Quantcast

"Global warming": highly-respected Berkeley physics professor destroys the hockey stick graph

RJ~PWCM~JLA 2011/03/19 08:36:25
Highly-respected UC Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller explains in five minutes why the infamous "hockey stick" graph, which has been used by Al Gore and others to "prove" global warming, is a fraud.


You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Morgan Orlins 2011/03/19 12:00:05
    Morgan Orlins
    +3
    Well done, and thank you.

    "Follow the money" truly applies here. Globaloney warming is a bought-and-paid-for story that recieves HUGE amounts of money from the radical left. People like George Soros and the Tides Foundation give grants to the "scientists" who toe the line where this fairy tale is concerned.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • mg's haven~POTL~PWCM~JLA 2011/04/04 00:17:18
    mg's haven~POTL~PWCM~JLA
    Oh thats nice tweaking the numbers to make it fit the story. go figure...Why dont they come clean and save everyone some grief.
  • Bureauc 0Bamao 2011/03/21 05:45:31
    Bureauc 0Bamao
    +2
    Thank God, now I won't be forced into a Prius so Al Gore could continue commuting in his Limo and private jet.
  • *Danno* JYD - SWMTPP 2011/03/20 06:25:52 (edited)
    *Danno* JYD - SWMTPP
    +2
    He isn't the first nor will he be the last.

    The AlGorbal WARMING frauds all claimed that the Brits would no longer get snow back in 2000. See how well that forecast turned out? LMAO!

    warming frauds claimed brits snow 2000 forecast turned lmao emails global warming hoax
  • The Electrician 2011/03/20 02:20:17
    The Electrician
    Can't stand to watch that lying S.O.B., his fellow scientist are not Climate Scientist. His entire platform is out of context with the simple "ice core" samples we've seen for the last 40 years. They don't lie. Muller is one of the biggest frauds I've ever seen. A perfect example is the pollution equipment on automobiles, why is it there ? I was a Boiler-man in the U.S. Navy, I know first hand the effects of burning "fossil fuel." That's why most Navy ships today are Nuclear. This thing has "FRAUD" written all over it.
  • RJ~PWCM... The Ele... 2011/03/20 12:50:26
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    What evidence do you have for the statement: "Muller is one of the biggest frauds I've ever seen"?

    Or is it just your opinion, because you "Believe in Global Warming" and anything that contradicts it is ipso facto a "fraud"?
  • The Ele... RJ~PWCM... 2011/03/21 00:38:28 (edited)
    The Electrician
    Common sense and the facts surrounding "Climate Change. Ask yourself this, why do we have pollution equipment on automobiles ?????? What have the "ice core" samples shown and that's positive proof. Muller is a fraud.
  • RJ~PWCM... The Ele... 2011/03/21 11:23:12
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    "Pollution equipment" on autos? Do you know that it's totally unrelated to C02? Apparently not.

    You don't understand Muller's point, or you wouldn't be talking about ice core samples.
  • The Ele... RJ~PWCM... 2011/03/21 12:32:04
    The Electrician
    Muller has no point, except to defend the Energy Industry. And it's you that doesn't understand the effects of emissions.
  • theunbubba The Ele... 2011/03/20 14:45:57
  • Icarus 2011/03/19 22:26:56 (edited)
    Icarus
    +1
    Unfortunately it's Professor Richard Muller who is being dishonest here, not the climate scientists.

    The WMO report he refers to, with the chart on the cover, is here:

    http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog...

    On the very first page, the credit for the chart is as follows:

    "Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records ."

    So the Professor is lying. The chart does not show fraudulent proxy data at all - it's very clearly a reconstruction using proxy data and modern instrumental data. It's exactly what it says it is.

    Unfortunately this is absolutely typical behaviour from the anti-scientific 'deny and delay' crowd. They know the science doesn't support their position, they know they've lost the argument, they can't present any data of their own to refute global warming, so instead they make false accusations of fraud and malign the characters of decent, honest climate scientists like Michael Mann and James Hansen. That's what they do, because that's all they have.

    There is more. Muller accuses the climate scientists of trying to hide data from the public and other scientists. Again, he's lying . Nothing could ...











    Unfortunately it's Professor Richard Muller who is being dishonest here, not the climate scientists.

    The WMO report he refers to, with the chart on the cover, is here:

    http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog...

    On the very first page, the credit for the chart is as follows:

    "Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records."


    So the Professor is lying. The chart does not show fraudulent proxy data at all - it's very clearly a reconstruction using proxy data and modern instrumental data. It's exactly what it says it is.

