What do Climate Data Really Show? The Berkeley Climate Data Project

American Thinker ^ | February 19, 2011 | S. Fred Singer

[neverdem]

The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia in November 2009 produced what is popularly called "Climategate."  They exposed the thoroughly unethical behavior of a group of climate scientists, mainly in the UK and US, involved in producing the global surface temperature record used and relied on by governments.

Not only did these climate scientists hide their raw data and their methodology of selection and adjustment of temperature data, but they fought hard against all attempts by independent outside scientists to replicate their results.  They also undermined the peer-review system and tried to make it impossible for skeptical scientists to publish their work in scientific journals.  There is voluminous evidence in the e-mails to this effect.  In the process, they damaged not only the science enterprise -- full publication of data and methods, replication of results, open debate, etc -- but they also undermined the public credibility of all scientists. 

However, the most serious revelation from the e-mails is that they tried to "hide the decline" in temperatures, using various "tricks" in order to keep alive a myth of rising temperatures in support of the dogma of anthropogenic global warming.  There have now been a number of investigations of the activities of this group, mainly in the UK.  These have all turned out to be complete whitewashes, aimed to exonerate the scientists involved.  None of these investigations has even attempted to learn how and in what way the data might have been manipulated.

Much of this is described in the "Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the corruption of science" by A. W. Montford.  Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo and others have made a commendable effort to show how data might have been altered.  But an independent effort to reconstruct the global temperature results of the past century really demands a dedicated project with proper resources.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Project aims to do what needs to be done: That is, to develop an independent analysis of the data from land stations, which would include many more stations than had been considered by the Global Historic Climatology Network.  The Project is in the hands of a group of recognized scientists, who are not at all "climate skeptics" -- which should enhance their credibility.  The Project is mainly directed by physicists, chaired by Professor Richard Muller (UC Berkeley), with a steering group that includes Professor Judith Curry (Georgia Tech) and Arthur Rosenfeld (UC Santa Barbara and Georgia Tech).

I applaud and support what is being done by the Project -- a very difficult but important undertaking.  I personally have little faith in the quality of the surface data, having been exposed to the revealing work by Anthony Watts and others.  However, I have an open mind on the issue and look forward to seeing the results of the Project in their forthcoming publications.

As far as I know, no government or industry funds are involved -- at least at this stage.  According to the Project's website www.berkeleyearth.org, support comes mostly from a group of charitable foundations.

Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer is Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the US weather satellite service.  He is a Senior Fellow of the Independent Institute and the Heartland Institute.  He is the author or co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming [2007], Nature not Human Activity Rules the Climate [2008], and Climate Change Reconsidered [2009].

[neverdem]

This might be interesting although any connection to Berkeley could undermine it.

[23 Everest]

Everything from Berkeley is dominated.

[23 Everest]

Spell check sucks....stupid

[Lancey Howard]

This might be interesting although any connection to Berkeley could undermine it.

That's for sure.
Also:

As far as I know, no government or industry funds are involved -- at least at this stage. According to the Project's website www.berkeleyearth.org, support comes mostly from a group of charitable foundations.

"Charitable foundations" are sometimes known to push political causes and expect, for their money, the same kind of results government bureaucrats expect when they approve "grants". For example, I believe George Soros controls a number of "charitable foundations". Plenty of communist and left-leaning Democrat millionaires do.

The full makeup of the scientists involved in this new project must include as many skeptics as alarmists, or the results will again lack credibility.

[neverdem]

Americans Say Reagan Is the Greatest U.S. President

GOP governors strike at heart of Dems

The Unrest in Madison

How to Think About the Tea Party

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[neverdem]

"Charitable foundations" are sometimes known to push political causes and expect, for their money, the same kind of results government bureaucrats expect when they approve "grants". For example, I believe George Soros controls a number of "charitable foundations". Plenty of communist and left-leaning Democrat millionaires do.

I trust S. Fred Singer, which violates my general rule of being suspicious of those who don't use their first name. He's on the side of the honest scientists.

[flat]

Is it my imagination or is it gettin hot in here.....?

[HiTech RedNeck]

I hope B.E.S.T. avoids heat islands like the plague.

[Lancey Howard]

If you re-read the second to the last paragraph and parse it carefully, it sounds like Fred is paying lip service to the project - - after all, it's existence is the result of "climategate" and essentially acknowledges that the work of the "climategate" scientists was fraudulent - - even as he admits that he "personally" has "little faith in the quality of the surface data". BUT... he promises to "have an open mind on the issue" and says he "look(s) forward to seeing the results".

I trust Fred Singer, too, but there's no need to trust him here - - he sounds as skeptical of this effort as I am.

I believe the project is expected by its sponsors to affirm the findings of the original "climategate" scientists in order to give the Democrat "mainstream" newsrooms something to repeatedly soundbite into their headline stories as renewed efforts at "cap and trade" legislation and other massive taxpayer ripoffs commence once again. "Breaking news.. Global warming turns out to be a critical threat to our planet after all."

[az_gila]

I believe the project is expected by its sponsors to affirm the findings of the original “climategate” scientists in order to give the Democrat “mainstream” newsrooms something to repeatedly soundbite into their headline stories as renewed efforts at “cap and trade” legislation and other massive taxpayer ripoffs commence once again. “Breaking news.. Global warming turns out to be a critical threat to our planet after all.”

---

But if they actually publish ALL of the data used, and the calculated accuracies, it might put the whole issue into a new light - probably a cold LED light...:^)

Let's hope for actual details and complete published data - something completely lacking at this time.

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx neverdem !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

Spell czech is knot yore friend!

[Entrepreneur]

But if they actually publish ALL of the data used, and the calculated accuracies, it might put the whole issue into a new light

The problem is the surface data is crap.

[doc11355]

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks neverdem. Here's one I like to lift and adapt from GB Shaw -- the scientific method might be a wonderful thing if anyone would ever try it. :') After the dust clears, and the ranting phonies from the pro-AGW cadre are *out*, those who went along with their ravings will claim that this episode shows how science is unique for being self-correcting. And none of the AGW claims were ever scientific in the first place. It was the political seduction of the sciences, or more like the political conquest of them.

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·

[AFPhys]

I am excited by this Berkeley earth temperature project, and have great hopes for it. It will be great to have an easily accessible data base accessible with raw data so we can get out our R engines and crunch the data for ourselves without having to worry about how it has been “homogenized” by the climate gate controllers.