Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Skeptic Results Released Today
Irishman writes "A leading climate change skeptic, Richard Muller, will release results today showing that global warming is indeed happening. He has shown that two items skeptics look to, urban heat islands and unreliable weather stations, do not skew the data. The amazing part is that this research is funded by the Koch brothers, two investors who fund climate change skeptics whenever possible."
Huffington Post is about a week behind schedule on this. Slashdot story: http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/10/21/1239258/global-warming-confirmed-by-independent-study
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
How many more lines are left on the list? We've got past the "it's not warming at all" stage. So next up is "it may be warming, but it's not us" then "ok, it's us, but we can't/shouldn't do anything about it" and eventually "it was us but it's too late." What comes after that?
I doubt we'll see the editors report this rebuttal from one of the co-authors and a leading member of his "team"...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
10 MD
When will it drop. People like the Koch Brothers don't do something unless it grossly profits them.
Richard should therefore keep his head down. These aren't people that follow the path of reason, and there is a lot of money at stake.
So long as it's reported in the Daily Fail, I'd be inclined to ignore it too.
The skeptics I've read agree that temperatures have gone up. The questions are about models showing continuing rises, and what approach to take in dealing with it.
My concern is that we not exhaust the public's willingness to do something with approaches that will have almost negligible impact.
Indeed, Muller is such a skeptic that he has a business, "Muller & Associates" which advises companies and governments (for a small fee) on clean energy.
http://www.mullerandassociates.com/greengov.php
That's neither here nor there, since it has been widely demonstrated that if you actually plot his data, you will find that there has been no warming for the last ten years, contrary to the statements he has made to the press:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/29/uh-oh-it-was-the-best-of-times-it-was-the-worst-of-times/
Maybe this will show alarmists that it's not about denial but collecting enough evidence before assuming something.
Instead of making grandiose statements that the Koch brothers fund global warming skeptics "whenever possible", why not link to their official position on global warming and what we should/shouldn't do about it?
The previous news was that the research didn't find flaws in "mainstream" view of climate change being happening. The new news is that one of the most outspoken skeptics decided to change his views based on that... which doesn't always happen. Thus, these news are about a less important event but still an interesting and different event.
Now... the denialists on SlashDot are saying "Fine, CC is happening but we don't agree that humans cause it" which just boggles the mind. We have scientific proof that CC is happening and we know of the mechanics through which greenhouse gasses (to which human activity significantly contributes) increase heat in atmosphere. So, we *do* know that human contribute to the CC that we know to be happening.
The only thing left to argue about is how much do we contribute... 80%? 50%? However, I've not once seen a denialist argue "The mainstream claims that we contribute 80% but I think it's only 50% because of this evidence..." but instead it always seems to be "Ok, CC is happening but it's all because of sun spots!" or whatever... which is the reason why I call them "denialists".
The problem is that Richard Muller was never a global warming skeptic. He was talking about the "need to address man-made global warming" back in the 1980s. In 2008, he wrote a book,"Physics for Future Presidents", advising either John McCain or Barack Obama to prepare to address man-made global warming. This whole story is a fraud. The guy is claiming that he used to be a global warming skeptic, yet, he has been preaching Anthropogenic Global Warming pretty much as long as anyone.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Sadly, the neo-cons will scream that the dems have done nothing about it.
We've been warming for several thousand years. If we weren't, I'd be living under or on top of, a two mile thick sheet of ice.
The main debate is, is man causing the warming?
Obviously you made mistake, you cannot buy everything. Scientists are not like mindless media cheerleaders, you are used to.
839*929
This guy had some actual scientific doubts about global warming, he wasn't against it because it was what his "gut" told him, or because it was the party line, he actually had some reservations, which is what any good scientist should have, and wanted to do some more study. He did, and upon further investigation he had his doubts assuaged. This is the scientific process in action.
However, probably only 1% of the AGW are like this guy and are legitimately uncertain about the science and want to know more Most are like Glenn Beck or Rick Perry and don't believe in global warming simply because it is(for them anyway), politically and economically expedient to do so. They will of course evoke the word "science" as if somehow just using that word automatically gives credence to what they are saying, but those guys don't even have a basic grasp of climate science, or even the scientific method as a whole.
I remember one of the rabid right-wing blogs going crazy because a new paper had shed more light on a particular topic and thus they seemed to think that it somehow "disproved" all climate science.... BUT THAT IS HOW SCIENCE FUCKING WORKS! The beauty about the scientific method is that we are constantly getting a clearer picture of what is going on and increasing our understanding of how things work, and reversals of some research is inevitable AND a good thing. However, these people look at changing your beliefs in response to new information as an anathema, you must be ideologically pure and no amount of empirical data should ever change how you view the world.....
Anyway, getting back on topic, this data will not convince the 99% of the AGW whose beliefs about global warming aren't even remotely rooted in science, and so the dark ages in the US will continue.
Monstar L
"OK, maybe we are causing it. But are more banana thongs really a bad thing?
One of the co-authors of the paper, which by the way hasn't been accepted for publication, or peer reviewed, has attacked Muller for this. Judith Curry says it's nothing more than a pure PR operation, with no basis in fact. The actual data shows there's been no warming over the last 10 years, despite an increase in CO2. But Muller "hid the decline" in the graph that he published, by changing the scales on the graph to make it look insignificant, and use a 10 year average, thus cutting off the last 5 years of data. I know slashdot is astro-turfed by global warming cretins, but get your facts straight on this for once please.
J.Curry.
Their official position seems to support the idea that they have an agenda that would be in favor of supporting skeptics whenever possible.
Yup, people won't see it because any dissent from credentialed researchers invalidates the drum-beat of 'consensus!' The argument is closed forever, and any challenge makes you an ignorant redneck 'denialist'!
Whenever questions and dissent are not welcome you have dogma, not science.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Another researcher working on the same project seems to disagree. Judith Curry is the second name on the paper according to the daily mail and she's contesting the analysis of his own data as incorrect with some rather strong language.
Then again.... I'm an idiot.....
...... and idiots rule the world....
Instead of making grandiose statements that the Koch brothers fund global warming skeptics "whenever possible", why not link to their official position on global warming and what we should/shouldn't do about it?
Have a look at this summary of their activity and tell me their position is anything but skeptical. Not that there is anything wrong with that, they are self-proclaimed libertarians and as such are expected to be of the opinion that government has no place influencing the environment (or much of anything else) so it is natural that they will do whatever it takes to prevent public opinion from boiling over on this issue.
I am wondering, at this point, if Richard Muller isn't simply a very talented troll who agreed to take the Koch's money after presenting himself as a deep skeptic of climate change, only to turn around and use it to point out that the data was right all along.
