Rumor: BEST To Say Earth Has Warmed 1.5C On Monday

We’re dooooooooomed!

(Reason) Stress – this is a rumor. However, the rumor says that next week Richard Muller will release the latest Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature analysis of surface temperature data going back as far as the 18th century. Muller, once skeptical of the temperature records that showed considerable global warming in recent decades, set up BEST to reanalyze that data. In 2011, BEST’s preliminary analysis of land temperature data found: ….. (snip)

The rumors say that new BEST reanalysis will show that global average temperature has increased by 1.5 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times and will suggest that most of the warming since the 1950s is the result of increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

Oh, God, not 1.5C!!!!!!!!! Things will spontaneously catch on fire over a whopping 2.3 Fahrenheit increase since pre-industrial times, a rise that is pretty much normal in terms of the historical record. The Little Ice Age supposedly was down about 4 degrees, which destroyed crops and paved the way for the Black Plague, huge long wars, revolutions, etc.

Tom Nelson points to this comment by Paul

*golf clap*

I find myself not caring… almost at all… about the fact that the “earth” has warmed 1.5 celcius since a randomly chosen prior date.

Well, come on, Paul, Warmists need to keep the people in fear (which isn’t working too well, considering that climate change tends to poll dead last on the list of concerns) and keep the money train going.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “Rumor: BEST To Say Earth Has Warmed 1.5C On Monday”

  1. Gumball_Brains says:

    Unfortunately, its worse than you know. It’s not 2.3F warmer.. its 2.7F warmer.!!!!11!!111

    And as the consensus will tell you Teach, anything warmer than their defined normal is not normal and thus reason to be alarmed and find a new planetary home. This one is done. Over. Toast. Used up. We’re DOOOOMED!!

    But then, again, this is a rumor of a proposed finding. So, running in the streets may have to wait till later.

    I wonder if this is what WUWT will be announcing on Sunday July 29. (tomorrow)

  2. Joe Citizen says:

    Well, now this is a surprise. I was so expecting y’all to take empirical evidence, thoroughly examined by an expert who started out extremely skeptical, in a serious manner. Oddly enough, it seems that you are floundering a bit, trying to find some handle with which to spin this in some way that will allow you to continue to ignore reality.

    Could it possibly be true that y’all were never serious about this issue at all, just playing your red-team roles, irrespective of what may or may not be going on in the real world? And that now you may be at a temporary loss in terms of formulating a coherent response, but you sure will never change your mind about anything, no matter what the evidence?

    Say it aint so Will….

  3. Gumball_Brains says:

    Could it possibly be true that y’all were never serious about this issue at all

    ooooooooo… you figured us out. I confess. We WEREN’T really serious about this issue. Man, I wish we hid that better. But, since it is out, we might as well man up to it. You got us.

    How did you know? Was it the biting sarcasm? Was it the laughing out loud? Or was it the use of logic, science and plain reason when dispelling the myths of CAGW?

    Yes, we were never really serious about this, because to us, all of you hypers are completely unhinged in your alarmism over something that is normal.

  4. Joe Citizen says:

    Gumball,

    Your response is a bit puzzling. Being serious about an issue does not mean that you necessarily come down on one particular side of it. Being serious means that you honestly attempt to use your brain to think through the issue, respecting the basic groundrules of rationality, and that includes being persuadable by inconvenient empirical facts and sound logic.

    Perhaps you sincerely doubted the notion of AGW, although there seems to be scant evidence that you arrived at that conclusion using reason. I am sure you understand perfectly well that “logic, science and plain reason” are aligned against your position, which is why the great majority of logical people, scientists and reasonable people disagree with you.

    But here comes one of your own – highly respected in the skeptical community, determined to reanalyze the data in all the ways that the skeptics claim that the scientists have failed to do. And he concludes that no, the scientists have not failed, they have not been wrong, it is the skeptics who have been on the wrong side of all this.

    The pattern here is very revealing. Muller and Curry, like most of y’all, seem to have taken up their skeptical position in the first instance, then spent years mining the data to find things that could support their position. That is not the “scientific” way to proceed. When they actually stop for a moment, take a step back, and try to go about things in the proper manner – i.e. to put off making a conclusion until they thoroughly study all the data, then lo and behold, they find that the data compels them to the opposite conclusion.

    If you are to be considered a serious person on this issue, you need to do the same thing – and I am not prejudging the conclusion that you reach. But you will have to defend that conclusion on the basis of facts and logic, not mere assertions.

    The few points that you mention above have obviously all been considered by the authors of this new study, since they probably made those same arguments themselves for years. How that they have actually exhaustively studied the data, they find those points to be specious.

    I don’t quite understand how you can imagine that you can ignore this or blow it off, and not be taken for just a clown.

  5. Joe, I’ve spent several decades involved with this issue. At one time, I was a Warmist just like you. Then I started looking at the real data, and seeing that the issue was primarily a political one, not a scientific one. Why else would Warmists never practice what they preach? Why do they have to cherry pick the data, as well as change the data?