    Unfortunately this is absolutely typical behaviour from the anti-scientific 'deny and delay' crowd. They know the science doesn't support their position, they know they've lost the argument, they can't present any data of their own to refute global warming, so instead they make false accusations of fraud and malign the characters of decent, honest climate scientists like Michael Mann and James Hansen. That's what they do, because that's all they have.

    There is more. Muller accuses the climate scientists of trying to hide data from the public and other scientists. Again, he's lying. Nothing could be further from the truth, because all the details were published over ten years ago in the peer-reviewed literature, which Muller must certainly know -

    http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu...

    Not only that, it's all discussed in the IPCC Third Assessment Report:

    Several important caveats must be borne in mind when using tree-ring data for palaeoclimate reconstructions. Not least is the intrinsic sampling bias. Tree-ring information is available only in terrestrial regions, so is not available over substantial regions of the globe, and the climate signals contained in tree-ring density or width data reflect a complex biological response to climate forcing. Non-climatic growth trends must be removed from the tree-ring chronology, making it difficult to resolve time-scales longer than the lengths of the constituent chronologies (Briffa, 2000). Furthermore, the biological response to climate forcing may change over time. There is evidence, for example, that high latitude tree-ring density variations have changed in their response to temperature in recent decades, associated with possible non-climatic factors (Briffa et al., 1998a). By contrast, Vaganov et al. (1999) have presented evidence that such changes may actually be climatic and result from the effects of increasing winter precipitation on the starting date of the growing season (see Section 2.7.2.2). Carbon dioxide fertilization may also have an influence, particularly on high-elevation drought-sensitive tree species, although attempts have been made to correct for this effect where appropriate (Mann et al., 1999). Thus climate reconstructions based entirely on tree-ring data are susceptible to several sources of contamination or non-stationarity of response. For these reasons, investigators have increasingly found tree-ring data most useful when supplemented by other types of proxy information in "multi-proxy" estimates of past temperature change (Overpeck et al., 1997; Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1998; 1999; 2000a; 2000b; Crowley and Lowery, 2000).


    Richard Muller is clearly everything that he accuses honest climate scientists of being.

    Oh, and another thing: The so-called 'hockey-stick graph', far from being 'destroyed', has been validated numerous times in subsequent years by other independent teams, using different kinds of proxy data -

    numerous times subsequent years independent teams kinds proxy data
    (more)
  • RJ~PWCM... Icarus 2011/03/20 13:10:52
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    You are arguing a red herring. You say Muller is lying because the report states that proxy data was used. You claim that Muller called the proxy data "fraudulent", but he did no such thing. Go back and listen to him again.

    He says that from 1961 onward, the proxy data was **replaced** with ADJUSTED temperature data. It is that **adjustment** that he objects to. He shows what the graph would look like without the adjustments - the "stick" (rise) disappears. He objects to the fact that Mann et al provided no justification for the adjustments.
  • Icarus RJ~PWCM... 2011/03/20 13:23:25
    Icarus
    Read my answer. The chart is a reconstruction using proxy and instrumental data. Nothing hidden, nothing misrepresented, nothing adjusted... just the data. That's why Muller is a fraud, because he's lying to his audience about the chart.
  • RJ~PWCM... Icarus 2011/03/20 13:35:34 (edited)
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    Of course the report doesn't state it. That's why Climategate was called Climategate, and that's why Mann et al refused to make the data public.



    BTW, for those who aren't aware, here are Muller's credentials:

    - Chairman, Physics Dept., UC Berkeley
    - Named referee chosen to review the "hockey stick" report of the National Research Council of the US National Academy of Sciences.
    - Published papers on climate in the following peer-reviewed journals:
    - Science (vol 277, pp 215-218, 11 July 1997; vol 288, p 2143-2144, 23 June 2000).
    - Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences (vol. 94, pp 8329-8334, Aug 5, 1997).
    - Geology (vol. 25, p. 3-6, 1997; vol. 25, p. 859-861 ,1997).
    - Paleoceanography (vol 17, p. 2-1 to 2-12 , 2002).
    - Geoch. Cosmochim. Acta (vol. 67, pp 751-763, 2003).
    - Nature (vol.377, pp 107-108, 14 September 1995).

    It's amazing how Muller has managed to hoodwink everyone but you!
  • Icarus RJ~PWCM... 2011/03/20 13:53:53
    Icarus
    The report Muller refers to says quite clearly and unambiguously, about the chart:

    "Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records."