She's accusing him of "hide the decline". ie. He shows continuing warming through the last decade whereas most credible analysis shows that the average global temperature hasn't warmed and may have cooled slightly.
Reading Slashdot arguments about climate change is one of my favorite things to do.
A Slashdot global warming discussion is like old people fucking. It's messy and not much gets accomplished.
You are welcome on my lawn.
On the said website:
Koch companies believe in the efficient use of all resources and are committed to maintaining a clean and healthy environment. But we also think there should be open and honest debate about climate change and the likely effects of proposed climate policies on the energy that drives the productivity of our society. In recent years, a vocal group of self-declared environmentalists has repeatedly insisted that our planet is in peril because of man-made greenhouse gases. Many take their cues from Al Gore’s 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,”...
Seems the new tack is to say that it happens after all, but all those who said so before are sensationalists and "so-called environmentalists"...
By the way, about Muller's turnaround: How to make yourself a reference in a field where you have no competence? First deny forcefully and get headlines, then say that after careful verification, you found out the truth. Don't forget to continue to berate the real scientists treating them as sensationalists!
And further by the way, the Koch brothers do fund denialists (not skeptical as they claim) research and are the funders (and true founders) of the Tea party.
Who modded the parent up?
Published position != Official position.
Their official position is simple: Do what ever generates the most revenue at the highest profit margin or positions the company to do so in the next quarter.
If that means lobbying to get emissions and safty regulations lightened, they will. If that means buying out other companies producing solar or wind generators, they will. What ever it takes to increase their income.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
Wow, the Koch Bros, the latest in a long line of liberal idiots' boogeymen. Gosh, if they were involved it must be *serious*.
Okay, the scientists agree/disagree that carbon/life is responsible for global warming/cooling. How about agreeing that we eliminate all the passible causes of the change first. Eliminate that hot ball of gas that shows up in the sky, Take away the atmosphere, and the water that hold the heat from the ball of gas, and see if the planet stays warm. If there is some warmth, eliminate the fissionables, and the flammables lastly. And whats left?
My problem with all the scientists, is they say to tax it out of existance. Too me, not logical. We need more carbon, for growing, people, plants and animals.
No for all his faults it seems that he is a Real Scientist, because changing your mind, when you have tested and confirmed your opponents position as true, is how science is supposed to work.
At the risk of being tagged "flamebait", I'm going to second this. It seems to be rather -unscientific- to snarkily jab at "investors who fund climate change skeptics whenever possible"; science needs research, and the more the better. True scientists are --BY DEFINITION-- skeptics, at least they should be. From the link posted above, it seems to me that the Koch brothers have a pretty rational mindset: research, research, research, research.
Besides, at 7 Billion mouth-breathers and doubling quick, if climate change is proven to be anthropogenic, we're screwed. There is no amount of "reduction" we could do at this point short of Logan's Run scenarios to rewind the damage (nor was there, by the time we were scientifically advanced enough to start to figure it out, the damage was already done).
Scott
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
There is much emotion and strong politics involved in CC.
I'm not a scientist nor trained in climate science. and find it hard to gather information that is neither too science heavy/too dispersed nor too politicised/emotional.
For the unitiated like myself, can the community recommend a book that can give good primer on where we are on CC, with compelling evidence of AGW?
All suggestions welcome.
I get it. He's getting people to look at his data by saying "I'm on your side" and then when they analyze his data they'll say "wait a second, he was right all along"...pure genius.
nothing of substance will happen, simply because there is no way to solve the main problem: an increasing hunger for energy from an increasing number of people.
We should continue to concentrate on air quality and fuel efficiency - i.e getting off of our foreign oil addiction AND lowering costs. If we do that, emissions that cause global warming will take of themselves.
Or to put it another way, some times I think global warming skepticism (from business people, at least) is a distraction from the real goal - to eliminate air quality regulation and allow industry to pollute indiscriminately.
Are we all clear on that now?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
What would it take to prove that climate change is caused by man?
Now that even the previously skeptical are finally admitting climate change is happening- how do we prove that man is responsible- what would it take?
To me it seems like evolution- where no matter how much evidence and proof we collect there remains those that keep on saying "well- I don't believe it so nah!"
Perhaps it isn't coincidental that those that deny evolution always seem to be the same ones that deny the impact man is having on the environment.
So- what does it take- what will it take to prove man is having an impact on the environment- or is this just one of those issues that no matter how much evidence we find- it will still be denied?
150 years from now, if my anti-aging drugs allow me to live that long- and I sit on oceanfront property in West Virginia- will the young whipper snappers that get on my lawn be thinking that global warming has nothing to do with man?
HOW DO WE CONVINCE YOU?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
This report has not been peer-reviewed, and no one should draw any conclusions yet. The "pre-publication" of this report is reportedly the work of the report's primary author; none of the co-authors were consulted. The Daily Mail is reporting that one of the co-authors, Prof Judith Curry, has even begun to distance herself from the report. I predict that nothing good will come of this pre-publishing gambit; this entire approach will confuse rather than clarify, and real science will bear yet another black mark.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
they are self-proclaimed libertarians and as such are expected to be of the opinion that government has no place influencing the environment (or much of anything else) so it is natural that they will do whatever it takes to prevent public opinion from boiling over on this issue.
That makes no sense. The environment is an externality (Tragedy of the Commons), without the government restricting or enforcing taxes based on the damage caused, it effectively allows businesses to take out loans that have to eventually be paid back by other people by dumping crap and wrecking everything (hey, more illness from poisoned water, food and air means more money being paid into the medical system! There's no way that could be a bad thing, right? Just think of all the jobs we can create by sending out people in hazmat suits with shovels to scoop up all the toxic sludge!).
...because Koch brothers are political hacks and don't deserve our careful review of their position. They also don't deserve apologists like you covering their asses.
Anybody can say whatever they want. If you want to see what the Koch's REALLY think, look at where they've spent their money.
I don't respond to AC's.
What they think:
Scientists are part of a global conspiracy by liberals to use junk science to force people to be tree huggers.
If that is true, its likely that you could BUY scientists by similar methods to get the results you want and the IMPACT of getting a big name (with liberal reputation) to say what you want would be huge!! So I can see how they thought this was worth the "investment" (plus they likely get a tax break for it.)
