Climate Change Sceptics Eat Crow

Global warming sceptics suspected climate change scientists were hiding data. So the sceptics paid for a new study to find the real truth. The results are in! And they're identical to previous results: Humans are heating up the Earth.

University of California physics professor Richard Muller, one of the most vocal sceptics, gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including 2011 Nobel Physics Prize winner Saul Perlmutter, to create the Berkeley Earth Project.

Muller et al thought that data from weather stations used for previous studies may have been off because those located close to cities would record artificially warm temperatures. So the Berkeley Earth Project used new methods to re-analyse data from 40,000 weather stations. And guess what? The resulting graph looks almost exactly the same as the graphs from previous studies. They found that the earth's temperature has risen by 1C since 1950.

The sceptics went so far as to hack into climate scientists' emails in 2009, after which they claimed to have found evidence that the famous "hockey puck" chart, which showed a sharp temperature increase in recent years, wasn't accurate.

Bob Ward, policy and communications director for the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment in London, told the BBC he's ready or apologies, including one from Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, who has accused scientists of manipulating data.

"So-called 'sceptics' should now drop their thoroughly discredited claims that the increase in global average temperature could be attributed to the impact of growing cities," he said.

"More broadly, this study also proves once again how false it was for 'sceptics' to allege that the e-mails hacked from UEA proved that CRU land temperature record had been doctored.

"It is now time for an apology from all those, including US presidential hopeful Rick Perry, who have made false claims that the evidence for global warming has been faked by climate scientists."

Add this new study to your points on how to talk to a climate change sceptic. And maybe punctuate it with your middle finger.


Image: Shutterstock/Martin Capek

WATCH MORE: Science & Health News


    This comment has been deemed inappropriate [Arm Chair Editor] and has been deleted

      Yeah not really Giz's bread and butter. "Hockey puck".... Gold!

      Then again can't hurt to disseminate this information to as many as possible. Problem is, sckeptics didn't read the article because of the headline anyway.

      Telling Giz off for using the word "Hockey Puck" doesn't really make sense, you completely missed the point being made, and picked a single poorly used word to negate the article. Read it again and forget about teaching word aesthetics!

        I highlighted it because it was emblematic of the overall clueless nature of the article - it starts badly from the word go by claiming this study showed that "humans are heating up the earth" - when the study does no such thing.

        It then travels via the hockey puck to the childish closing, where sceptics should be given the finger apparently.

          Couldn't agree more. Ridiculous article for such a complex issue. It is this kind of crap writing that passes for evidence these days.

          Happy to be corrected on this if Im wrong, but Im pretty sure the wording of "hockey puck" is wrong & should read "hockey stick". The metaphor being that the slant of an ice hockey stick parallels the increase in temperatures, which raise gradually at first then begin to accelerate.

          There's a good opinion piece about this skepticism in the (current) issue 41 of Cosmos magazine btw. Also I told some european friends about the level of climate change skepticism of Australians (most polls Ive seen put it at around 28%) & they were gobbsmacked.

    Its a "Hockey stick" not puck. A chart which shows a prolonged trend in one direction, followed by a dramatic departure, like the shape of a hockey stick.

      ice hockey stick to be correct. because it certainly not a (field) hockey stick

        exactly, and if its an ice hockey stick it cant be getting warmer, but cooler :P

          And thats the schtick, makes me wonder if "jew-nosed"-graph would cause more of a stir even if not as exponential.

    This proves nothing. Temperature rising - agreed. Cause? Effect? Long term? Short term? None of those answers can be found here. The claim that skeptics should desist because of this data is utterly ludicrous.

      Couldn't agree more. There has been massive temperature swings in history - ice ages for goodness sake! Imagine if we went into an ice age now.. No doubt it would be blamed on human's.

      To me it just seems like a standard climatic cycle - sometimes the Earth is warmer, sometimes cooler. How can we possibly say that this will be the trend forever, if we've only been taking solid data recordings for a century?

