|Anyone notice a hockey shtick at all ?|
If only the BBC could be trusted to come up with some truth instead re-peddling the usual CAGW hysterics. The usual "we are all going to fry" caper has actually run it's course and we only have a few of the hangers on trying their luck to cash in on the so called "scoop".
The recalcitrant Richard Muller has already been badly beaten down by Judy Curry, who was a co-author of one of the papers that was supposed to clear things up once and for all. When Muller hit the MSM with those results, which were somewhat questionable, Curry lashed out and told all and sundry that she does not support the final analysis. Oops, Muller left to rot in his own freshly created mire. Here that saga continues as we have Muller doing it all over again. One would have imagined that one would learn from previous cock-ups, but not Muller.
Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humansA formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures.In a US newspaper opinion piece, Prof Richard Muller says: "Call me a converted sceptic."
Muller leads the Berkeley Earth Project, which is using new methods and some new data to investigate the claims made by other climate researchers.
Their latest study confirms the warming trend seen by other groups.
Is this the best they can do or is it just the easiest way to promote the AGW lies and misinformation. Muller has been on a few MSM sites over the last few days, claiming that he was once a skeptic, low and behold, he has changed his mind. There is definitely more money in lying about the climate than there is in actually doing one's job properly as a scientist and do the research properly without encroaching one's political views into it.
Strangely enough, His previous paper was recommended to be trashed, shredded and flipped into the garbage bin, as it was the work of someone's imagination than actual fact. Anyway, we have these pathetic CAGW hysterical high priests all vying for the research dollars with plenty of pocket money to boot. Too bad for Muller though as the arse is just about to drop out of the whole farce and he has left his timing a little too long. He is demonstrating that astrophysics does not train one to being practical or honest or truthful but instead, seeks the money in order to sell their soul to the highest bidder.
From the site of Professor Ross McKitrick
BERKELEY EARTH STUDY REFEREE REPORTS: On September 8 2011 I was asked by Journal of Geophysical Research to be a reviewer for a paper by Charlotte Wickham et al. presenting the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature ("BEST") analysis of the effect of urbanization on land surface temperatures. This work is mainly associated with Richard Muller and his various coauthors. I submitted my review just before the end of September 2011, outlining what I saw were serious shortcomings in their methods and arguing that their analysis does not establish valid grounds for the conclusions they assert. I suggested the authors be asked to undertake a major revision.
In October 2011, despite the papers not being accepted, Richard Muller launched a major international publicity blitz announcing the results of the "BEST" project. I wrote to him and his coauthor Judy Curry objecting to the promotional initiative since the critical comments of people like me were locked up under confidentiality rules, and the papers had not been accepted for publication. Richard stated that he felt there was no alternative since the studies would be picked up by the press anyway. Later, when the journal turned the paper down and asked for major revisions, I sought permission from Richard to release my review. He requested that I post it without indicating I was a reviewer for JGR. Since that was not feasible I simply kept it confidential.
On March 8 2012 I was asked by JGR to review a revised version of the Wickham et al. paper. I submitted my review at the end of March. The authors had made very few changes and had not addressed any of the methodological problems, so I recommended the paper not be published. I do not know what the journal's decision was, but it is 4 months later and I can find no evidence on the BEST website that this or any other BEST project paper has been accepted for publication. [Update July 30: JGR told me "This paper was rejected and the editor recommended that the author resubmit it as a new paper."]
On July 29 2012 Richard Muller launched another publicity blitz (e.g. here and here) claiming, among other things, that "In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects [including those related to urbanization and land surface changes] unduly biased our conclusions." Their failure to provide a proper demonstration of this point had led me to recommend against publishing their paper. This places me in an awkward position since I made an undertaking to JGR to respect the confidentiality of the peer review process, but I have reason to believe Muller et al.'s analysis does not support the conclusions he is now asserting in the press.
I take the journal peer review process seriously and I dislike being placed in the position of having to break a commitment I made to JGR, but the "BEST" team's decision to launch another publicity blitz effectively nullifies any right they might have had to confidentiality in this matter. So I am herewith releasing my referee reports. The first, from September 2011, is here and the second, from March 2012 is here.