One of the pivotal studies in the global warming debate has been called out as a fraud… by one of the top members of the team that prepared it. The study purported to show definitive proof that the Earth has been warming since 1950, but in truth the data shows the exact opposite – global temperatures have been almost perfectly flat. No warming, no cooling, no “climate change” at all.
This is gigantic news, isn’t it? In fact, the renegade professor who sounded the B.S. alarms, Professor Judith Curry at the Georgia Institute of Technology, compares it to the blockbuster “Climategate” scandal from two years ago, according to the UK Daily Mail. That would be the Georgia located directly north of Florida, in the United States, but you’ve got to hit the British papers to learn much about Prof. Curry’s critique.
In both cases, we’re talking about the deliberate misrepresentation, or outright falsification, of data to perpetuate the Crime of the Century – an economic and political con job that has cost the developed world hundreds of billions of dollars. You can add up every example of bank malfeasance in the Occupy Wall Street complaints, throw in Bernie Madoff and Enron, and not come anywhere near the price tag of the “global warming” scam.
And yet, the media frantically slapped the snooze alarm throughout Climategate, and they’re pretty much ignoring the new story too. Curious, isn’t it?
The Daily Mail sets the stage for our sordid tale of data distortion:
It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, ‘proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’.
Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually.
Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it.
It was cited uncritically by, among others, reporters and commentators from the BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, The Economist and numerous media outlets in America.
The Washington Post said the BEST study had ‘settled the climate change debate’ and showed that anyone who remained a sceptic was committing a ‘cynical fraud’.
I love the sound of science settling! There’s just one problem, according to Curry:
Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming.
In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.
‘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.’
Here’s the crap the global warming cult tried to sell the world, compared to the real numbers from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures data:
Professor Curry professes herself “horrified” by the conversion of data into propaganda:
‘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.’
Prof Muller also wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal. It was here, under the headline ‘The case against global warming scepticism’, that he proclaimed ‘there were good reasons for doubt until now’
This, too, went around the world, with The Economist, among many others, stating there was now ‘little room for doubt’.
Such claims left Prof Curry horrified.
‘Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism,’ she said. ‘To say that is the biggest mistake he [Prof Muller] has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought, “Oh my God”.’
In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics’ arguments were now taking them much more seriously.
Surely global warmist Professor Richard Muller has a sound and reasonable defense for his spectacular, supposedly argument-settling misinterpretation of the data, right? Um, no. No, he doesn’t.
Yesterday Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.
However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.
‘I am baffled as to what he’s trying to do,’ Prof Curry said.
So, yeah, Muller flagrantly misrepresented the data, but it’s not really a “lie,” because all those gigabytes of raw data were right there in the open on the BEST website, where any layman could analyze them and determine the truth… after investing a few years in obtaining an advanced meteorology degree. It’s your fault for paying attention to all those op-eds blasting through the global media instead of becoming a scientist and checking the numbers yourself, you stupid taxpayers!
Also, now that he’s been caught lying, Muller would like to revise his earlier declaration that “there were good reasons for doubt until now” about global warming to “this might not be statistically significant, although it’s equally possible that it is.” Unless you somehow missed the widely-unreported story that his earlier declaration was fatuous nonsense. In that case, please continue to believe the earlier declaration without question, and be prepared to cough up a few billion more dollars in annual tithe to the global warming religion.
Later in the Daily Mail story, we learn that even though Curry was the second named author in all four of the research papers Muller misrepresented, he never actually consulted her at all, instead spending his time hand-picking friendly journalists to publish his conclusions before the next big United Nations climate conference. That’s how science works, kids!