      Also, is it just me, or is Global Warming becoming something of a religion? People who don't fully believe that humans are making the Earth hot are becoming ridiculed, hated upon and made to feel like dirt. This reminds me of the way Atheists treat those who are 'religious'. So much hate. I am not a climate skeptic by any means, but I have been essentially bullied by people thinking that I'm out to destroy the Earth..

      It's sad. :(

        Furthermore, we are talking about temperature changes of HALF A DEGREE CELCIUS! No more. Are you flipping serious?! We are spending billions (of taxpayer) dollars to try and combat tenths of a degree rise in temperature. If you ask me, I'd much rather give money to starving children in Africa, who couldn't care less about half a degree increase in the day time temperature, but would much prefer some food and clean water.

          not to spoil your love with African kids but with the climate conditions that they have Africa cant sustain population that they have... at the end of the day you can argue why is that but the trues is pretty harsh if you want this people to survive you need money invested in infrastructure over there not in food to sustain high population vs low water/food supply

            Hey, no problem. I was simply using it as an example - I'm by no means well educated in the best ways to help those in need (most effective/efficient ways). However, my point still remains that I'd rather help humans in need than be forced to support a theory. :)

            The change matters Alex. You are using the same "agruments" that idealogians use. Its uneducated. There would be no life on this planet if our axis were slightly different but if that were threatened somehow then your "argument" would doom us all.

            0.5 - 1.0 degree increase (and estimation for further increase) can be deadly for some forms of life. For example, 1 degree is the difference between life and death of Japanese bees and Giant Hornets. The bees swarm the hornet and kill it by their body heat.

            That extra 1 degree could kill off something that is food for something else, which is food for something else... and so on.

            It is all based on estimation, extrapolation and prediction, and yes, temperatures could flip and start going down.
            But, personally, I don't see how reduction of pollutants can be seen as a bad thing.

          From the article
          “So-called ‘sceptics’ should now drop their thoroughly discredited claims that the increase in global average temperature could be attributed to the impact of growing cities,”

          The point isn't that the cause is because of one thing or another, it's that the data is real and people should stop accusing scientists of doctoring data.

          1 degree AVERAGE rise is huge. The kind of rise that can and HAS caused major climate shifts. Here are the simple facts - we HAVE raised the level of CO2 (and methane) way over its level 200 years ago- we can now spot the increasing CO2/methane emmisions using gear we have both on the ground and in space. And if we look for example at ice cores from artic/antartic regions that contain samples of the atmosmophere there is a nice strong "signal" that relates methane/CO2 ppm levels (which have varied over time due to vulcanism for example) to average temp over millions of years. YES there are natural cycles - in fact ice ages HAPPEN when CO2/methane levels fall - but that is IRRELEVENT - if something changes CO2 levels, the climate shifts. CO2 is one of the major DRIVERS of climate, both here, on mars, on venus etc. SO you can argue is you like about the IMPACT of this (which is where climate models come in), partically on small parts of the planet, and be as vocal as you like about that, but you are in no way entitled to make up your own facts about the link between CO2 (which as I said WE are DEFINITELY emitting) and average temp. OK? Moving right along ...

        You do realise that the world can go into an ice age due to either the supercontinent cycle or severe global volcanic activity? There are always reasons for what happens on this Earth, and from what the data shows, I dont believe we have a better explanation.

      It kind of does. That's the point of the study.

      Thanks to these scientists, at least we know that there is a climate change and in most cases, it is becoming unbearable.. Whether it is us, the human or nature itself or if it kindles your interest, aliens themselves, its time to do something. The argument is not about who is causing is this ill effect, its about what we want to do next!!

      Like its always said, humans are the weakest link in security. They also the weakest link the protecting Earth. Everyone knows that trees are one of most important beings for a balanced environment. There was an add encouraging people to use wood for furniture!!!
      WTF.. More later.

      Well "proves nothing" is a little strong. But yes this article does not talk at all about "Anthropological induced Climate Change" which is what 97% of climate change scientists agree upon but most governments have enacted very few polices to address.

