muller wanted to get first licks in and he made sure he did, with pre-publication publication and a solo effort at cashing in on the PR slot machine.

    But get a grip, people. Watts hasa right to be peeved–he got cut out of the process that he was a part of. Curry is right to call Muller on it. Muller is playing Captain Obvious with the headline findings, knowing that is all that most people will care about. 

    If it all sounds a lot like a high school fight, it is equalled by what’s happening this weekend in the blogosphere. 

    30 days from now nobody will be writing about this. There are times I wish I had a fast forward button on my computer. Alt/GoFast/OnBlogs 

  • Keith Kloor

    What I don’t think many of you realize is that Judith couldn’t have picked a worse reporter or outlet to vent her frustrations to. (Or maybe you do and are are just ignoring Rose’s well-known history).

    What would interest me is if she knew about his reputation and his obvious biases. 

    Because this is Rose and the Mail we’re talking about, and she’s already made it abundantly clear at her site that she feels “manipulated” by him, I doubt this story will have legs. That will make dead-enders sad. :(

    Then again, I did say this was all a soap opera, so as the climate turns… 

  • Tom Fuller

    ~61, What’s the matter? Now that you can’t censor Wikipedia the way you censor your own cesspool, you think you have to wander around spreading your garbage? You misheard the judge. It was not ‘Come to ordure.’ 

    It’s funny that you probably thought you needed to censor Wikipedia and your blog because you were afraid that someone would show up and call a scientist a bozo.

    Keith, did Judith pick Rose, or vice-versa? 

  • Keith Kloor

    Tom, Tom, Tom (think Oscar, Oscar, Oscar for all you Odd Couple fans), don’t make me put you on moderation. If you want to take it to WC, by all means, go to his site. So if you feel that bile rising in the back of your throat, bite down hard.

    As for your question, I have no idea, but it seems anyone who knows anything about climate media coverage knows how shoddy his (and the Mail’s) reputation is. 

  • http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/ thingsbreak

    David Rose has responded to Curry’s attempt to have it both ways. Also, an interesting comment I have highlighted:

    David Rose | October 30, 2011 at 4:57 pm | Reply

    I am pleased you say that the quotes attributed to you in my article are accurate. But I think your memory is at fault when you state that it was I who first used the phrase “hide the decline”. You did this, twice, in our first conversation, although it’s true I was the first to mention it in our second talk.
    I would never have tried to put words in your mouth, and especially not this phrase. It’s true I did ask you in the second conversation whether you thought this affair had to be compared with the leaked CRU emails. But having been asked, you said that it did, hence the paraphrase in my piece.
    You will recall you said one other thing that was quite important and interesting that you asked me not to print, and I have honoured that request.
    Anyhow, I hope we aren’t going to fall out over this. I enjoyed talking to you and I applaud your honesty in speaking out.

  • Tom Fuller

    Gee, and I thought I was letting him off lightly. Can’t go to his site–he censors. 

    To me though, it makes a difference who initiated the interview. If Curry is out begging for media play, that’s one thing. If she is responding to a request from a credentialed journalist, it’s another. 

  • BBD

    Tom Fuller @ 64

    I have no quarrel with you, nor am I covertly on-side with WMC. So I dare to interject here. I asked you @ 50:

    what are your views on the removal of the apparently unreliable April and May 2010 data points, and the sensitivity of the trend to the start point (eg 2000 compared to 2001?).

    Eyjafjallajökull has been mentioned elsewhere as possible cause of the extreme 2010 April/May negative anomaly. This is interesting, but troublesome if one argues for an insensitive climate system.

  • Fred

    William M. Connolley:

    Your link puts an upward slope in the regression line through the last ten years of data largely by dropping an outlier.  Outliers can be very important data points and there is by no means universal agreement that they should automatically be excluded unless there is clear evidence that they were due to faulty measurement.

    The flattening of the surface temperature line is reinforced by the halt in the rise of the more important oceanic data referred to in #54 and #60.  Furthermore, for the last two years there has been a steady decline in the oceanic thermal expansion measurements.

    For good measure, consider that the UAH lower troposphere temps have been decidedly cool:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/30/uah-lower-troposphere-temperature-colder-than-2008/

    And Arctic temperatures are the coldest they have been in over a decade:

    http://www.real-science.com/arctic-temperatures-continue-coldest-decade



     

  • Tom Fuller

    BBD, I have no views on that specific question at this time. Sorry–really haven’t looked at that particular issue in any depth at all. I know who I’d ask, though–pop on over to Lucia’s and see if she or Zeke has spent any time on it.