    Now, why do you suppose that Muller didn't tell his audience this? It's right there in the report, on the very first page. Did you look at the link I provided?
  • RJ~PWCM... Icarus 2011/03/21 11:24:38
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    OMG, you just keep saying the same thing. Mann et al were LYING by NOT revealing that they had ADJUSTED the instrumental data.

    Or do you simply deny the existence of the Climategate scandal.
  • Icarus RJ~PWCM... 2011/03/21 11:56:36 (edited)
    Icarus
    Mann has absolutely nothing to do with the instrumental data. That is produced by UAH, RSS, NASA, NOAA, the Hadley Centre, the Japanese team and others, and every independent team produces the same result, as do the many amateur scientists who have taken the weather station and satellite data and carried out their own independent analysis.

    Moreover, the evidence is there for everyone to see, in the melting polar and Greenland ice, disappearing glaciers, shifting climate zones, changing seasons, rising sea level, intensifying extreme precipitation events and thousands of other physical and biological metrics.
  • RJ~PWCM... Icarus 2011/03/21 12:26:12
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    So now you resort to name-calling. That is the last resort of someone whose persistence has outrun his knowledge.

    Why should anyone read that really long, totally un-paragraphed, poorly punctuated post when you start out with an insult (and from my quick 2-second scan of it, apparently lace insults throughout)?

    But then, insulting those who disagree **IS** the "science" behind global warming, isn't it?
  • Icarus RJ~PWCM... 2011/03/21 16:58:13
    Icarus
    Yes, you're right, I apologise - that was uncalled for. I will edit it out.

    Let's stick to discussing the science.
  • Artist~PWCM~ 2011/03/19 12:49:56
    Artist~PWCM~
    +2
    More proof of just things as usual...global warming hoax!
  • Icarus Artist~... 2011/03/19 22:53:37
    Icarus
    +1
    The hoax is on the part of the guy in the video, not the climate scientists. See my answer above.
  • Morgan Orlins 2011/03/19 12:00:05
    Morgan Orlins
    +3
    Well done, and thank you.

    "Follow the money" truly applies here. Globaloney warming is a bought-and-paid-for story that recieves HUGE amounts of money from the radical left. People like George Soros and the Tides Foundation give grants to the "scientists" who toe the line where this fairy tale is concerned.
  • Icarus Morgan ... 2011/03/19 22:55:35
    Icarus
    +1
    Not true. Global warming is real and we're responsible for it. You've been taken in by frauds like the guy in the video above who take money from fossil fuel corporations who only want to protect their billions in profits they make every year. See my answer above.
  • RJ~PWCM... Icarus 2011/03/20 13:00:13
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    Even if global warming were real, there is absolutely no scientific way that anyone can prove that "we're responsible for it". None. That is a false and misleading statement.

    The best that can be done is to show that CO2 concentrations and temperature are both rising. From that point it's a conjecture that the CO2 is the primary *cause* of the temperature rise, because there are other factors that can be causing the temperature rise.

    The only "proof" that exists today is computer models, in which the conclusion is already baked into the model.
  • Icarus RJ~PWCM... 2011/03/20 13:29:42
    Icarus
    Completely wrong. We know that CO2 causes global warming, and have done for 150 years. We know that human activity is responsible for the additional half a trillion tons or so of CO2 in the atmosphere. Palaeoclimate studies prove that climate sensitivity is high, and that natural positive feedbacks greatly amplify any warming influence. Hence we know beyond any reasonable doubt that human activity is causing and will continue to cause substantial global warming. Discussing other factors which can cause warming is also important but it's not going to change the laws of physics, so the massive anthropogenic increase in CO2 is still going to cause warming, regardless of anything else.
  • RJ~PWCM... Icarus 2011/03/20 13:37:28
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    No, we don't "know" any of those things. They are conjectures.

    There is no proof of a causal link between higher CO2 concentrations and significant temperature increases.

    The "studies" you claim have been shown to be ones which assumed their conclusion and constructed their models accordingly.
  • Icarus RJ~PWCM... 2011/03/20 13:57:14 (edited)
    Icarus
    Sorry but you can't dispute the basic laws of physics. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means that it impedes the loss of heat through the atmosphere to space, and therefore causes warming. It's a basic radiative property of the CO2 molecule and is absolutely beyond doubt. Nothing to do with models at all. Even 'skeptics' like Lindzen don't dispute the basic physics.
  • Morgan ... Icarus 2011/03/20 13:58:16
    Morgan Orlins
    +1
    You responded to my post with "not true."
    EXACTLY what part of my post is "not true"?
    Please be specific. Thanks.
  • Icarus Morgan ... 2011/03/20 14:05:24
    Icarus
    That "Globaloney warming is a bought-and-paid-for story".
  • Morgan ... Icarus 2011/03/20 14:14:43
    Morgan Orlins
    +1
    ....but you're NOT denying the direct link between deep-pocketed radical sources and the "scientists" who produce what those sources desire?