      To those who say it proves nothing I proves you have no grasp of logic or the debate. Many/Most climate skeptics actually deny there is an increase in temperature. FAIL. For the other tards who say the globe swings like this naturally you NEED to understand that this data is classed as anomalous ! Previous changes are explained by natural occurances but the current rise is ANOMOLOUS in this context (nature) Do you get it yet? At the end of the day, you are people who believe 7 billion large industrialised mammals have ZERO effect on the planet! You're just lucky you live on another.

    So i cant see anywhere here that shows the link between humans and the temperature increases? Seems to be just following the normal cyclical nature of world temps...

      You don't see the consistent and increasing rise in temperatures at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?

      This doesn't prove anything but it does provide some sort of correlation to explain this increased rise in temperature, then again we can shrug our shoulders and say 'it's all natural, no need to even try'.

        Why didn't we have an industrial or cultural revolution (the Renaissance) during the Dark Ages? Here's a theory: increased warming leads to more prosperous societies, enabling rapid cultural and industrial development. The correlation is just as strong, and in any event correlation != causation.

        Correlation? I think you mean anomaly. Just because one tiny set of data match up over thousands of years means sweet FA.

          Oh...and the other "argument" that the time studied is too short is just suicidal. Kyle wants us to gather another eon of data before a conclusion can be made...genius. Science extrapolates all the time. We know whats happening and why. People who have a cognitive disconnect with climate sciences conclusions must have massive egos to deny the findings of thousands of superbly trained scientists globally which they dismiss as easily as the footprint of 7 billion humans.

        I have seen a chart similar to the one above (for a trustworthy source :) )which shows the past 1000 years historical temp anomaly but back much further, in no way is the sharp rise to 2004 out of the ordinary.

          Also, many scientists knew for a fact the Easrth was square at one stage, and it was the observations of a few that smashed that theory.
          The comment that someone mentioned, where if you question the data or the conclusions, you are ridiculed....too true. It feels like a massive cult, and if you are not in it, you don't count.

      Yeah? Are you ok with the pollution levels, the rise in sea levels, the encroachment of forests - damaging natural habitats?

      It's not who is causing is the climate change, it's what you are doing about it. Saying that, meh.. this is natural, wont help coz nature will hit and it will hard..!

        I believe strongly that we humans should clean up our act. Environmental toxicity; habitat loss; threats to biodiversity; noise pollution - these are all problems that are known, measurable and solvable. A successful example is the banning of CFCs from aerosols.

        However these real, pressing issues are pushed out of the limelight by the "problem" of carbon "pollution" - something with a cause that remains indeterminate, and solutions which have no guarantee of working. When a single volcano eruption can output a century's worth of human atmospheric "pollution", I think we're better off concentrating on the things we actually can control like deforestation, overfishing and the disposal of toxic materials.

          Just to clarify Volcanologists and Climate Scientists have determined that the Icelandic Volcano produced about half the carbon that the European Airlines would of produced in the same time.

          The Myth that it produced anything like what you're saying has be debunked long ago (by again those dam scientists). Unfortunately (like it is here) it is still being propagated as fact.

            The icelandic volcano was a pipsqueak compared to the events that I was actually referring to, such as Krakatoa in 1883:
            and Mount Tambora in 1815:

            On a planetary scale, these eruptions are really nothing special, yet on human-relevant scales such as temperature in degrees Celsius, these single events are held responsible for global climate effects.

            What I'm saying is that even with all our industrial "might", any effect we *might* have had on the climate is dwarfed by an event which is - to the Earth - less significant than popping a pimple.

              Ok, I still have to disagree with the "any affect we *might* have" comment. I'll go with the 97% of Climate Scientists that believe in AGW (and the general understanding that carbon ppm plays a major part in earths average temp). But as you say a volcano or other cataclysmic event could cause an even greator change over a smaller time frame. But does that mean we don't try to bring human carbon ppm emissions down? Simply because a super volcano *might* do more damage anyway? Surely not.