  • Keith Kloor

    Tom (67):
    It makes no difference who initiated, only that she talked to him and perhaps expected her words not to get spun.

    I’m not going to assume anything of Judith, but most climate scientists who are accustomed to being rung up by the media are familiar with with all the beat reporters, many who have been writing about the environment/climate for years. Over the years scientists develop working relationships with journalists (which is a double-edge sword–for the reporter).

    And in this day and age, if a scientist isn’t familiar with a particular reporter, s/he googles to see what turns up. if Judith would have done that, she would have quickly found out some history that might have given her pause. 

  • BBD

    Tom Fuller @ 69

    Sorry”“really haven’t looked at that particular issue in any depth at all.

    Are you saying that temperature over the last decade or so is peripheral to your take on this discussion?

  • Tom Fuller

    Keith, I don’t think Judith should be charged with having a good idea of who’s who in British journalism.

    BBD, yeah, pretty much. I don’t think it matters a great deal, except (this decade) to Morano and (last decade) to Romm. 

  • Keith Kloor

    Tom,

    Did i say she should be charged with anything? I’m telling you how it is. Judith is also not naive about the media–not after her Hurricane Katrina experience.


     

  • Tom Fuller

    I meant charged as in having the responsibility for something, not criminal or civil charges…

    I find her to be remarkably–well, I’m not sure naive is the right word. Far more open than others, and maybe more trusting.

    When I interviewed Stephen Schneider I was basically vetted. For other interviews I was asked to submit questions in advance. None of that with Judith–she just fired away. And that was 5 years after Katrina.

    I certainly would not say that her Hurricane Katrina experience made her a seasoned and war-weary veteran of the journalistic process.

    I personally think that all this interview and blogging stuff is sort of a refreshing sideline for her, and that she’s watching all this in part to see what happens next. 

  • grypo

    I’m quite confused about the faux anger about Rose’s article here.  Sure, he over-stated the Climate-gate comparison, but from the perspective of advancing what Judith thinks, is it really far off?  She still says that the decline was hidden, still says there’s no scientific basis to saying the warming hasn’t stopped, and she is still saying, I quote:

    “Well you can argue that this is a scandal in the sense that it lessens the reputation and credibility of the BEST project.”

    So really, is this another case of just letting Judith off the hook?  Does anyone want to actually look into those statements or are we going to focus on how big bad David Rose misinterpreted the media’s beloved Heretic about the one issue that has nothing to do with the actual science?  Unless there is a demand from truth seekers to answer these type of questions, I don’t see any reason why anyone serious would want to count on the media anymore.  This happens all the time with Judith and the Pielkes.  I don’t care if holding these people accountable ruins professional relationships really.  Nor do I care whether Judith fells “manipulated” (she also says this about BEST!) considering she hasn’t backed up the important statements about the BEST work.

  • http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/ thingsbreak

    @75 grypo:
    I’m quite confused about the faux anger about Rose’s article here.  Sure, he over-stated the Climate-gate comparison, but from the perspective of advancing what Judith thinks, is it really far off?

    According to Rose, Judith made the comparison twice to him in their initial discussion, so I don’t know that we can say he “over-stated” the comparison at this point, can we?

    This is a little less cut and dry than most of Rose’s typical misrepresentations, as the ostensible victim in this case doesn’t exactly have a great deal of credibility in the not-shooting-her-mouth-off department.

  • Tom Fuller

    I see. So Rose is dishonest and cynical except when he is saying something less than nice about Curry. I get it. Eureka!

  • grypo

    To be honest, the “climate-gate” comparison doesn’t even matter to me unless we are talking about made up scandals.  If that’s her point, then right on!  What’s important is what she is sticking to, which are important scientific questions for serious people to understand (such a significantly interesting climate time periods and whether or not warming is “stalling”).  We seem to be skipping the part where people who are in a position to effect public opinion to are held accountable for what they say and asked to explain to back up assertions.

  • Keith Kloor

    @75 & 76

    Interesting. Because it’s Judith Curry, maybe Rose got his story straight this time?

    Looks like you guys want to have it both ways with David Rose.  