    Think real hard about this because I'm getting ready to BOMBARD you with reputable, footnoted articles and books that have been written on the topic. This is remarkably similar to what happened in the bad old days of the Eugenics movement, but on a MUCH larger scale. "Scientists" were said to know which races were dragging the rest of us down, just ask them--oh, and check where their money came from.

    Warmistas have "cooked the books" in this case to achieve a desired result, and we need to throw some people in jail for what they've done. Some of this is truly actionable.
  • Icarus Morgan ... 2011/03/20 14:50:46
    Icarus
    The only scientists cooking the books are the ones who dispute the science behind anthropogenic global warming - Richard Lindzen for example, Pat Michaels, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer and John Christy.
  • Morgan ... Icarus 2011/03/20 15:10:30
    Morgan Orlins
    +1
    How did you miss the intention of Professor Muller? He's on your side of the Warmista story, did you know that? I disagree with him about AGW...
    BUT I respect him deeply for DEFENDING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD!!!!

    He refuses to falsify the data, and shows the fraud of the "hockey stick" graph, which I've researched when writing on the topic. He's not the first one to expose this fraud you know.

    Why would you defend such obvious fraud?

    What matters more to you, Truth, or Winning?

    As far as I'm concerned, when you win via fraud and deception, everyone is poorer.
  • Icarus Morgan ... 2011/03/20 16:51:51
    Icarus
    Go back and read my answer. Muller is the fraud here, for deceiving his audience. The hockey stick is real - it's in the data, and the lies and misdirections presented by people like Muller won't change that one bit.
  • The Electrician 2011/03/19 11:34:07
    The Electrician
    The most highly respected people on the planet, claimed the the Earth was flat. Muller and other people with a degree in physics, are in position to contrive theories. Guaranteed he holds "NO" Nobel Prize for his work. He doesn't even know who Nikola Tesla is.
  • RJ~PWCM... The Ele... 2011/03/19 18:34:47
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    +1
    It's interesting how you hold the belief that the "most highly respected people on the planet claimed the Earth was flat" (which is debatable, but that's another issue), yet it hasn't ever occurred to you that you could apply that belief to the anthropogenic global warming advocates as well.
  • Icarus The Ele... 2011/03/19 22:57:26
    Icarus
    +1
    Muller is a shameless fraud, as I've shown in my answer above. I wonder how much he gets from Exxon to tell lies about climate scientists.
  • RJ~PWCM... Icarus 2011/03/20 13:02:39
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    You didn't "show" he's a fraud, you claimed he's a fraud. You didn't even address his point that the temperature data since 1961 was "adjusted" to create the stick part of the hockey stick.

    Are you saying that Muller's graph of the **actual** temperature data, in which the stick disappears, is a total fabrication?
  • Icarus RJ~PWCM... 2011/03/20 13:31:50
    Icarus
    Ironically the modern end of the curve is the part that we're *most* sure about, because it's from the modern instrumental temperature record, and Muller obviously knows this, so he's outright lying to his audience. If that doesn't make him a fraud, what does?
  • RJ~PWCM... Icarus 2011/03/20 13:42:01
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    The 1961-1990 data was "adjusted" by Mann et al. That is what Muller objects to.
  • Icarus RJ~PWCM... 2011/03/20 14:03:17
    Icarus
    No, that's simply not true. The 1961-1990 tree ring proxy data isn't used at all, because of the 'divergence problem' that is well known, well publicised, and discussed in the peer-reviewed literature and in the IPCC reports, as I explained in my answer with links to prove it. Nothing hidden, nothing concealed, nothing 'adjusted' at all. That's why the credit for the chart says it's a reconstruction - because it uses proxy data *and* the modern instrumental record to reconstruct 1000 years of global temperature.
  • RJ~PWCM... Icarus 2011/03/21 11:26:48
    RJ~PWCM~JLA
    by 61-90 data I meant, of course, the instrumental data, NOT the tree ring data.

    And as far as "peer review", do you realize that Muller IS one of those peer reviewers?

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/23 08:04:20

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals