As you seem to have issues following anything complicated I will try & take it slowly, then, hopefully you can understand...
Physicists are notorious for believing that other scientists are mathematically incompetent. And University of California-Berkeley physicist Richard Muller is notorious for believing that conventional wisdom is often wrong. For example, the conventional wisdom about climate change. Muller has criticized Al Gore in the past as an "exaggerator," has spoken warmly of climate skeptic Anthony Watts, and has said that Steve McIntyre's famous takedown of the "hockey stick" climate graph made him "uncomfortable" with the paper the hockey stick was originally based on.
See, reasonable establishment of the scientist's credentials that he is a sceptic...
So in 2010 he started up the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project (BEST) to show the world how to do climate analysis right. Who better, after all? "Muller's views on climate have made him a darling of skeptics," saidScientific American, "and newly elected Republicans in the House of Representatives, who invited him to testify to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology about his preliminary results." The Koch Foundation, founded by the billionaire oil brothers who have been major funders of the climate-denial machine, gave BEST a $150,000 grant.
Hardly a pro-Global Warming outfit. Funded by one of the 'big oil' deniers who you say do not exist.
But Muller's congressional testimony last March didn't go according to plan. He told them a preliminary analysis suggested that the three main climate models in use today—each of which uses a different estimating technique, and each of which has potential flaws—are all pretty accurate: Global temperatures have gone up considerably over the past century, and the increase has accelerated over the past few decades.
Do you understand that.....the scientists were right & temperatures have gone up & that climate warming is accelerating.
But, of course, those were only
preliminary results so could change on full analysis.
However...
Last week, BEST confirmed these results and others in its first set of published papers about land temperatures.(Ocean studies will come later.) Using a novel statistical methodology that incorporates more data than other climate models and requires less human judgment about how to handle it (summarized by the Economist here), the BEST team drew several conclusions:
So, full analysis over...results reveal..
1. The earth is indeed getting warmer. Global average land temperatures have risen 0.91 degrees Celsius over the past 50 years. This is "on the high end of the existing range of reconstructions."
Understand....the models predicted this, but only it was at the 'high end' of their predictions. So they nearly underestimated the gains...
2. The rate of increase on land is accelerating. Warming for the entire 20th century clocks in at 0.73 degrees C per century. But over the most recent 40 years, the globe has warmed at a rate of 2.76 degrees C per century.
The 'moving average' is increasing. The Earth is not warming up at a consistent rate, it is increasing...considerably.
3. Warming has not abated since 1998. The rise in average temperature over the period 1998-2010 is 2.84 degrees C per century.
The rate is continuing to increase...
That is what the models suggested....that is what actually happened...
No, loss of data...no manipulation....Independent proof from a scientist who had zero incentive to prove what the results were - exactly the opposite.
The BEST data significantly reduces the uncertainty of the temperature reconstructions. Their estimate of the temperature increase over the past 50 years has an uncertainty of only 0.04 degrees C, compared to a reported uncertainty of 0.13 degrees C in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
The chances that they are wrong are minuscule,,,
Although many of the temperature measuring stations around the world have large individual uncertainties, taken as a whole the data is quite reliable. The difference in reported averages between stations ranked "okay" and stations ranked "poor" is very small.
No bad data from around the World as deniers have always claimed.
The urban heat island effect—i.e., the theory that rising temperatures around cities might be corrupting the global data—is very small.
This is one of Lord Lawson's basis for being a denier....problem gone...
In the press release announcing the results, Muller said, "Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK." In other words, climate scientists know what they're doing after all.
Oh, what a surprise, there was not a problem from the start, just deniers saying there was..
So YES the science is settled & very, very few deniers now claim that Global Warming does not exist.
I will wait with interest to see any legitimate claims that somehow Muller is wrong.
Other than that I have no interest to replying to your silly posts any more.
The science is settled, Climategate is dead, the deniers were wrong....