Is Global Warming Real
That brings us to the present day and the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study, a study that was heavily funded by the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, which would prefer to keep climate denial as the mainstream philosophy for ulterior motives, primarily to fight attempts to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S.A. due to their energy industries large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) also funded by Koch industries is also attempting to thwart environmental protections and climate change legislature to benefit companies like Koch Industries bottom lines.
The study was headed by Richard Muller, a physicist and well known climate skeptic. The study was done due to the fact that key scientific evidence issues could skew global warming effects according to scientists at the University of California, Berkeley. Muller was determined to calm the debate over climate change by creating the largest open database of temperature records, with the goal of producing both a transparent and independent assessment of the data. The project was given extra incentives by the initial reluctance of government groups to release all their methods and data, and the fiasco over emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in 2009. Another point of the skeptics was that the climate skeptics have criticized the official global warming figures on the grounds that many temperature stations are of poor quality and that the data obtained from them were tweaked by hand.
The results of the BEST study concluded that the key issues skeptics claimed could skew the figures were false and have no real effect on the facts. The Berkeley Earth Project concluded that the results of other major groups studies were, in fact correct, such as the estimates done by NOAA, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the Met Office’s Hadley Centre with the University of East Anglia in the UK, thus putting most scientific skeptics claims to rest, including Muller, whom reversed his views on the subject.
Land Temperature Anomaly Video
Berkeley Earth video representation of the land surface temperature anomaly, 1800 to the present. The map of the world shows the temperature anomaly by location over time. The chart at the bottom, shows the global land-surface temperature anomaly. The Berkeley Earth analysis shows 0.911 degrees Centigrade of land warming (+/- 0.042 C) since the 1950s.
In interviews after the reports were released to the public he said the following: “We have looked at these issues in a straightforward, transparent way, and based on that, I would expect legitimate skeptics to feel their issues have been addressed.” The team for the BEST study, which includes Saul Perlmutter, a joint winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, has submitted four papers to the journal Geophysical Research Letters that describe their work to date. The fact that they made public the results before they are peer-reviewed as they have done in this case are not considered standard practice, but Muller said the decision to circulate the papers before publication was part a long-standing academic tradition of sanity-checking results with colleagues. However one more prominent skeptic, Anthony Watts claims the study has a basic procedural error that concern the time periods used in the research and has urged the authors to revise the paper.
Jim Hansen, who is currently the head of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said he had not read the research papers but was glad Muller was looking at the issue, describing him as “a top-notch physicist”. “It should help inform those who have honest skepticism about global warming. Of course, presuming that he basically confirms what we have been reporting, the deniers will then decide that he is a crook or has some ulterior motive. As I have discussed in the past, the deniers, or contrarians, if you will, do not act as scientists, but rather as lawyers. As soon as they see evidence against their client (the fossil fuel industry and those people making money off business-as-usual), they trash that evidence and bring forth whatever tidbits they can find to confuse the judge and jury.”
Well there is at least one less skeptic in the jury of the question is global warming real, so we may be able to reduce the risks of man made climate change after all. Peace my friends!