Its like they have no understanding how professional (especially academic) science works-- if they were bribed to do junk science it ruins their careers long term, where the only jobs they can keep would be industry related ones (like junk science think tanks) not to mention their status and reputation would go down. There are plenty of horrible ones out there but they rarely do stuff to wreak their career. We've got one over here who does illegal animal experiments who just pays the fines and continues-- the school unofficially supports him because his research looks good even though his methods are illegal. He could be a bugger and they'd be quiet.. until it hit the news, maybe then they'd have to do something.... sex scandals are all that seem to matter to people. (look at bush vs clinton)
Instead of making grandiose statements that the Koch brothers fund global warming skeptics "whenever possible", why not link to their official position on global warming and what we should/shouldn't do about it?
Why should the submitter include that statement? What useful information would it add? Why is this modded Informative?
The Kochs hate the idea of anthropogenic global warming. More accurately, they hate the idea that regulation to limit greenhouse gas emissions may cut into the profit margins of Koch Industries. They are doing everything they can to cast doubt on the research, including funding researchers like Muller whose research could call global warming into question. The public statement you linked to is entirely consistent with Koch's position.
I'm not sure why people would be skeptic of the warming trend. Are we not coming out of an Ice Age? I firmly believe we do need to enact lasting changes... but never should we believe for a second that we are "Saving the Planet" the planet will be fine and rebound regardless of what we do. The real slogan that should be used is "Save the life we are accustomed to" or "Save the Humans"
The only real effective change will come by altering consumption.
Quit calling it climate change, it's global warming. It always has been.
Has AGW been recognized as a religion yet?
In a recent story I mentioned that while I'm not convinced that everything being reported about AGW is true I do my best to protect the environment. However, this isn't enough for the AGW crowd. It's not enough that I do everything they think I should, I have to believe exactly as they do too. AGW "believers" are the new Evangelical Christians.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
You could consider proposing realistic remedies that do not involve massive restructuring of "rich" economies along the same lines that left-wing socialists have been proposing for the last hundred years. It's all too obvious that "climate change" is just another excuse to bring the revolution, and we're not buying it.
So they support peer review? Why are you against that?
Stern report says it'll cost 1% of all your money.
You spend more than that on beer you piss away, ferfecksake.
Quoting from the article "...we're proud to support this strong, transparent research" Implying that the original research by NASA and NOAA and other agencies world wide, and published in peer reviewed journals and subject to international critique was not strong and transparent?? Be honest Kochies, you just wanted a different answer.
What other people think of me is none of my business
1. BEST confirms what everyone knows, that the earth has warmed up over the last 150 years.
2. BEST apparently confirms that the warming has flat-lined throughout the last decade of rising CO2 emissions.
3. BEST states "the human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated"
All a little different from the headlines.
I really don't know how Muller got tagged as a skeptic of GW. He's criticized two pieces of bad science:
- the hockey stick that turned out to not be real, and
- the "hide the decline" part of the climate emails
In the second criticism he explicitly said the data show warming, and so scratched his head as to why people did the data hiding in the first place. His statement at the time was simple: "You can't do this in science."
This current stuff about the press release vs. proper review is annoying, but I respect Muller as a scientist enough that I'll take what he says seriously, even though I don't believe in AGW (or even GW for that matter).
If you don't like global warming, ignore it. Don't buy it or listen to it. Change the channel. Do something else instead.
Different strokes for different folks.
...humans are pillaging the world of resources. Call it global warming, Mayan predictions, Science or Total BS. It's only a matter of time before something big happens.
William Briggs has a slightly different take on this. He does statistics, so his post is about the error bars.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4564
See that "Preview" button?
That of a sudden the release of this data is linked to the fact that people like the Koch brothers will suffer just as much as the rest of us under global warming -- which I'm sure they have just recently cottoned to.
Don't presume there's any sudden great concern for the 99% coming out of these vapid clowns' activities. They are just looking after their own sweet asses, as always.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Already reported 10/21
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/10/21/1239258/global-warming-confirmed-by-independent-study
Two points:
1) "Shawn Lawrence Otto, author of the book "Fool Me Twice" that criticizes science skeptics, said Muller should expect to be harshly treated by global warming deniers. "Now he's considered a traitor. For the skeptic community, this isn't about data or fact. It's about team sports. He's been traded to the Indians. He's playing for the wrong team now."
Um, no. I'm a hardcore "denier" by eco-marxist standards, but I think his research is sound and (once it passes peer-review) will view this as reasonably conclusive. Warming is happening. Of course, one must be cautious about the terms one is discussing; eco-marxists since An Inconvenient Truth have trod a well-worn path in the field every time their assertions about AGW are criticized to busily shift the goalposts and claim "global warming is undeniable". I'm pretty certain that the 'denial' has been primarily about the A, not the GW bit.
2) "In a brief email statement, the Koch Foundation noted that Muller's team didn't examine ocean temperature or the cause of warming and said it will continue to fund such research. "The project is ongoing and entering peer review, and we're proud to support this strong, transparent research," said foundation spokeswoman Tonya Mullins."
I find the astonished response to this hilarious. I know it's nearly impossible for the left to believe that 'deniers' sincerely, genuinely want the truth. I look forward to seeing more OPEN, TRANSPARENT analysis into the causes of warming.
Personally I expect that what we'll find is that indeed, humans are contributing to warming, but that the impact is nearly trivial, certainly less than the 'static' in the input of natural processes.
-Styopa
In a Reuters article about world population hitting 7 billion, there is a reference to slowing growth, with the trend toward decreasing population in about 40 years. So maybe if we wait a few decades, the problem (and humans) will go away.
Because it's better to judge someone by their actions than by their words?
One of the things that sometimes people get confused about, is why it's-happening vs it's-not-happening seems to be, in US, divided along party lines. The people who preach the loudest that all the worlds' scientists are conspiring to deceive the public, just happen to be Republicans.
It's generally assumed the reason for this, is that Republicans are anti-science. This isn't a hard leap, since that group just also happens to be the one who says that we're not sure evolution happened, and that there currently exists an "alternative theory" to evolution (thus, both showing misunderstanding about what theories are, and also showing a distrust for observations -- that science gives us clues about reality).
I think there's more to it than that, though, and the above question, which makes a reference to how the earth is "supposed to be" shows it. Supposed by whom? Is the poster a druid who reveres nature itself? Or is the Earth supposed to be a certain way in accordance with a creators' plan?
Basically: yes. One of those two things or something like it: Mankind should not assert its will over nature/god/whatever_is_happening. And admitting that earth is going to become more expensive than it need be, implies "somebody's gotta do something" to make it less expensive (and that charge is what you actually hear most often -- that the motivation for the pro-it's-happening conspiracy is to justify their version of "do something").
