| That's the project that was started by a physicist that didn't trust the numbers previously in the field, and basically called climate scientists amateurs, and set out to show them how they're all doing it wrong. What happened in the end was he just recapitulated exactly what climate scientists had been saying all along, so he had to trumpet "oh but it's never been done this precisely," just glancing over all the damage he had done to the credibility of the field with his completely unfounded doubt. Replication is great, and I'm glad Berkeley Earth is still at it. But we need to start holding people accountable for their predictions on this matter. If somebody is filled with unfounded doubt, why the hell should we listen to them until they've actually done the work to provide data? If you haven't even bothered to check sources but want to parade around how you think the data is untrustworthy, data which you haven't even sourced much less evaluated, why should we listen to such data-free and evidence free speculation that has proven to be wrong every time is has been evaluated? If somebody is skeptical of climate scientists at this point in history, it says a lot about their inability to evaluate technical matters and their ability to form unfounded opinion when there is no need for unfounded opinions. That reflects extremely negatively on the technical capabilities of a person. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth