The Muller/Mosher Hockey Stick

Richard Muller mis-represented himself to the Koch Brothers, took money from them to create a temperature record, and hired a non-scientist to be his chief scientist. (Update : Zeke says Mosher is not the chief scientist.)

Since the global warming pause started, Berserkley Earth has been diverging from satellite data at 3.3C/century.

ScreenHunter_1015 Jul. 15 05.28

www.woodfortrees.org/data/best-upper/from:1995.5/plot/rss/from:1995.5

Update : Zeke wants land only vs. Best, not Best Upper.  Same story.

ScreenHunter_45 Jul. 15 11.15

www.woodfortrees.org/data/rss-land/from:1995.5/plot/best/from:1995.5

Muller was always a wild-eyed alarmist.

By Richard Muller on December 17, 2003

Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.

Medieval Global Warming – Page 2 | MIT Technology Review

11/03/11

“It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic

Richard Muller, Climate Researcher, Navigates The Volatile Line Between Science And Skepticism

Less than a year after announcing that he was never a skeptic, he announced that he was a converted skeptic.

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER
Published: July 28, 2012

CALL me a converted skeptic.

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic – NYTimes.com

Advertisements

About stevengoddard

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

91 Responses to The Muller/Mosher Hockey Stick

  1. Eliza says:

    THis is how it should be told.. THE TRUTH…. with evidence to back it up well done SG

  2. philjourdan says:

    I think Best needs to go back to the drawing board. But they do have a handicap. They rely on the HADCrut and GISS data sets which are already adjusted beyond recognition.

  3. omanuel says:

    After 1945, Stalin’s propaganda agents took control of science at major US academic institutions (The University of Chicago’s Enrico Fermi Institute, Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics, etc) and funds, tenure and Nobel Prizes went to support pseudo-science like

    1. The Standard Solar Model
    2. The Standard Nuclear Model

    with garbage discoveries of
    _a.) Super-heavy elements
    _b.) Ne-A, Ne-B, Ne-C, etc.
    _c.) Oscillating solar neutrinos

    • _Jim says:

      You don’t think that experimental results at various times at different institutions would show up these discrepancies ‘spread’ by purported disinformationalists? Given how ‘science’ works, with the old prevailing theories being overturned on the basis of new experimental evidence, one would have to expect that all the experimental evidence would have to be ‘faked’ or fabricated to continue the deception to this day. But, this would seem to fly in the face of reality, as it is impossible to infiltrate an industry to that degree or extent.

      ALL this is not just an ‘exercise’ on paper you know …

      .

      • omanuel says:

        Nine pages (pp. 19-27) of precise experimental measurements in Chapter 2 of my autobiography show exactly HOW ‘SCIENCE’ WORKED over my research career (1960-2014):

        https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf

        Like JosePH’s PHoney PHysics PHd Generator

        • omanuel says:

          Corruption was not limited to physics. One prestigious eastern University gave a PHoney Phd for PHinding PHantom Technetium in Nature

        • _Jim says:

          Not addressing the issue raised; please address how ‘research’ has been falsified by Stain-inspired disinformationalists despite hundreds of thousands of independent lab experiments by researchers NOT under the control of ‘Stalin’ …

        • omanuel says:

          Jim,

          You can find the answer to the question yourself by asking distinguished members of the US NAS, UN’s IPCC or the UK’s RS to address precise experimental data that show the pulsar at the core of the Sun:

          1. Made our elements 2. Birthed the solar system 3. Sustained the origin and evolution of life 4. Still controls every atom, life and world in the solar system today, a volume of space greater than that of ten billion, billion Earths !<

          Sent from my iPhone

          >

        • _Jim says:

          You can find the answer to the question yourself by asking …

          I have concluded you have no answer, no case. It appears you buy into wide-ranging conspiracy theories, too, and when faced with the ‘logic’ in an opposing view revert to the ‘grand hand wave’ as all conspiracy theorists eventually make their retreat.

          .

        • Shanna M says:

          I just got off the phone with “distinguished members of the US NAS, UN’s IPCC or the UK’s RS” and they said you’re wrong. Thanks for pointing me in the direction to find out the answer for myself.

        • stewart pid says:

          Shanna … did they mention crazy as well 😉

        • Andy DC says:

          We have heard the same old story from you hundreds of times. I have no idea whether you are right or wrong, you seems sincere but it is off topic and the constant repetition is getting tiresome.

        • kuhnkat says:

          Jim,

          Naaaah, no one ever messes with data or misleads the public. Oh wait, what about Gorebull Warming again?!?!

          Here is a rather interesting story told by a reputable gentleman. Still not sure just how far to believe him although we have the Taiwan Cobalt 60 incident, the final reports on the research on Tokyo and Nagasaki, and Chernobyl that appear to at least partially support his claims…

        • _Jim says:

          re: kuhnkat July 16, 2014 at 2:06 am

          I’m afraid you’ve jumped ‘a bridge too far’; I don’t see the applicability. Maybe you joined this discussion a little too late? Suggest start further up-thread …

        • kuhnkat says:

          Here are the links and oh yeah, I meant Hiroshima and not Tokyo above.

          http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Chernobyl-Accident/

          https://archive.org/details/TheEffectsOfTheAtomicBombOnHiroshima

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/

          Three Mile Island there is no link for as there was so little radiation released there was no expectation of harm, even though envirowhacktards still screech about it. Fukushima has also had an absolute lack of radiation effects.

        • kuhnkat says:

          Jim,

          I am not a scientist or educated enough to run down Omanuel’s claims. Just showing that what we read, are told, and what the gubmint claims are all manipulated heavily especially when it comes to technology that has “national security” implications.

          Your claims that measurements in experiments are absolute God’s honest truth is laughable. If the gubmint comes in and tells you to change the data you will. If you have an ulterior motive to change it to gain money or recognition you might. If your group, whether geology, high energy physics, Cosmology, etc. tells you that you must fit your findings into the existing paradigm or lose funding and support you probably will.

          Then there are the mistakes, bad experiments, poor calibration, bad equipment, and all the other problems with being human in the real world…

        • _Jim says:

          re: kuhnkat July 16, 2014 at 2:39 am

          I’m sorry, you seem to have jumped overboard along with the other fellow. Too bad this is not real life as I would throw you a life preserver.

          As it is, good luck, but it looks like you’re going down.

          Next time choose a better ‘conspiracy’ to support.

          .

        • kuhnkat says:

          Oh and Jim:

          “Not addressing the issue raised; please address how ‘research’ has been falsified by Stain-inspired disinformationalists despite hundreds of thousands of independent lab experiments by researchers NOT under the control of ‘Stalin’ …”

          Please show us those hundreds of thousands of experiments you CLAIM disprove Omanuel as there probably haven’t been a tenth that many that apply in any way??

          The sword cuts both ways big talker.

        • _Jim says:

          re: kuhnkat July 16, 2014 at 3:05 am

          Good night. Besides science, logic is not your strong suit either. Enjoy the conspiracies of your choice …

          .

        • kuhnkat says:

          No problem Jim. I accept I am not a really sharp knife at either logic or science.

          Now, when are you going to support YOUR arm waving trying to smear Omanuel. You claim a huge amount of evidence against his claims and present NOTHING but rhetoric. Could it be possible you know even less of science and logic than I??

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  4. markstoval says:

    “But they do have a handicap. They rely on the HADCrut and GISS data sets which are already adjusted beyond recognition.”

    True, but even if they had the very best starting data they would still produce fraudulent data. Look at this post, it shows that Richard Muller is a liar with absolutely no respect for the truth. And remember that the fist rots from the head down.

  5. Stephen Richards says:

    The sad thing is how mosher went from a sensible teacher to a crazed greenie. His encounter with Muller and the BEST team changed him completely.

    • I have a completely different perspective than that.

    • kuhnkat says:

      Stephen,

      We would have to ignore Moshpups continuous urging to only consider RTE as the whole understanding of the atmosphere and energy balance long before Moshpup hooked up with Muller to believe that.

      Comments similar to “All you need to know is Radiative Transfer Equations” were common fare for Moshpup for at least the last 7 years.