  • Keith Kloor

    And Tom Fuller is only brilliant when he makes observations identical to keith kloor, which overlap at the same time. :)

     

  • grypo

    Nonsense Keith.  I don’t give a crap about Rose’s article.  Read her statements on her blog to which I made available to you.  Follow up or continue the stupid game of trying to minimize other’s comments by making them appear tribal and outside proper discourse.  I see through that tho.

  • NewYorkJ

    Agreed that the focus on David Rose is somewhat misplaced.  Judith Curry has already conceded that she’s quoted correctly (I would have given her the benefit of the doubt on that if she disputed it, given Rose’s reputation), and the further Rose spin doesn’t exceed her nonsense.  Curry has managed to make herself look worse than Rose in this instance.  I didn’t think that was possible.

  • Keith Kloor

    grypo,

    Judith has been walking back the views ascribed to her in the Rose article all day in comments at her blog.

     

  • http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com willard

    For those who wish for a fast forward button:

    http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/12145073812

    I hope these are farces, for they usually end well.

    Perhaps climate blogs provide a new twist:

    The neverending farce.

    B-) 

  • NewYorkJ

    Curry: In David Rose’s article, the direct quotes attributed to me are correct.

    I have no sympathy.

  • http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/ thingsbreak

    @79 Keith Kloor:
    Interesting. Because it’s Judith Curry, maybe Rose got his story straight this time?
    Looks like you guys want to have it both ways with David Rose.
    I am not claiming that Rose represented Curry 100% accurately. I am saying Curry has a well-documented history of shooting her mouth off and making unsupportable claims. Indeed, Curry is saying the direct quotes are hers, and asked point blank to respond to the Rose comment I reposted here conspicuously did not say he was wrong, only that she “couldn’t conceive of herslf” being the one to bring it up. If Curry herself can’t even say definitively that Rose was misrepresenting her, it makes it a little less difficult to say the blame lays entirely or even mostly with him.

    That being said, I would not be surprised if a tape of their conversation was produced to find out that Rose was misrepresenting her, true to form.

    If Curry didn’t have a history of off-the-cuff nonsense (Wegman, Hockey Stick Illusion, climate model tuning, climate model solar forcing values, and on and on), I think it would be a little easier to assume Rose was the guilty party here.

  • hunter

    Keith,
    irt 56: Not a nail in the coffin. But you do realize that not one AGW prediction has stood the test of time, and nothing but negatives have been showing up on the science front since fall of 2009.
     

  • grypo

    “Judith has been walking back the views ascribed to her in the Rose article all day in comments at her blog.”

    I see where she says that the hide the decline wasn’t deliberate and not like climate-gate in that sense.  Everything else (all the important stuff that matters! including that the method used hides the decline) is still there.  As are the disagreements with the crucial conclusions of the paper.  I would be great to have those statements backed up or shown to be wrong.  She’s an author on these papers, where’s the accountability?

  • Tom Fuller

    No, Keith–I’m only brilliant here when we crosspost. There are some places where I’m brilliant 24/7. Well, at least in my mind…

  • Keith Kloor

    Tom, that was the joke I thought I was making, about the crosspost.

  • Tom Fuller

    Yeah, but I couldn’t use italics with my mobile. It would have made sense… honest. I’m only brilliant here when we crosspost. 

  • http://neven1.typepad.com/blog Neven

    Has Curry taken the Daily Mail to task yet? Otherwise I can only conclude that she’s fine with it, which puts her on the level of GWPF/Rose/Morano/Watts if she wasn’t already. In other words: a bozo. It’s in her hands.

  • Fred

    William M. Connolley (#61):

    Your link puts an upward slope in the regression line through the last ten years of data largely by dropping an outlier.  Outliers can be very important data points and there is by no means universal agreement that they should automatically be excluded unless there is clear evidence that they were due to faulty measurement.  If the dropped data point is off but fairly close to the reported value it will flatten the line considerably.

    The flattening of the surface temperature line is reinforced by the halt in the rise of the more important oceanic data referred to in #54 and #60.  Furthermore, for the last two years there has been a steady decline in the oceanic thermal expansion measurements.