As usual, though (the same situation happens with evolution denial), religious fundamentalists don't want to admit the very premise that all their fears rest upon. If they would just admit that they believe earth should not be deliberately terraformed to suit an agenda (whether it's an anti-nature agenda or an anti-pollution agenda doesn't matter), then they would also be able to admit that warming is happening, or for those who already have, admit that evidence suggesting why it's happening, need not be viewed as adversarial.
Republicans could then be viewed as both consistent and honest, at the price of being outed as mystics. But they just can't do it, which is hilarious, since they've long-ago been outed as mystics anyway. Republicans: we all know that you deeply and sincerely believe in things unseeable and unmeasurable. Everyone knows that you hold a "truth" which defies the powers of observation and every single person's individual experience. Please, just come out of the closet. Embrace your faith publicly. I don't just mean you should say "I believe Jesus died for my sins," I mean explicitly state that you believe all the connecting "facts," such as that Jesus got better after he was executed, that Moses really did part the red sea, and that the purpose of mankind and the earth is to execute God's plan instead of being a place where individuals execute their personal liberty. Come out and say the biggest part of your platform: that things are not as they seem, observations and experiences cannot be trusted to reveal the truth about reality, because truth can only come from within, through faith.
Do that and you'll still be hated, but it'll be a more respectful hate, because you'll be honest. And think about this: if you can't admit all of that, then are you really religious? If you're not sure God did all those things, then why the fuck are you implying that the "temperature the earth is supposed to be" is an ideal to strive for or that it's even worth wondering about?
What is it?
Bullshit!
Who favors it?
Hippies!
Who Opposes It?
Every scientist ever! And Jesus, and Families!
What we should do?
Nothing.
What we shouldn't Do?
Raise Taxes
From what I've read on your link, I think that sums up the Koch brothers position.
Have a look at this summary of their activity and tell me their position is anything but skeptical.
That's like saying "Go to harleymotodata.org" and then proclaiming you found hard proof that Harleys are the best.
We can't do that! Everyone keeps doing it, however!
If there's going to be a set of data that is reliable and provides useful, measurable results, we need to quit bickering and come up with a standard. Centralized data set that nothing enters into without being reviewed and reverse-logic checked more than once.
So they thought heat islands - a documented phenomenon - would taint the data. They then go on to show that heat islands *don't* cause problems with the data - that the warming trend is the same weather you include data from the heat islands or not. So why is there no difference? This would seem to be a critical question to answer if we really want to understand climate change.
The fact that the "Global Warming" (oh sorry, now it's "Climate Change" since Al Gore's P.R. folks sat around and came up with that as a more palatable term to use instead when speaking in public) crowd wants to call everyone else a "denialist" shows the amount of polarization on this topic.
I don't consider myself a "denialist" at all, yet I've never gone along with the propaganda coming from the camp advocating serious changes be made NOW to fix this "crisis".
I'm actually glad to read that Muller proved himself to be a legitimate scientist, willing to question the popular opinion of the present time until he could gather enough evidence of his own to make a decision -- and then wound up deciding he agreed with the popular opinion, despite that not being where his initial suspicions fell.
That's what science is all about!
There are really TWO things left to argue about here. One is, like the original poster said, "How much do we contribute?", and the second is, "What, if anything, makes logical sense for us to change if we want to turn this situation around?" The studies I've read about recently (albeit mostly summarized in articles in magazines like Newsweek) seemed to indicate that even if we could somehow stop ALL of our CO2 emissions tomorrow, we'd be looking at many hundreds of years before we'd see temperatures fall back into the "normal" range, globally. That tells me it's pretty illogical to make costly changes in our behavior in a hurry. How about continuing to develop better and more efficient forms of alternative energy, while not blowing billions of dollars on government mandated changes prematurely? Today's solar panel of cost X and efficiency Y will surely cost much less than X with more efficiency than Y if we hang on another 5-10 years to let technology advance. (When the latest, greatest CPU comes out, do you recommend that all computer users rush out and buy one? Or to perhaps make a closer analogy to our Federal govt. and its energy policies -- Do you make a law requiring all computer users to upgrade immediately, since this new CPU uses less wattage per line of code processed? No! You let the early adopters and "edge case" customers buy it at full price, and everyone else waits a little while for it to trickle down to a more sensible price-point for them!)
Big corporate backers play both sides often. Just because its the Koch brothers doesn't mean its not meant to keep the scam going. Solindara!
The last thing we need right now is to give our tax money to big energy corporations to indefinitely "research" new ways to screw us.
You've skipped over one point we'll have to travel in the narrative. . .
But he didn't change his position. He has been on record for 50 years as a believer of AGW. It seems a lot more like he just lied to the Koch Brothers who failed to do a background check on him before writing a check.
"What would it take to prove that climate change is caused by man?"
The earth has been warming and cooling for billions of years. To prove this has been caused by man, have the guy who went back in time to start that process come to my house.
Any moron can do 2 seconds of research to learn about these climate change cycles. You can also easily find evidence that man, along with every living thing on this planet, has some effect on the earth and its climate.
The trillion dollar question: what changes can the earth not sustain? I always hear the conspiracy theorists point to melting of the polar ice caps. Ice has been freezing and melting for billions of years - there is no hills within 100 miles of my house as proof. Guess what? The earth is still here. Real science will find what changes cannot be sustained by earth, not reproducing experiments that prove nothing.
... your still lying.
Lying, cheating climate 'scientists' caught lying and cheating again. http://is.gd/JeNnWJ
newton62 (56617) Karma: Bad
His co-author says he's full of it, and the results do not match the headlines.
I mean really, thats the level of your argument. Because A can be caused by B then there's no chance C could ever cause it, in fact C can't exist. So I guess those guys in check shirts with a chainsaw must all be off to a chippendales gig.
I am a skeptic.
This does not mean that I deny climate change blindly; or at all. Please stop assuming that it does.
The true skeptic - and I consider myself such - requires adequate scientific PROOF of a claim before believing that claim. I am a climate change skeptic because I do not believe that proof to have been offered adequately at this point.
I fully believe in climate change, to be quite clear. The evidence obviously shows it happening.
I believe that we, by which I mean the human race, are having an effect on it.
I remain unconvinced by the preponderance of evidence presented that we are the major cause, or one of the most significant causes.
In the words of Tim Minchin (and I'll give you two quotes):
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
"Show me that it works, and how it works and I will change my mind."
I feel that global warming hysteria is generally a matter of faith, not belief.
I am a skeptic. Do not call me a denier. Do not call me a person of blind faith. Leave all of your dirty name calling, your ad hominems at home. Too many climate change debates are he said,she said. Too many of them are about blind faith and blinder insults.
We are talking about science, ladies, gentlemen and undetermined, so let's act like we are.
The right to offend is central to the right to free speech.