                I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here. If Wikipedia is to be believed, the Krakatoa event caused a global average temperature drop of up to 1.2 degrees *in a single year*. Are you saying that that precipitous drop does *not* dwarf the feeble rise attributed to humans of 0.5 degrees over 100 years? Maybe I just read that wrong... :--D

                To be clear, Krakatoa was big but it was not a super volcano, at least as loosely "defined" in common usage:

                But yes, what I'm saying is not that humans can't be affecting the climate; nor that we should be inconsiderate about how we generate our power and fuel our lifestyles. Rather, I'm saying that for as long as Earth has an active mantle all it has to do is hiccup and we get another Little Ice Age. Or perhaps the Sun will hiccup and we'll get another global heat wave.

                My recommendation is that we clean up our act by focussing on the things that are 100% certain, 100% measurable and 100% solvable. Such things exist, and provide plenty of problems for scientists to solve and for the public to get behind. As I've said: environmental toxicity; deforestation and habitat loss; overfishing; noise pollution; mental health; biodiversity. Why don't they get any coverage? Because the "solution" to carbon "pollution" will create a new commodity, literally out of thin air, that will be immensely profitable for the same men who brought about the GFC. They have the ear of our politicians and the "economy vs. environment" battle is a great political football.

                  So I'll see you down at #OccupyMelbourne tomorrow?

                  I agree with alot of what you've said. Yes I agree that "the same men that brought us the GFC" have engineered the solution to simply create another industry through which they can (and will) exploit.

                  But I believe this guy is right:
                  And yes there are many other issues that science and the public should support. But we have 97% science agreement on this issue (that scientists consider one of the biggest) and can't get it accross the line. Although you say 100% regarding the issues mentioned, no doubt if it were brought to a similar discussion the figure will be similar to the AGW one and hence the discussion would be in the same position (science backseat, politics and money forefront).

      Exactly right. We've known for more than a century that greenhouse gases would probably cause warming. We see warming, strongly correlated with greenhouse gas emissions. We know the mechanism; we have the data, and we have ruled out all suggested alternative explanations. So you're right.

      Oh wait

      CO2 up = temp up. It's call physics mate.

        And / Or Chemistry :)

    To be honest, I think humans deserve this... A catastrophic event is the only solution. The worst thing that could happen to Earth is "Us."

    Sad but true.

    One point that most AGW zealots miss is that (rational) skeptics never argue that temperatures can't be rising; rather the argument is that the models relied on for making policy do not fit the measured data.

    Where a model does not fit the data, the model is wrong and its predictions should not be relied upon. This is a basic tenet of science, and it is ignored by AGW zealots to the detriment of everyone:

      +1. Further, (rational) skeptics do not argue warming is occurring, but rather the ridiculous policies enacted to try and curb it (looking at you, Australian Carbon Tax).

      What does this have to do with Apple, wait this is not an article about an iProduct what is it doing on Gizmodo?

    anybody else see the main pic and wonder what mozilla was up to these days when the clicked in?

    So, the baby boomers have basically got ALL the money and resources, they also now expect us to pay to fix their mistakes (carbon tax and so on) since most of them are retiring and have paid their "dues" in their eyes. This is on top of charging us rent on all those additional houses they own due the housing being affordable back then, while also charging us outrageous amounts for education (the banks use their money for loans) and expecting us to pay for their health care cost when they get older because they were too busy buying up our future to screw us??

    Yeah, that sounds fair.

    Someone mentioned what about the children?? Yeah, what about the children! No one was saying that when we were children!

    i think the graph CLEARLY demonstrates that apple is the cause of global warming.

    Wow, a lot of selfish people in here.

    A climate change denier can not be convinced by something as simple as science. They'll just invent new rationalisations to support their fantasy.

      A climate change advocate won't be deterred by something as simple as burden of proof. They'll continue to claim their hypothesis is proven to support their fantasy.

      See, insults work both ways.