    For good measure, consider that the UAH lower troposphere temps have been decidedly cool:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/30/uah-lower-troposphere-temperature-colder-than-2008/

  • Fred

    Oh, and don’t miss the fact that Arctic temperatures are the coldest they have been in a decade:

    http://www.real-science.com/arctic-temperatures-continue-coldest-decade

     

  • http://neven1.typepad.com/blog Neven

    Oh, and don’t miss the fact that Arctic temperatures are the coldest they have been in a decade:

    Be careful, as this one could backfire on you and Goddard next summer. If you want to know the reason, you and Steve will actually have to learn something about the Arctic. So I guess you will never know.

  • sharper00

    #79

    “Interesting. Because it’s Judith Curry, maybe Rose got his story straight this time?”

    No but it would be nice if Judith Curry would criticise Rose even a fraction as much you and others here before we conclude she was duped. Remember she hasn’t claimed she was unaware of his history and the only claim she’s walked back a teeny tiny bit on is the Climategate angle. Her defence of that was extremely weak – she admits it was discussed but doesn’t remember who brought it up. She doesn’t claim that when it was brought up she stated a view contrary to what was printed. Rose claims she brought it up twice in their initial contact and that she made the comparison, Curry hasn’t disputed this.

    You won’t be particularly aware of this but on the “scientific reality” side her direct quotes are pretty bad and constitute most of the issue. The Climategate part is not all that important even though it may stand out to a journalist.

    Re: The soap opera angle. I’m willing to believe Judith Curry’s evil twin has stolen her life and the real Judith Curry is secured in an iron mask in a basement somewhere. Possibly suffering from amnesia.

  • Fred

    thingsbreak (#66) writes:
    “David Rose has responded to Curry’s attempt to have it both ways. Also, an interesting comment I have highlighted:
    You will recall you said one other thing that was quite important and interesting that you asked me not to print, and I have honoured that request.”

    One interpretation of this is that Curry has perceived another glaring hole in AGW theory which she is cautious about going public with until she is sure of it beyond any shadow of a doubt.

  • http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com willard

    Another angle is to let JC know that if she continues to bug him, Rose might retaliate.

  • http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com Bart Verheggen

    Fred,

    Your statement should be amended as follows:

    “Your link puts an upward slope in the regression line through the last ten years of data largely by dropping an outlier those points where the uncertainty blows up. “

  • http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com Bart Verheggen

    Hmm, “an outlier” should have been in strike through font.

  • http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com Bart Verheggen

    Re dropping outliers in the decadal trend of BEST:

    Nick Stokes writes: “So I checked the BEST data.txt to see why these month data had such large error bars, and were so out of line. It turns out that all the data they have for those months is from 47 Antarctic stations. By contrast, in March 2010 they have 14488 stations. ”

    If that’s not a valid reason to drop the data point from one’s analysis, I don’t know what is.

  • http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/ thingsbreak

    @98 Fred:
    One interpretation of this is that Curry has perceived another glaring hole in AGW theory which she is cautious about going public with until she is sure of it beyond any shadow of a doubt.

    Yes, the ever elusive smoking gun. Any day now, it’s coming.

  • Ed Forbes
  • jeffn

    Fascinating that there are 5 times as many comments on the “soap opera” post as the solutions (energy) post. Not surprising, but fascinating.
    Even more fascinating is that the warms are all here instead of there (someone help Marlowe out- there has to be more than one person willing to keep the windmills and solar panels dream alive! Or at least chime in and tell us how a tax hike will get us to 80% less emissions without hurting the economy one tiny little bit.)
    Instead we get (I paraphrase): “I hate the bozo scientist Judith Curry because she dares to suggest some scientists with my political leanings are bozos and she does this by inexplicably, but truthfully, claiming that it is not much, much warmer than we ever thought possible which in turn raises questions about the immediate need to do something intentionally ineffective but politically pleasing to me!”
    You guys seriously wonder why AGW is losing traction? Seriously?

  • NewYorkJ

    Koch-funded Muller and group have what political leanings now, jeffn?  Not a good bridge to burn, dead-enders. 

    It is an interesting soap opera, though.  Curry, Watts, and co. were so excited by the BEST project.  Muller had said some nasty things about some climate scientists, gave credence to the manufactured “ClimateGate” scandal, slammed mainstream climate science, piled on the “hockey stick”, and even dissed Al Gore a fair amount, promising an “independent” review of the data.  Muller even brought along Curry, who spends her blog time preaching to the converted that mainstream science is corrupt and giving credence to any random skeptic argument (note Curry is still pushing the UHI thing, this time from some advocacy organization in Germany).  The deniers were more than willing to hype it up, sure that it would make some conclusions in favor of their political goals.  But now they feel as manipulated as they claim the temperature record is.  Since the data analysis lead them to conclude what mainstream climate science has concluded, and Muller had the “nerve” to talk to the media (that’s only allowed if he says  skeptical blather), they are shrieking as loud as they can in an effort to control the “damage” they helped create. 