Care to show the proof of these non-trivial damping effects?
How about linking to their cooked PR drivel we judge them on their actions?
Where, specifically, has he stated that he can still detect warming if he throws out all of his data except for the last 10 years?
You can't detect warming if you only look at data for the last 10 seconds. So what?
Nobody cares if there has been warming over the past 10 years; they care whether there is a long-term warming trend that will continue into the future, as predicted based upon the known effect of atmospheric CO2 on the radiative equilibrium of the earth.
Yes, if you throw out enough of your data, you can always find a period short enough that you can't detect the predicted warming trend even if it is there. So what? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Climate models even tell you how much data you need to be able to reliably detect the predicted warming trend, which turns out to be about 15 years.
At the risk of being tagged "flamebait", I'm going to second this. It seems to be rather -unscientific- to snarkily jab at "investors who fund climate change skeptics whenever possible"; science needs research, and the more the better. True scientists are --BY DEFINITION-- skeptics, at least they should be.
this is where the rift between skeptics, deniers, and true believers come into play. A true skeptic is someone who looks at the evidence and can be convinced by it. A true believer is someone who believes despite the lack of evidence, and a denier is someone who cannot be convinced by a reasonable amount of evidence. The real argument is about whether AGW opponents are "skeptics" or "deniers".
From the link posted above, it seems to me that the Koch brothers have a pretty rational mindset: research, research, research, research.
Of course they also suggested that the EPA should base it's policies on opinion polls, and neglected to mention any scientists other than those who made statements that could be used in defense of the denial position. So the position should be more like "research until the answer comes up X".
Besides, at 7 Billion mouth-breathers and doubling quick, if climate change is proven to be anthropogenic, we're screwed.
I am trying hard to maintain my composure here. You just spent a paragraph discussing why we should continue to question AGW until it is 100% undeniable, and now you claim it is too late to do anything about it. How is it that you don't know if it's happening, but you do know it's too late? And if we are screwed, do you know who is to blame? Maybe it is the people who keep saying "don't bother doing anything about this potential threat until we know for certain that it will kill us". I know that laying blame doesn't help, but this whole thing comes off as fifty years of actively opposing any attempt to mitigate a risk, followed by the claim "hey, I'd like to do something, but some jackass has been stonewalling us for fifty years!"
There is no amount of "reduction" we could do at this point short of Logan's Run scenarios to rewind the damage (nor was there, by the time we were scientifically advanced enough to start to figure it out, the damage was already done).
Again, let me ask, how do you know this?
I guess ever since CERN validated the results of a Danish study proving the causal effect of cosmic rays on cloud seeding, and the causal effect of the Sun's level of activity (and magnetic field) in regulating the cosmic ray flux in the upper atmosphere, we'll just have to lump CERN (a truly scientific organization as opposed to the IPCC lobbying group) in with the "fringe" that knows that climate change is not affected in a major way by human activity.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/09/02/lawrence-solomon-our-cosmic-climate/
http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/CLOUD_SI_press-briefing_29JUL11.pdf
This isn't a two-sided issue where you can divide people into "mainstream scientists" and "climate skeptics".
The original statistical analysis of warming temperatures was deeply flawed. Saying that doesn't mean people necessarily denied that warming was happening, simply that the data didn't show it. Muller reevaluated the data and found that the warming trend was real. Given that the data had been looked at many times, that doesn't surprise anybody.
That means very little, however. Most people labeled as "climate skeptics" don't really care about that data to begin with. There are still fundamental questions about whether the warming it shows is relevant to global warming and whether it is related to CO2 emissions. More importantly, many people think the warming trend it shows doesn't matter, or that it is not preventable anyway, or that it is even beneficial. Those objections are not addressed at all by this data or reevaluation.
Personally, I agree with almost all the scientific findings in the IPCC report, and I still say we should take no action on global warming because there is no effective action we can take to prevent it. Temperatures are going to rise due to continued CO2 emissions, sea levels are going to rise, and we should just deal with the consequences.
Wow, you really are an uninformed asshole aren't you: Origin of popular usage of "climate change" instead of "global warming".
That's what politics is all about!
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
Yes, the real question is "how much?". That's the only valid question remaining and arguably the only one that ever really mattered. Along with it though, is the ancillary "How much is too much?" question. Alas, climate science is far from settled on the effects, near and long term, on the environment of an n% increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Some models indicate a more-or-less linear correlation. Others indicate that there is a very delicate balance that, once tipped, leads to a cascade of events that lead to profound changes in climate. Two things are certain - science has established a correlation between climate change and atmospheric CO2 and the rate of rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration presently being observed has never been remotely approached for at least as far back as ice core sample analysis can determine - about a half-million years.
Place your bets, please.
Personally, I think humans contribute nearly 100% to the current warming trend. I also think that doesn't matter.
Well, and I have not once seen a sound argument for (1) why we should prevent global warming, and (2) how we are going to achieve that.
The fact that, all things being equal, continued CO2 emissions will cause global warming and sea level rise is not a sufficient argument to do anything. The climate is so variable that anthropogenic warming is as likely to be beneficial as it may be harmful.
Have a look at this summary of their activity and tell me their position is anything but skeptical.
OK. Their position is anything but skeptical. I don't believe that they give a rat's ass about the science or it's findings. On the other hand, they care a whole lot about the impact of those things. So they spend a great deal of money promoting "skepticism" (frightening the drooling, knuckle-dragging, dullards who vote) in order to minimize that impact. Granted, that's a rather fine distinction, but all the more worthy of our consideration. All the sound science in the world is worth little in the machine of policy formation if the Koch's and their peers can buy enough public opinion to keep their stocks from getting crushed by environmental regulation.
I don't consider myself a "denialist" at all, yet I've never gone along with the propaganda coming from the camp advocating serious changes be made NOW to fix this "crisis".
I'm actually glad to read that Muller proved himself to be a legitimate scientist, willing to question the popular opinion of the present time until he could gather enough evidence of his own to make a decision -- and then wound up deciding he agreed with the popular opinion, despite that not being where his initial suspicions fell.
That's what science is all about!
Noone considers themself a denialist. It's derogatory. It implies you're sticking your fingers in your ears, screaming "I can't hear you!"
However, you continue to label studies which are now confirmed by sources you trust as "propaganda".
You're absolutely right that science is about making informed decisions, based on what you *know*. It's not science to believe everything you hear. It's also nost science to believe that everything your hear is propaganda, and every scientist backing a certain point of view are conspiring against you.
Psst, David Rose makes stuff up and should not be trusted to accurately report anything. Sadly Judith Curry didn't know the bloke's reputation before speaking to him, and you probably didn't know his reputation before posting the link.