        They've beaten proof requirements as a layman in these matters. Sounds simple enough to me. As humans advance, we've produced more polluttion which affects everything around us. These discussion remind me of the old and tired macro vs micro evolution debates, people who just don't get it keep parrotting on what they've heard vs scientists who can explain it being ignored.

        Not an insult: fact, of which your post is yet more evidence.
        I thank you for backing me up in this way sir. You are very kind.

    I'm no hippy, but I think the Climate Change debate is a bit null, having people argue over whether humans have caused it or not seems futile when most of the time both sides essentialy agree they don't like pollution and want something done about it. It just seems to me like two sides are heatedly arguing, when the solution is still us doing something about it. If its not destroying the climate its still destroying everything else.

    El guapo - while their is no argument about pollution there is an issue about what is a pollutant and what is the cost/benefit of "doing something" which may or may not have an effect.

    Personally I often despair that many real and resolvable (winnable) problems are not tackled as serious dollars and the people who might fight the wars are diverted into the policy battlefields of AGW.

    Good god - some of the viewpoints and arguments in these comments are like watching monkeys smack rocks together. Leave the science to people who understand it and shut your yaps if you don't. Just because you can voice an opinion doesn't mean you should.

    Everyone shut up. I read the comments at this site so I DONT have to hear this debate about climate change... which isnt real.

      Yeah, yeah, put your head in the sand. That's just what the irrational skeptics want you to do.

    the way i see it....a degree raise means ice melting point...

    ice melts...more turn raising the sea level sooner or later

    which in turn dangerous for coastal cities

    so it does matter

    I don't care what you all say, it's helps shrink the ammount of cloths women wear all across the world. Even where they can't show skin, I bet their naked under all those cloths.. sluts...

    *yawn* I'll be at the beach... oh even better... it'll prolly be closer to where I live... get me a margarita please...

    Has anyone bothered to put a graph of earths population against this graph. Try it and see how it fits.

    So Kristen, when are you posting again on Climate Change? :)

    What's interesting is the passion and even conviction readers of a "Technology site" have on this topic.

    Another interesting point; does this passion exist because AGW proponents are concerned there will be dire consequences if we do little (lots of people die). Conversely AGW skeptics are so passionate because there will be dire consequences if we do something (taxes, waste of investment etc causing some dramatic reverse in human advancement).

    2 words.

    Frog and Shit.

    Global Yawning is BS people.

      Compelling arguments, it's almost as if there is logic when there isn't.

    You can't eat like an Elephant and expect to shit like a mouse....

    My dad used to say that if the government could find a way to tax the air we breathe they would.

    And he was right.

    They are still using Dr Mann's discredited hockey stick, fox tail, call it a hockey puck if you like. The IPCC 1991 report included the Little ice age, and maunder minimum as a significant cold to warm event, the hockey stick curve discounts the values....

    When it comes to brass tacks, we havn't the faintest idea what the real temperature was at any point in history before 1714 (Farenheit scale invented) and organised recording of temperature was much much pater....
    All of the data "extrapolated" from sea sludge and ice-gas cores has many assumptions associated... The Computer modelling (Dr Mann is famous for his modelling expertise, put in garbage, get garbage out, put in what you want to see, and guess what you get))

    Temperature hay have risen 1 degree C since 1950, it may not have. You need to qualify, that this is THE land temperatures measured, not global temperature (most of the globe doesn't have thermometers stuck in its a_ _....
    Still, reducing pollution is a good thing, but how long can the world economies prop up spending money they don't have chasing phantoms no-one can seen...

    One of these days they will "Tax the air you breathe", oh its happening...

      People need some basic science and even more basic economics before they comment stupid crap. "how long can the world economies prop up spending money they don’t have chasing phantoms no-one can seen…"

      Simple answer is 'as long as there is energy' the world economies doesn't have any money. It's all made up. If I pretend spend $10 or $20 it all works in the economy so long as somewhere there is energy to support the system (food, power, resources etc).

      And stop saying it's a tax on the air we's not. It's a tax on fossil fuel based energy consumption... And if you seriously think that's ok and doing no harm then you are a lost cause.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now