    To put it simply, folks like myself and GB do not deny that the world has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age. This has happened many times before during this interglacial period. What we dispute is causation. Personally, I say that Mankind is on the hook for about 10-15% of the warming, and that a good chunk of it is localized warming, the Urban Heat Island Effect.

    If warmists really believed, they would change their behavior to be carbon neutral. They won’t and don’t. Though they want Everyone Else to be forced to change.

  6. Muffler says:

    Short version… I had to do the same research myself to really believe the global community of scientists and we have lost years.

  7. Joe Citizen says:

    Personally, I say that Mankind is on the hook for about 10-15% of the warming

    Perhaps at some time you could give a detailed explanation for how you arrived at that number. Maybe you could read Muller’s work, see how he arrived at a much higher percentage, and argue the details.

    You certainly aren’t going to persuade anyone while operating on your usual level.

    I started looking at the real data, and seeing that the issue was primarily a political one, not a scientific one.

    Hmm. Meanwhile, those who looked at the real data BEFORE coming to a conclusion, and who spend their lives dealing with real data, come to a different conclusion. We’ll see what you have to say when you read the details of Muller’s investigations.

    If warmists really believed, they would change their behavior to be carbon neutral.

    That strikes me as a really silly argument. The scale of the problem is far larger than that of the individual. To demand that individuals essentially remove themselves from the economic mainstream of the country would solve nothing. If you take the problem seriously, you work to implement changes at the level at which the problem can be solved. Its like as if you were convinced that the Chinese posed an imminent threat to invade our country, and your response was to go buy an assault weapon and dig yourself a bunker. That wouldn’t solve the problem – you need to address the problem at the appropriate level, such as insuring that our national defense posture was adequate to deter or defend against such an invasion.

    Once you accept the scale of the problem with AGW, then you realize that the solution needs to be a structural adjustment to how we generate energy. It is overwhelmingly to the benefit of society if you emit as much CO2 as necessary in your present situation while working to persuade your fellow citizens of this fact, and to help engineer solutions that will make the largest positive effect on GW with the minimal dislocation to our economy.

  8. Gumball_Brains says:

    All of your arguments Joe point to the specific difference between your ideology and that of America. You believe that people should force their governmental control onto everyone else. You believe that the warming of certain locations of the planet must be controlled by an overriding bureaucracy instead of locally.

    If it is people using energy and putting carbon into the atmosphere that is causing the world to warm abnormally, then shouldn’t believers like yourself in fact practice what you preach? Why demand that the government do something when you won’t do the things yourself? Why demand the end to cars and air conditioning when believers and ideologists like yourself refuse to?

    When Al Gore tells us of imminent and destructive flooding from rising seas, then why does he buy a huge mansion on the coast? If he and his pushers are so worried about the impacts upon third world nations, then why aren’t they donating their own monies to those causes?

    The reason, Joe, that we laugh at you and your fellow Socialist ideologues is because your statements and findings are beyond and outside of reason and sound science.

    And no, most people do not believe in global warming. Even if they did, it is not even in the top 100 of political concerns for them.

    If government control over carbon and energy usage is of prime importance to the survivability of mankind, then why is it so fraught with corruption, deception and cronyism?

    We realists take this issue very seriously actually. Because in its true form, it is implementation of Socialist\Marxist control over our lives. It attacks and removes our liberties and freedom of choice. It destroys fair and free market choices and the ability of businesses to operate in a market that is open and fair.

  9. Gumball_Brains says:

    Hey Joe, the problem with making accusations and pointing fingers prior to a paper being released, and basing those statements upon rumors, tends to make one look real foolish.

    Note the publishing of the report that I suspected WAS going to be the WUWT announcement:

    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.

    Other findings include, but are not limited to:

    · Statistically significant differences between compliant and non-compliant stations exist, as well as urban and rural stations.

    · Poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward, and well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted poor stations.

    · Well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied.

    · Airport USHCN stations show a significant differences in trends than other USHCN stations, and due to equipment issues and other problems, may not be representative stations for monitoring climate.

    The new analysis demonstrates 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. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.

  10. That’s interesting, Muffler: I’m assuming that since you believe in AGW, you’ve completely given up on using all fossil fuels, right?

    Joe, I’ve given that explanation many, many times. In short, it comes down to methane being the most “dangerous” greenhouse has produced by mankind. It’s mentioned in IPCC assesments and other studies, brought up in saying the two things mankind does that produce the most issues for warming as agriculture and landfills, ie, methane. Most other warming is caused by UHI, and is not global.

    And, why am I not shocked nor surpised that you see the notion of practicing what you preach as “silly”? Few of you do. You whine, you agitate, you “spread awareness”, you tell us fossil fuels are evil, and then you jump in your SUVs to head off home from cocktail parties where you whined about globull warming. You always want others to pay the price for your beliefs, as in, forced to accept them. Yet, you won’t lead the way. Put up or shut up.

    I’m looking forward to read that paper from Watts et all, GB. Haven’t had a chance yet.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5771 access attempts in the last 7 days.