A heartwarming story of scientific integrity on a wingnut's dime

Speaking of Hoaxes

by digby

Here's a heartwarming story of scientific integrity on a wingnut's dime:

A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

The hearing was called by GOP leaders of the House Science & Technology committee, who have expressed doubts about the integrity of climate science. It was one of several inquiries in recent weeks as the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb planet-heating emissions from industrial plants and motor vehicles have come under strenuous attack in Congress.

Muller said his group was surprised by its findings, but he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined.


Ok, this guy may have been a skeptic, but he's still from Berkeley and therefore is tainted. On the other hand:

The Berkeley project's biggest private backer, at $150,000, is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch are the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on the burning of fossil fuels, the largest contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases.


This isn't the first time I've seen this. A couple of years ago I heard a lecture from an oceanographer from Scripps who admitted that he'd been a skeptic for years and that he was politically and temperamentally inclined to think that it was a bit of a liberal scam. but he was a scientist first and over time he couldn't ignore the data that he saw every day.

All scientists are skeptics. That's a necessary characteristic of the field. But it's the so-called "climate change skeptics" who are faith based by refusing to acknowledge the body of evidence that's out there, not the other way around.


.