Now you know:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/dec/08/david-rose-climate-science
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/#more-5526
Doubling? No. You have some catching up to do. 80% of the global population has(will soon) flat line/d. Narrowly focused programs can reach the remaining 20% e.g. central/south africa.
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_7.htm
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
Ok i have a stupid question.*
There is a lot in the news today about about how the 7 Billionth person has been born. This got me thinking. According to Wikipedia** there were around 2 billion people on the planet in 1925. i know that correlation does not equal causation, but i can't help but wonder if those extra 5 billion people standing around have warmed things up a little (irrespective of them burning stuff) and go some way to the extra degree seen on some of the charts***
As i said, just a thought. No doubt it has occurred to those smarter and more focussed on this than I but was wondering if stuff like that was factored into models...
* Ok, so i believe that no question is truely stupid, so here i go
** ok, so wikipedia is not the most definitive source of information, but i'm guessing that it is about right (ish)
*** Just looking at the ones on the Mail link and taking them at face value again (probably not wise)
Here is the co-author condeming the very article you are linking to! http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/#more-5526
There are really TWO things left to argue about here. One is, like the original poster said, "How much do we contribute?", and the second is, "What, if anything, makes logical sense for us to change if we want to turn this situation around?"
Mod this guy up.
Two very good questions that I have yet to see reliably addressed, or until now even asked.
It seems many think we should go all out. In this economy I can't go along with anything that will drastically raise energy costs as many people simply can't afford it. There goes going all out as a logical choice.
History shows that technology will advance and get better and cheaper over time. So my first question is how much time do we have? My second question is what can we do now that won't push over a breaking point yet extend the time we have?
I have noticed on several road trips lately that there are many more windmill farms out there now than there were 5 or 8 years ago, so I would project that the second question is already in part or in whole being put into effect, even if only slowly or behind the scenes.
Lets also see some modern nuclear power plants. How many have we had built in this country in the last few decades? The technology has advanced, just because we haven't taken advantage of it doesn't mean we can't now. Once the facilities are paid off nuclear power is among the cheapest and most reliable forms of power we have available to us, and that is what people really want.
Curry has taken to her blog "To set the record straight"
In her post Curry criticizes how media outlets have sensationalized and distorted her views:
If you read the post you see that her disagreements with Muller are disagreements entirely about the interpretations and connotations of Muller's remarks, and not at all about the data. Curry goes out of her way to defend the integrity of her colleague and she's probably pissed off at the dailymail for trying to stir-up resentments.
10 years is nothing in terms of global climate change.
Yes there is a flattening in global ground surface temperature over the last 10 years.
The study did not look at water temperatures.
What has happened over the last 10 years is that the bottom of the ocean has started turning over. This brings cold bottom of ocean water to the surface. This has a cooling affect on the land, but a warm affect on the sea. We are now seriosly affecting the majoritu of the globe - oceans and not just the land.
Consider how much energy it takes to warm air. What we have been measuring so far. And what it takes to warm water.
The Economist estimates 2% of global GDP to meaningfully cut emissions. (By comparison, the 2008 round of bank rescues cost about 5%)
Nobody know what the cost of adjusting is, because we don't know what scale of the change will be. If the changes are less than 2 degrees, that's likely to be tolerable. ON the other hand, some of the worst case predictions are very, very bad for human civilisation.
This uncertainty is being used to encourage inaction when the opposite is true: any sensible approach to risk management would suggests taking reasonable action to avoid it.
Everyone keeps linking to The Daily Mail as if this is a reputable source of information. This is a far greater conspiracy than anything claimed around climate change.
I thought the main disagreement was about how much of climate change is caused by people, not whether or not the climate change is actually happening. Sounds like a classic straw man to me...
Or to put it another way: "Whenever someone says anything I instinctively agree with, the only possible reason for anyone else to disagree with them is because they're corrupt."
Yeah... This guy is no "skeptic".
True. He's not a "skeptic". He's a skeptic. He's skeptical of things which it makes sense to be skeptical of, where serious questions lay, and not so skeptical of things where all questions skeptical scientists have asked have been answered.
He is, like all true skeptics, just as skeptical of his own ideas as he is of the ideas of others.
For instance he was skeptical as to whether questionable weather balloon data, and the urban heat island effect, had been properly accounted for in other analysis. This could, hypothetically, drastically change the results. While a "skeptic" would then say "therefore all IPCC data is invalid and AGW is a sham", Mueller, being an actual skeptic, wanted to actually find out if his idea was correct. And was willing to contemplate that he was wrong.
I'm sorry that this isn't the kind of "skeptic" you wanted. I'm sorry that we can't find someone who is as biased as you want them to be in the direction you want them to be, but who is also in tune with what actual weaknesses in climate science exist and who is ready to accept that it is possible they themselves are wrong, not just that prevailing climate science is wrong. Sorry if you feel lied to that it was claimed he was a GW Skeptic, which is true, but not for the definition you wished.
Nevertheless, this is the kind of skeptic we need. This is the kind of skeptic who helps. Because instead of trying to "balance" bias (even though he does, around the real fulcrum of the scientific debate), his results help to eliminate bias. The question is not: Does the bias match or go against the results. The question is: Was the science done properly, so that bias was eliminated as much as possible.
That question is what Mueller was skeptical of. This is more evidence that the science was done properly.
You don't seem to believe that, because Mueller wasn't biased the way you wanted him to be. But the fact is that his results did go against his preconception and biases. So if that's what you care about, then you should pay attention to his results.
The enemies of Democracy are
You have falsely equated peer review with denialism, two things that couldn't be any more different. Nobody should take you seriously.
The episode of The Daily show where this was covered is truly awesome. This news is covered and then there is an epic segment on "Science" where a Republican strategist is interviewed. Starts at about 6:00 in. It's frightening.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-october-26-2011-lisa-randall
Oops, forgot to log in, I posted this anonymously by accident earlier. The episode of The Daily show where this was covered is truly awesome. This news is covered and then there is an epic segment on "Science" where a Republican strategist is interviewed. Starts at about 6:00 in. It's frightening. http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-october-26-2011-lisa-randall
20 yrs of data means nothing in geological time frames.
Real scientists know this.
That doesn't mean that the Earth isn't actually warmer, it just means that we need 200 yrs of data to prove it on realistic timescales.
Our 20 yrs of measurements is like saying that a human fart causes warming inside the house where it is released for 2 seconds. Without an hours worth of temperature data proving the impact of a single fart on temperature, that fart means nothing.
Further, the save-the-world people claim that any warming is due to human effects. This is what I have an issue with. Prove it. BTW, you cannot until "it is too late".