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/10/the_berkeley_earth_surface_tem.php

    For those who prefer science to soap opera, I suggest taking a critical look at the Curry quotes from the Rose article, as well as the Tamino analysis WC provides (again) in #61.  Sad that dead-enders are unable to click on a link and read a very easy-to-understand debunking of the GWPF spin, and instead are relegated to claiming that their tribe remains popular.

  • Fred

    Bart (#100-102)

    Nice work on getting to the bottom of the outlier.  Nevertheless, being one outlier (and it may be close to the real value) away from disconfirmation is not a good position for a theory to be in.

    The ocean temperature and oceanic thermal expansion have been flat for the last 10 years.  In the latter there has been a decline underway over the last two years at the rate of 5mm per year.  (See the link in #54)

    The Svensmark theory also is consistent with the observed warming of the late 20th century.  See:
    http://www.sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun
    Divergent expectations form the AGW and Svensmark theory are in place for the early 21st century due to the “quiet” sun and the continued rise in CO2 levels.

    The flattening in the oceanic data for the last 8-10 years (along with the recent downturn in thermal expansion) and the possible flattening of the land data since 2000 is perhaps the beginning of a pattern favorable to Svensmark’s theory.  These developments certainly contravene the AGW theory of climate change.

    Judith Curry is being smart and prescient to distance herself from a theory which is losing now on many fronts.

  • NewYorkJ

    A slower warming pace might indicate other factors (TSI, CR) are offsetting well-known GHG forcing.  Deniers might want to strategically ditch the cosmic ray theory.

    The last decade of rising temperatures is not so much a problem for “Solar acitvity / CR causes climate change” proponents as it is for those who conclude “greenhouse gases don’t cause climate change”, although both tribes heavily intersect.  The latter group has to explain why temperatures haven’t dropped, as solar / CR theories would have predicted.  The BEST results even indicate they’ve increased at roughly the same pace.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:2000/to:2010.2/plot/best/from:2000/to:2010.2/trend/plot/best/from:1979/to:2000/plot/best/from:1979/to:2000/trend

  • Sashka

    @ 55

    [Curry claims] “˜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.’

    Anyone want to defend this as being something other than a bozo statement, in WMC’s parlance?

    Sure, I will.  What’s your problem with this?

  • Sashka

    @ TF (64)

    Now that you can’t censor Wikipedia the way you censor your own cesspool

    Actually this is not quite true. They edit Wikipedia when they see something not their liking.

  • Tom Fuller

    Yeah, Sashka. It used to be his job–well, mission.

  • SteveF

    In the comments on her latest post, Judith says:

    “My working hypothesis is that Muller is honest”

    Personally, that strikes me as a fairly odd way to describe your interactions with a colleague such as Muller.  I don’t have hypotheses about the honesty of people that I work with in my research and I doubt many other people do either.

  • Keith Kloor

    Tom (111),

    You’re really pushing it. You’ve made it your mission to defend Anthony Watts and Judith Curry and any others you deem to be the recipients of unfair treatment.

    You need to get your own blog back if you want to continue in that vein. The subject of this post is not WC. I’m thinking I may have to save you from yourself.  

  • Marlowe Johnson

    I call 2 drinks for ‘cesspool’. Undecided on what to assign for ‘d**k’, as things could get dicey if Fuller gets into a discussion about Lindzen :P

  • Tom Fuller

    Umm, Keith–this must be a cumulative response and I’m sorry I’ve weighed so heavily on you. It’s hard to believe that anything in #111 could trigger this reaction. Connelly was a senior editor at Wikipedia, he did censor the sections he worked on, he wasn’t paid for his work, so it was at least a hobby, if not a mission.

    As for the rest, it’s really not a mission of mine to defend Anthony or Judith. I’m happy to do so when they are unfairly criticized or accused of dishonesty. 

    But if I’m just getting on your nerves, no problem. I don’t have a shortage of things to do besides commenting on weblogs. Best of luck. 

  • Keith Kloor

    It always amuses me when someone wants the rules of blog etiquette to apply to everyone else but himself. 

