BREAKING UPDATE: The head of the Berkeley team, Richard Muller, confirmed at a public talk on Saturday that they have started writing a draft report and based on their preliminary analysis, “We are seeing substantial global warming” and “None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming.”
BOMBSHELL: In the comments, discredited climate science disinformer Steven Mosher asserts, “There is no DRAFT paper…. There are some draft figures, some charts, that a few of us have seen.” Yes, Mosher, who is not to anyone’s previous knowledge associated with this project in any respect (unlike climatologist Ken Caldeira), has full up-to-the-minute access to everything BEST is doing. Amazing. So much for it being an independent, fully transparent study. In fact, Muller stated on Saturday,”We’re even starting to write the paper.”
To repeat, Climatologist Ken Caldeira sent me the following email message for publication this weekend (and he had rechecked this message before I ran it):
I have seen a copy of the Berkeley group’s draft paper, which of course would be expected to be revised before submission.
Their preliminary results sit right within the results of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, confirming that prior analyses were correct in every way that matters. Their results confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.
Their analysis supports the view that there is no fire behind the smokescreen put up by climate science deniers.
Note: Caldeira helped fund the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study, but didn’t participate in it.
In one sense, this finding isn’t news, since there have never been any credible challenges to the surface temperature data other than the smoke blown by the climate science deniers.
Indeed, we have very good reason to believe the data that were attacked the most, that collected by the Hadley Center and Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, (unintentionally) lowballed the rate of recent warming (see The deniers were half right: The Met Office Hadley Centre had flawed data “” but it led them to UNDERestimate the rate of recent global warming).
But in another sense, this finding is news, since the study looked like it was a set-up from the start.