Muller claims his 'statistical methods' prove man-made warming --'How definite is the attribution to humans? The CO2 curve gives a better match than anything else we've tried' email@example.com | Climate Depot
Climate Depot Response: 'Did your 'statistical methods' rule out the hundreds of factors that make up global temps? Did you rule out the Sun, volcanoes, tilt of Earth's axis, water vapor, methane, clouds, ocean cycles, plate tectonics, albedo, atmospheric dust, Atmospheric circulation, cosmic rays, carbon soot, forests & land use, etc.? Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, not just CO2, so please spare us your attempt at fingerprint modeling.'Quark Soup by David Appell: Stoat, Caldiera: BEST Results Nothing New
Stoat finds these new BEST results "rubbish" (by which he means the data analysis is nothing new, and the attribution claims not very scientific), calls Muller a "prima donna," and quotes Ken Caldiera via Romm:A Tale Of Two Countries : The Richard Muller GIGO Story | Real Science"I am glad that Muller et al have taken a look at the data and have come to essentially the same conclusion that nearly everyone else had come to more than a decade ago. The basic scientific results have been established for a long time now, so I do not see the results of Muller et al as being scientifically important. However, their result may be politically important."
So how did Richard Muller come to the conclusion that the world is heating up due and it is due to man-made CO2?
Simple : he used crap data from GHCN to generate the trend. CO2 must be very powerful stuff, as it appears to have corrupted the GHCN database. Garbage in, garbage out.