The Earth has never stopped changing and humans aren't going to be able to stop it either. Flooding happens. Snow happens. Droughts happen - all regardless of what we do or do not do.
Save the planet? It isn't going anywhere. If you want to save the humans, say that instead. The planet will be here after we're long gone.
The Earth is a death trap already. All life here will be wiped out eventually. There are a number of reasons why this will happen - 3 off the top of my head:
* Sun becomes a red-giant and expands into Earth's orbit.
* Gamma rays from a far off supernova will be pointed towards our solar system and kill everything currently alive.
* Some space object will hit the Earth and blow so much dust into the atmosphere that the Sun can't be seen for years and all plants, then animals, then humans die.
After all but the 1st disaster, the Earth will still be here, just without us.
HOW DO WE CONVINCE YOU?
There is no doubt that the Earth's average temperature is indeed rising.... but so are the temperatures measured on the surface of Mars, and temperatures detected via astronomy methods on the rest of the planets in our solar system. The Sun's output is increasing... quite a bit too.
Therefore I am far from convinced that the "Global Warming" is solely the product of manmade greenhouse gasses being pumped into the atmosphere, because if that were true, the planetary temps in the rest of the solar system would not be rising in the same proportions as the Earth has been warming up.
Now, are greenhouse gases going to end up exacerbating the problems related to global temperature rise? Quite possibly true. But I have severe doubts that anything we do to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and deforestation are going to significantly lessen the coming problems of climate change. Even if we immediately ceased all industry now, cold turkey, it will not make a dent in the climate impact that is going to happen as a result of our Sun's constant progression into the next phase of it's stellar lifecycle.
This planet is eventually doomed no matter what.
Yeah who modded the parent up they don't agree with you and your world view. Down with all dissent and differing opinions how dare anyone disagree with your majesty.
...that Professor Muller may have slanted the findings (and certainly his public statements) about the level of agreement in this report. Turns out that *several* of the report co-authors (Dr. Curry being the most prominent) have many problems with Muller's statements, and don't agree with his publicly stated "this proves global warming is real" mantra at all.
Another example of what occurs when the global monolithic myth-media is spewing forth crapola (6 major corporations control the majority of the world's news), just like the American monolithic myth-media.
Like does anyone with a functioning mind really give a rat's ass?
The entire problem is that ... he's not ACTUALLY a skeptic, never has been. Has many public quotes (and published books) showing he firmly believes in global warming.
Just because you call him skeptic to support your agenda, doesn't make it true, nor does it mean anyone else is going to believe it.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
You've been around slashdot for a while, you should know that commenting on any post that uses a phrase like 'mouth breathers' isn't worth the effort. That sort of arrogance without intelligence isn't going to listen regardless of what you say.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Exactly right. I'm one of those who simply doesn't know whom to believe. It doesn't seem inherently unreasonable to me that the average global temperature could be getting warmer or that humans could be a significant factor. But every time someone starts shouting, "Denier! Denier!" I just stop listening to them. In fairness, however, the same is true of those who shout "Alarmist! Alarmist!" of which there are also many.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Once we see everyday suffering and widespread famine in the USA, most of the remotely rational people will be convinced. There will *always* be a contingent who are unwilling to believe that their lifestyle contributed somehow to all this suffering, and that if they'd lived a less-wasteful life, their children and grandchildren wouldn't be so screwed.
I think the dividing line will be when the time comes for the USA to invade Canada. After they've diverted all the water the Canadians are willing to sell, and imported as much food as they can afford from the more-productive land up there, eventually a point will be reached where either people start starving in New York, or the USA annexes the southern part of Canada. When we reach that point, anyone without a religious or other ideological objection to climate change will be convinced.
My guess would be that even at the current status quo, it'll take probably until near the end of this century for the chickens to come home to roost. A lot of that depends on China, of course.
Actually the only thing Judith Curry has been "distancing herself" from is that piece of trash article in the Daily Mail. Look at what she wrote on her blog. It's clear that she holds the highest opinion of her colleagues and she looks forward to seeing the impact of her work.
The Koch brothers keep hiring people to prove them right that global warming is a hoax. Yet, they keep failing miserably.
But, after the 10th or so report you've sanctioned, don't you think it's about time to read the writing on the wall!?!?! WTF is it with the ultra-rich elite that just try to change the rules when people don't agree with them?!?! These people get so fucking deluded in their greed that they will blow the entire wad trying to prove their points. Insanity.
Can't change the rules on this one boys. Mother Nature does not give a fuck about you. Thank God!
Koch Industries is just another Corporate Criminal. The US is run by them.
Until the aristocracy are negatively impacted by climate change, there will be no real progress made.
When it is time to do something to repair the damage, you can bet it will be the middle and lower class tax dollars that get spent on it, too.
To avoid manning up and admitting that you were wrong. unless you are just a typical corporate whore who will say anything as long as you can line your pockets.
that you are not interested in the truth are we free to ignore your blather as that of a spoiled little child?
The Tea Party has no founder. And they aren't deniers or skeptics of the fact that the climate is changing. The disagreement has always been on the cause of climate change. Man-made or just cycles of nature.
he did what his corporate masters wanted, then you would support him 100% as it would allow you to continue to deny the truth for your own personal benefit.
Or are we calling "climate change" this week. It's so hard to keep up.
Let's assume for the moment that:
- The Earth is warming.
- Global warming is bad for us.
- The primary cause is human produced CO2.
Let's now talk about solutions. Let's talk about solutions that people can support even if they are skeptical of global warming. I propose nuclear power.
Nuclear power has the lowest carbon footprint of any electric power source save hydroelectric. Nuclear power is a power source that we can produce ourselves, that means jobs. I seem to recall a few mentions of unemployment problems in this country on the radio lately. It also means that "electric" cars are no longer powered by coal. (I have to wonder how much carbon is really saved in a coal fired electric vehicle vs. a similarly sized and equipped gasoline or diesel fuel powered vehicle.)
Nuclear power should appeal to the economists not only because of domestic jobs but also because it means less money shipped outside our borders for energy that we could be producing ourselves. It could also mean another export for the USA, those wires that ship electricity in from Mexico and Canada could just as easily carry the current the other way.
Nuclear power should be something the peaceniks enjoy as it provides a means to turn those nuclear warheads into cheap and clean energy. Using a modern design the reactors could not be used to breed more fission material that can be weaponized. Modern reactor designs should also make the environmentalists even more happy because these can burn the "waste" from the old reactors.
Without coal or nuclear power we'd have to resort to some very expensive, and typically unreliable, energy sources like wind and solar. That would mean energy prices would triple and drive our economy into the ground.