    Here’s the deal for those who can’t seem to get the message: name-calling and flaming with derogatory character insults will put you on moderation.

    And yes, if someone thinks I’m guilty of such behavior, then point it out I do it. 

  • EdG

    #113 Keith writes:

    “Tom (111),

    “You’re really pushing it…  I’m thinking I may have to save you from yourself.”

    Tom. Speaking from moderation purgatory I can assure that  this form of salvation by Keith ain’t so bad. Just requires a little patience though it can cut one out of some rapid dialogue. And I must say that it is sometimes better to get a review than just blast off something that isn’t ready for prime time.

    Too bad Muller didn’t have some moderation before he launched his publicity tour.

    That said, everybody knows who Winston Smith WAS at Wiki so stating the obvious doesn’t seem to me to be much of a thought crime.

    But calling someone a ‘bozo’ does qualify as ‘name calling’ unless, of course, that is some new acronym. Hmm. What could it be?

  • Sashka

    Out of curiosity: how many times need WC to insult Curry before he gets moderated?

  • http://www.skepticalscience.com Steven Sullivan

    Fuller fulminates:
    “~61, What’s the matter? Now that you can’t censor Wikipedia the way you censor your own cesspool, you think you have to wander around spreading your garbage?”

    Tamino’s deconstruction of Curry’s blanket claim — about what one  can and can’t say ‘scientifically’ about the last decade of climate change — isn’t ‘garbage’. Far from it.  Try reading it before you spout off,  old teapot.

     

  • http://www.skepticalscience.com Steven Sullivan

    thingsbreak@87:”I am not claiming that Rose represented Curry 100% accurately. I am saying Curry has a well-documented history of shooting her mouth off and making unsupportable claims.”

    And given that, I think she’s found in Rose the perfect interlocutor.  If there are any unsupported claims she fails to make, I’m sure DR can fill them in for her. ;>

    Seriously, the *DAILY MAIL*?  Really??  Is Curry still *that* unschooled in the ‘climate debate’ players after all this time?  What a maroon.

  • http://www.skepticalscience.com Steven Sullivan

    Apropos #120, KK, maybe you could offer yourself to JC as a consultant on navigating the journalistic waters, to at least point out the sharks.  (I’m serious.)
     

  • Keith Kloor

    That would not be appropriate. Sorry, but I think she is schooled enough. Again, most scientists accustomed to interacting with the media learn very quickly who they can trust.

  • http://www.skepticalscience.com Steven Sullivan

    Well, if she *is* schooled enough, and knew the Daily Mail’s awful rep, how to explain her running her mouth to Rose?  Or do you mean, after *this*, she’s schooled enough?
     

  • http://rankexploits.com/musings lucia

    When I read any controversy where they quote the person interviewed, I’d like to know the exact questions Rose or any interviewer asked.
    For example, I look at this bit:
    “˜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.’
    I can imagine some questions where Judith’s answer — containing a double negative is precisely correct. One could equally well say there is no scientific basis that global warming has stopped. 

    Let’s move on to Muller:

    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’.
    It seems to me that this could also be the precisely correct answer to certain questions. After all: the low 10 year trend is consistent with continued warming at rates previously seen.  It isn’t good evidence that warming has leveled off.


    For some reason, the way this is framed makes it seem like “there is no scientific basis to say (not-X) ” and the statement “there is no scientific basis to claim (X)”.  But they aren’t. It can be the case that currently, we don’t have enough information to definitively know whether (X) or (not-X) is true. Depending on precisely how Rose and the BBC interviewer worded their questions, it may be that Curry and Muller are in perfect agreement with each other, but have been made to sound as if they disagree. 

  • NewYorkJ

    For someone working hard to be a media go-to-gal, one who is contacted by and quoted with extraodinary regularity by many media outlets, the explanation that she didn’t know better with the DailyMail doesn’t seem very plausible.  Continuing with the soap opera theme, one could speculate she knew absolutely what multiple conversations with Rose would produce with regards to the echo chamber on the story (extending now to Fox News).  But getting it done through DailyMail gives her a cloak of plausible deniability.

    Then again, she could be extraordinarily naive. 

    Perhaps a little of both.