  6. jst1 says:

    Please define non-scientist. How long does one have to work in “science” before they become a “scientist”?

    • Most universities (including Berkeley) normally consider a science degree to be a prerequisite to be considered a scientist.

      • jst1 says:

        So the degree is all that counts. Without one, Mosher never gets there?

        • _Jim says:

          Do you have some other evidence which provides some reason to believe that this person Mosher is familiar with the relevant subject material upon which he writes and conducts analysis?

          Generally, that is what a ‘degree’ confers, some minimal level of proficiency and familiarity with the subject material.

          .

        • Stephen Richards says:

          Exactly. In the 1700 and 1800 they were called antiquarians, gentlemen scientists or othe less precise terms but never scientist. In the same way, you cannot become a member of a scientific institute without a science degree.

        • jst1 says:

          Just asking a question, not picking a fight.

        • _Jim says:

          Still asking the question: what differentiates Mosher from your average man on the street with an opinion?

          Well-written articles he has penned to date? Has he written anything original of a technical nature? By what measure is his word golden (or silver or brass even) versus someone else? The continued testimony of friends? Do you know his friends?

          .

        • jst1 says:

          I don’t know anything about Mosher. I was simply inquiring about how he is described in this piece and whether someone without a degree can work in the field for a period of time and earn the same respect as one with a degree.
          If you want to turn me into a closet supporter of Mosher, you will have to work harder.

        • _Jim says:

          I have questions too, and I thought you might have answers … I can’t ‘read you mind’ either so I have to ask questions as well. One wonders where this quite-obvious self-promoting creature Mosher who inserts himself in the center of various ‘debates’ derives his understanding and insights, that’s all. It wasn’t apparently through a program of ‘formal study’, so, he looks to have ‘picked it up’ along the way.

          Like a lot of us have.

          Capisce?

          .

        • jst1 says:

          I probably would have provided such information if I had it. But instead, I asked anyone (particularly Tony) about the characterization.
          Be well.

      • Wizzum says:

        How logical…..truly bizarre.

    • Chip Bennett says:

      Please define “work in science”.

    • Ben says:

      Please explain how “Berkeley” and “normally” belong in the same sentence

      😉

      • M Simon says:

        It isn’t called Bezerkeley for nothing. I was hearing that in the 60s. Hmmmm. Maybe the era had something to do with it.

        • omanuel says:

          I was there myself in the 1960s. Not one of the so-called scientists will come here now and explain in public why the Sun was misrepresented as a ball of hydrogen, instead of the hydrogen generator that birthed the solar system.

    • kuhnkat says:

      It seems there should be a minimum time, but, I think the real question is whether what MoshPup, Muller, and many other “Climate Scientists”, are doing is SCIENCE. Are they using or abusing the scientific method. Is it science or pseudo science or Junk Science that they are doing??

  7. Not sure why I bother, but..

    1) Robert Rohde is the chief scientist at Berkeley Earth, and has a PhD in physics.
    2) You are comparing the upper bound of the uncertainty range from a land record (not even the temperature!) to a land/ocean record (RSS). Here is what you were actually looking for (using the Berkeley land/ocean record: http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/globaltempcomps1979-2013_zpse255427b.png

  8. Eliza says:

    SG has opened a real can of worms here again. ZEke will not reply. He definitely lost the last encounter 100 to 0. I am actually surprised he turned up here again they must be getting extremely upset. Godd on ya SG. LOL

  9. Eliza says:

    Of course he will reply hahahah with more “excuses” for adjustments LOL

  10. DayHay says:

    Anyone can “do science”, even Steve Mosher. One of the main knocks against skeptics is that it is all blog science by non scientists, and all the real scientists believe in blah, blah, blah. Don’t know why we can’t take the high road, some of you sound like Mann. Our motto should be “It’s the data, stupid”. I really do not care who brings the solutions and what their title is, show me the work, the data, and the code, and please justify your assumptions.

  11. Can you show a graph of adjustments to the BEST temperatures vs. the divergence of BEST from RSS? I would expect a one-to-one, high correlation (better than 0.9 R-square value), assuming the RSS data reflects reality.

  12. omanuel says:

    Jim,

    We do not know why you try to defend them, but we do know that public grants and international awards enticed scientists to lie after 1945 about:

    Nuclear, particle, planetary, radiation,
    solar, stellar and theoretical physics.

    See: “The Nuclear Scare Scam.”

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ejCQrOTE-XA&feature=player_embedded

    • _Jim says:

      Still not addressing the issue raised; please address how ‘research’ has been falsified by Stalin-inspired disinformationalists despite hundreds of thousands of independent lab experiments by researchers NOT under the control of ‘Stalin’ or funded by public grants.

      For your ‘theory’ to work , everyone must be compromised and every experiment must be rigged; it just ain’t so …

      .

  13. Abel Garcia says:

    I thought NOAA was the only agency to introduce a “Fudge Factor”.

  14. omanuel says:

    Nine pages of precise experimental data on pages 19-27) expose the source of energy – NEUTRON REPULSION – that:

    1. Is clearly recorded in rest masses of atoms for all to see;

    2. Destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki from cores of uranium and plutonium atoms;

    3. Made our elements, birthed the solar system, and sustained the origin and evolution of life from the core of the Sun;

    4. Produced this galaxy of stars from the core of the Milky Way;

    5. Causes the cosmos to expand and fill interstellar space with the neutron decay product, hydrogen.

  15. Katabasis says:

    I’ve seen no evidence more damning regarding Muller’s attitude to “science” than his contribution to the “documentary” – “Nemesis: the Sun’s Evil Twin”. It’s available in several copies on Youtube. Muller continually ignores the perfectly reasonable dismissals of the idea of the solar system having a second star by astronomers on the basis of current evidence, going on to whine and assert that it’s true, it’s true, it’s true – because I say so!

    Watch it, it’s an absolute hoot.

  16. Matt L. says:

    Several days ago I repeated a question here that was asked in the comment section of Zeke’s artilce Understanding adjustments to temperature data.

    The paraphrased question initially posed by “DocMartyn | July 8, 2014 at 6:47 pm” was: Why does 1950 Portland-Troutdale data differ from the hand written record?

    Steven Mosher gave a plausible answer which David Springer rebutted. I checked the thread several days ago, but didn’t see any more info. Does anyone know the outcome of that discussion?

    These two guys (Mosher, Springer) seem to hold each other in such low esteem it made it difficult to separate truth from snark. To Mosher’s (and Berkley Earth’s) credit, he wrote if anyone finds an error, to report it. I assume Berkley Earth have an error reporting/investigation/escalation system in place and are willing to entertain fact-based and reproducible issues. This seems like the right approach.

    • Alexej Buergin says:

      How about asking this:
      According to the thermometers Swansea is half a degree C cooler than London.
      After moshering the data with Zekian adjustments, BEST tells us London is half a degree C cooler than Swansea.
      Which is right?
      (Bet you get no answer.)

    • What could possibly go wrong? says:

      It’s called a honeypot. Find out where the weaknesses in your positions are to remedy them in a future edition of the gospel. There is no discernable reason to assume that anyone in that circus of doomsayers intends to ever work scientifically.

      The telling sign of any pseudo-scientific scam is that the presented hypothesis has no clear path to falsification. The “theory” of AGW lags falsifiability completely and gets mended ad hoc to explain away any possibly problematic observation. Like, say, vast amounts of additional antarctic sea ice every year.

      • Matt L. says:

        “It’s called a honeypot. Find out where the weaknesses in your positions are to remedy them in a future edition of the gospel.”

        If true, it’s too bad. (Honeypot is a cool term. Makes me think of honey trap which makes me think of Bond Girls.)

      • Brad says:

        They’ve been shown they are wrong. They don’t care and will defend their methods until their last breath. I ain’t kidding.

  17. Brian G Valentine says:

    Muller was known to me a a scam artist long ago trying to ingratiate himself with VP Gore

  18. I have not looked closely at Mosher’s technical work. But I have read a lot of his blog comments. Hopefully the intelligence inherent in those comments aren’t representative of his technical work.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s