In an amusing turn of events today, a scientific study funded largely by climate skeptics has shown that the established scientific consensus on climate change is, in fact, correct.
It comes as no surprise to Greenpeace that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) programme has found that the world is – wait for it – rapidly warming. The study puts them in agreement with what top climate-science institutions NASA and NOAA, and the University of East Anglia in the UK, have been saying for decades.
The programme – which was largely funded our favourite ‘1%’ oil billionaires the Koch Brothers – intentionally assembled a group of scientists from a range of positions on climate change, including many who had never worked on the issue before. This way, the scientific group could not be ‘biased’ towards reinforcing the existing consensus. The group also uses a new data-analysis methodology which is not only reliant on the small number of weather stations that have been able to provide consistent data over the long term.
The 39,028 weather stations which were used in the BEST study. The black spots are considered 'rural' and blue spots are 'urban'.
The deniers were hoping that this study would prove the oft-repeated, untrue, and misleading climate-denier claim: that the higher average temperatures observed worldwide have been caused by an over-reliance of readings based in cities, which suffer from the ‘urban heat island’ effect.
The story has been covered in The Economist, The Guardian, the BBC and the Washington Post, among many others.
Now let’s spread it through social media: please ‘like’ and share this post and news articles with your friends – especially anyone who is confused about the science.
Now that the scientific report deniers were once so eagerly anticipating has been publicly released, climate deniers are now desperately attacking the methodology – which, as the very best science should be, is totally transparent.
Temperature trends at a) all land-based weather stations and b) only rural stations. Both show a similar warming trend.
While the scientific peer review process is not yet complete, the astrophysicist in charge of the program, Richard Muller, has decided to pre-release the papers before publication, in order to get the broadest possible range of feedback.
It just goes to show – you can’t argue with the scientific method. You must test your hypotheses and act based on the outcomes. Greenpeace prides ourselves on basing our campaigns on the very best scientific and economic research, as well as honesty and integrity. After all – in climate politics as in our personal lives – those who are honest will be respected and supported in the long run.
You are reading Greenpeace’s Climate Rescue blog. This blog aims to demonstrate the progress made by the ever-growing movement of thousands of organizations who are working to create political change on climate change.
- Tweet the facts: an Energy [R]evolution is not just possible, it’s already happening.
- Greenpeace is proudly a part of the TckTckTck coalition.