  • Rattus Norvegicus

    The biggest piece of BS I’ve seen in all of this is the deadline for consideration in AR5 WG1.  The date for papers such as Muller’s is July 31, 2012.
    See http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/IPCC_AR5_Timetable.pdf

     

  • NewYorkJ

    On the question of the plausibility of Curry not knowing the reputation of Daily Mail and/or David Rose, note that her favorite blogger has collaborated with David Rose, and has cited Rose and Daily Mail as reliable sources.

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/12/daily-mail-special-investigation/

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/07/rose-on-fortress-met-office/

    DC has critically examined the first link and related Rose story.

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/05/11/how-to-be-a-climate-auditor-part-1-pretty%c2%a0pictures/#more-1894

    My “working hypothesis” is that Judity Curry was at least somewhat familiar with Daily Mail and David Rose, but did not feel Rose had a poor reputation, and is playing a little dumb about it.  This is someone who thinks McIntyre, Montford, CEI, etc. are reliable sources.  The benefits of gaining attention through the echo chamber and controlling the “damage” of the BEST project, exceeded the mild risk of being spun, which doesn’t seem to bother her too much.

  • hunter

    @26- Rattus,
    This miselading stuff by Muller lends credence to the idea that a certain amount of effort is underway to manipulate Judith back into the reservation.
    The stakes are high- the AGW community is vying for trillions. Academic and governmental careers are at stake.

  • Nullius in Verba

    “It seems to me that this could also be the precisely correct answer to certain questions.”

    From the BEST averaging methodology paper, lines 808-812:
    Applying our analysis over the interval 1998 to 2010, we find the land temperature trend to be 2.84 ± 0.73 C / century, consistent with prior decades.

    The claim appears to be that there is no change in the short-term trend as actually calculated – not that it is “consistent with” expected variability around a longer-term trend. Over the last decade (and a bit), the temperature has been rising at nearly 3 C/century.
    I reckon that’s what Muller was referring to.

    Claiming that even when measured on a 10-year timescale that the temperature is “still rising” and “warming [hasn't] levelled off”, because it is “consistent with” variations in a continuing 30-year rising trend, is weasel language. If you’re talking about the last 30 years, you can say the trend is still up. If you’re talking about the last 10 years, you can’t. Whether it means anything for the overall validity of global warming or not, the subject under discussion here is the last 10 years, the sceptic claims about them flatlining, and whether Muller and the BEST team were wrong to say they hadn’t.
    The question, and Muller’s answer to it, were both perfectly clear.

  • Sashka

    From the BEST averaging methodology paper, lines 808-812:
    Applying our analysis over the interval 1998 to 2010, we find the land temperature trend to be 2.84 ± 0.73 C / century, consistent with prior decades.

    I am confused. This is not even weasel language. This seems to be flat wrong.

  • Eric Adler

    Sashka,
    Tamino starting in the year 2000, eliminating the bogus last data point which only included the Antarctic showed that the trend up to the latest valid data in the Best data set was .27 Deg C/ decade. That is not significantly different from the trend quoted by Muller since 1998.
    See his blog entitleld “Judy Curry Opens Mouth Inserts Foot”.
    This evidence indicates that Muller is probably right.  What is your evidence that this is wrong?

  • Eric Adler

    Sashka,
    What is surprising about the figure given by Muller for the trend since 1998 is the uncertainty, which appears to be far too low, relative to what Tamino has found using two different noise models and the same data.

  • EdG

    Interesting comments. Yes it is quite the soap opera. All the dramatic details aside, Curry’s ‘news’ story – why did she dare speak to that media? – needs to be put into context. What was she responding to? A full tilt publicity tour by Muller, speaking to that other media.

    Muller chose this venue. Can’t cry if Curry uses it too.

    How accurately have the BEST results been reported in the mainstream AGW-friendly media?

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collide-a-Scape

Collide-a-Scape is a wide-ranging blog forum that explores issues at the nexus of science, culture and society.

About Keith Kloor

Keith Kloor is a NYC-based journalist, and an adjunct professor of journalism at New York University. His work has appeared in Slate, Science, Discover, and the Washington Post magazine, among other outlets. From 2000 to 2008, he was a senior editor at Audubon Magazine. In 2008-2009, he was a Fellow at the University of Colorado’s Center for Environmental Journalism, in Boulder, where he studied how a changing environment (including climate change) influenced prehistoric societies in the U.S. Southwest. He covers a wide range of topics, from conservation biology and biotechnology to urban planning and archaeology.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »