Muller Says We Did This

Muller says that we caused the 0.7 warming seen in the pink circle on the right, even though it is completely in the noise of measurement error – and an order of magnitude smaller than natural variability.

 

Alan Betts: Atmospheric Researcher — Understanding Climate Change Question

Muller apparently wants to compete with Hansen for worst climate scientist – ever.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Muller Says We Did This

  1. johnmcguire says:

    Would that be the same Muller that called his so called analysis of the land temperature stations and the data produced by them ‘best’ ? If so I don’t see any reason to believe what he says about anything in the science realm.

  2. Stephen Richards says:

    Müller could easily be worse than Hansen. He is a very ungifted liar where H is simply crazy.

  3. Hugh K says:

    And the 2012 Tricky Dick award goes to….

  4. Yeah, here is my response to this article:
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/07/its-simple-global-warming-is-causing-the-extreme-weather/#comment-2374201

    Here is another chart you should see, showing the dramatic increases in temperatures, especially over the long term. You can easily distinguish between the “natural” part and the “man made” part by watching this graphic of data from NOAA very carefully:

    google “historical video perspective our current unprecedented climate”
    EDIT: this link from WUWT is here, it’s a handy reference: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif

    It’s amazing that scientists can do statistics on the ice core data, and show how decisively CO2′s role really is in determining temperature compared to all of those other natural ones. I’m still amazed that they can do things that, despite decades of training, I have not been able to repeat, replication being a rather important cornerstone of science.

    Of particular note are the amazing differences in slope that are so highly touted, and the overwhelming magnitude of the CO2 signal, compared to the natural variation. Clearly, anyone still in doubt must have a certain mental condition. I call mine objectivity. What do you call yours?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s