Impending News

A heads up that on Monday there will be a release of information from Muller and Rohde’s BEST project.

There is some speculation that this is related to a somewhat bizarre posting at Watts’.

The possibilities include

– complete coincidence

– Watts has wind of the BEST results, doesn’t like them, and is going to try to pre-empt them somehow

– Watts has wind of the BEST results, doesn’t like them, and is going to try to change the subject

– Watts has wind of the BEST results, has seen the error of his ways, will apologize profusely, and will promise actual competence rather than hostility to mainstream science as the primary filter for his postings in future

Lucia is not abovehosting speculation. The Neinsager’s League is lining up behind the possibility that the CRU hacker is going to come out. Place your bets.


  1. My guess, is that the rumour that BEST will show that global average temperature has increased by 1.5 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times has caused Watts to go into damage control.

    But 1.5 degrees Celsius!? That number is high enough to warrant plenty of skepticism if that is what BEST plans to announce next week.

    It seems more likely that the rumour just got a bit muddled and what BEST plans to announce is warming of 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit which is not far off from the 0.7 degrees Celsius of warming shown by the other data sets.

    That is my guess anyway.

  2. Isn't this just quibbling over data? Is there news here?

    Crazy delusion and denial will persist because it is a form of psychological adaptation. Watts will adjust, he is a trained TV entertainer, this is just a minor format change.

  3. Watts has been having a hard time in general lately what with the steady drumbeat of important new papers and the funny weather.

    The business tomorrow does look to be some sort of attempt to preempt the BEST announcement, which would seem to mean a burned bridge with Muller.

  4. Read the whole thread, just for kicks. The derangement, of which Lucia partakes in whole, is something to behold.

    Of far greater interest is the possibility that BEST will announce a big temp increase number (perhaps by way of discovering +~.5C between 1750 and 1850) and will throw in attribution, although really that too will be of only temporary interest to people who follow this stuff closely.

  5. Bailey has more, this time the full text of now ex-skeptic Muller's op-ed summarizing the BEST results. Looks like Muller decided to poop on Anthony's parade, which I suppose is what the latter ought to have expected for being so obvious. I will be revisiting Lucia's to fully grok the sadness.

    Anyway, the quoted numbers are 1.5F in the last 50 years and 2.5F since 1750. The latter is IIRC new but is the former (which seems high) consistent with the prior BEST results?

  6. Where are you getting those numbers? This is all I see in Bailey's article:

    I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about 1.5 degree F over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid growth (it has averaged 10% per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (typically adding one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.

  7. "Our results show that the average temperature of the Earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, and one and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the most recent 50 years."

    So that's land-only, although the numbers still seem on the high side. Discussion over at the Bunny's seems to confirm that impression, although I haven't had a chance to focus on the details.

  8. As the obvious unprecedented (in recorded human history) climate changes make themselves felt in the daily lives of humans all over the planet, it will get increasingly hard for sites like WUWT to keep the denialist faithful energized. Expect bizarre behaviors of denialists to increase in proportion to the weirding of the weather. Strange times ahead, proceed with caution...

  9. Pingback: Muller’s BEST | Planet3.0

  10. Pingback: Shorter Anthony Watts: Ignore cities, discount all NOAA sites that show warming, and global warming doesn’t look so bad « Millard Fillmore's Bathtub

  11. It is absolutely remarkable to me how these two developments (the BEST paper, Watts' so-called paper) are interpreted in the sphere of the supporting community. To them: Watts' paper is pure and unassailable vindication from a great hero of the valiant effort to derail the grand conspiracy of scientists and one-world socialists. BEST is the scurrilous scribblings of a deranged traitor (or mole).

    I will concede that I haven't read it yet, and likely won't. Muller, whom I've met and spoken with, is a bit too full of himself and, without taking serious time to understand his work, I'm not swayed by him.

    I will note that, on "Climate Depot" at the moment, there are (at least) six photos, two caricatures, and 63 mentions of Muller. It's clear whom they perceive as the current ultimate bad guy.

  12. There does seem to be an interesting split in the denyosphere over Watts, of a sort I don't recall seeing before. Looking at his comments section, he's done himself considerable damage.

    More please! 🙂

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.