Give me a solution to this (supposed) problem of global warming that does not involve raising my taxes, reducing my freedom, and generally growing government. Just get the government out of the way of nuclear power development and the problem will solve itself. I see too many watermelons telling me how to live my life, people with a "red" socialists/communists core wrapped up in a "green" environmentalist shell.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Published position != Official position.
Actually, the way I prefer to phrase it is: "What's public is 'position'. What's private is 'policy'".
Don't look at what they say. Look at what they spend their money on.
I think the term "denier" can reasonably be applied to people who are in denial about any well established fact. The psychological concept of being in denial dates back at least to the work of Sigmund Freud and predates the not only holocaust denial but the holocaust itself.
Many people who are in denial would prefer to be called "skeptics," but what distinguishes them from true skeptics is that while they are doubtful of every detail of evidence that is unfavorable to their preferred view (and the history of the temperature record is an excellent challenge, with people continuing to reject the evidence for warming even though it has been independently replicated over and over), they become absolutely credulous with respect to any claim that seems to prop up what they wish to believe (for example, the same people who are so "skeptical" of the extensive evidence of warming here on earth will turn around and assert that Mars or Pluto is warming, even though the evidence for that is far, far more tenuous).
...why not link to their official position on global warming and what we should/shouldn't do about it?
My favorite bit is: "Others agree that warming is occurring, but they question whether it is anthropogenic -- that is, caused by human activity"
The implication here being that, if man didn't cause it, then man shouldn't bother trying to fix it. I can't wait until we discover an asteroid on track to collide with the earth, and the Koch brothers say "Meh... WE didn't cause that asteroid, so we're off the hook for diverting it."
There are plenty of things occuring in nature in tiny concenterations that doesn't do shit, there are more of those than those that matter moderately and certainly by far exceeding those that have enormous effects.
CO2 being a mostly nonreactive, mostly transparent gas being subject to depletion by negative feedback cycles is of course the destroyer of worlds due to some reverse-pants on head feedback, not because someone proved it, but because someone proved something unrelated and then said it, and in some bizzare twist of childrens-game-turned-world-politicis he said everyone who disagrees lies and started the world biggest shitstorm.
If I said gravity causes cancer, i'd probably get a more civil debate not to mention have more reasonable arguments to present.
"The studies I've read about recently (albeit mostly summarized in articles in magazines like Newsweek) seemed to indicate that even if we could somehow stop ALL of our CO2 emissions tomorrow, we'd be looking at many hundreds of years before we'd see temperatures fall back into the "normal" range, globally. That tells me it's pretty illogical to make costly changes in our behavior in a hurry. "
To make the thrust of your argument more clear lets use the analogy of you being the driver of a car. In the front seat with you is your family, in the back seat are your banker, who holds the note on your car, and the CEO of your auto insurance company. You are doing 80 miles an hour and you are a few hundred feet from a brick wall that you will hit if you don't stop. According to your argument there is no point in taking your foot off the accelerator or hitting the brakes because to do so may prove costly. The reality is that trying to establish what the "sensible price point" is after you hit the wall is largely irrelevant once you have killed everyone in the car is rather meaningless.
Funding researchers to confirm or deny scientific theory is considered "denialism?" Please tell us how the scientific process works if not through validating or debunking others' theories.
No please, go on, assuming your handle doesn't describe your world-view.
"Now... the denialists on SlashDot are saying "Fine, CC is happening but we don't agree that humans cause it" which just boggles the mind.
Thats pretty much what we 'denialists' have always said"
Liar. No. You haven't. You DENIED it was happening at all, at first (and yes, I include YOU because YOU included yourself in the set: deniers).
"rather than having your head up someones ass saying 'they are right and you are wrong because we're louder!'"
Funny, that's the level of discourse I've come to expect from you 'deniers'. It's CERTAINLY not because there's science on your side. The vast majority actual scientists in the field think you are crazy.
"Science has SOME theories suggesting what you say, no proof."
Except all the data presented by, you know, people who study the climate. I'm sure that YOU have rejected it all though, because 'people like yourself who hasn't actally looked at the research, you've just picked a side.'
"No, you call us denialists as an insult and a way to degrade our opinions in the eyes of others. Its basically the same thing as me call you a moron. The difference is, I'm clear that I'm calling you an idiot, you're just a passive aggressive ignorant little lacky for politicians."
No. You are a lying, fuckheaded tool that gets your information from Fox news. Clear? Good.
"I'm a 'denialist' and I can safely say that you have absolutely no fucking clue why we 'denialists' are so."
Oh, that's easy. You are lazy and cowardly, with no sense of responsibility past yourself. You choose to believe what you do in the face of the presented data because your faith in politics over science means that you can feel good about ignoring the problem until it's too late, and you don't really care about anyone but yourself. The only rights you care about are those you personally choose to exercise, the only duty you feel is to your Party, and to you the highest virtue is venality.
In short: Fuck you. You - you PERSONALLY - are a shining example of what's wrong with the human race.
"The amazing part is that this research is funded by the Koch brothers, two investors who fund climate change skeptics whenever possible."
Something tells me they aren't going to be funding Muller's research anymore
Seriously, for all the deniers bitching about lack of peer review, like Anthony Watts, how many of them ever publish peer reviewed literature? None of them. They just post "skepticism" on their fucking blogs and help write position papers for Washington DC PR flacks.
Yes Muller's paper can, should, and will be peer reviewed. But don't fool yourself into thinking that any of the deniers are going to change their minds once the paper has been through the peer review process. None of them give a shit about peer review. The deniers are scared because they know the potential of this paper to shift the public dialogue in global warming debate. They are throwing everything they can against the paper and praying that something sticks. This is the same reason that they are distorting the remarks Muller's colleague Professor Jane Curry. They desperately need a reason to preserve their disbelief.
The earth is getting warmer or colder or staying about where is has been for 10,000 years...The issue is not about climate change. The issue is using climate change to impose more control over people, accrue power and influence to particular interest groups. Lets consider these 2 statements: 1) The climate is changing, lets change the climate. 2) The climate is changing, lets work to adapt to that change. For all you darwinists out there, which options seems to be more inline with successful life strategies....As/When the climate changes, we will need every bit of our industrial, technical capacity to successfully adapt.
The IR absorption of CO2 is less than that of water vapor. The initial results of this measurement, in the 1970s, due to an error, showed the reverse, which led to the idea of "global warming". Al Gore was a visiting scholar at UCSD at the time, and heard those results, and has used it to pad his political career ever since. The prof who reached those results, fixed the error, publicly announced the new results (on local TV no less). But it was too late. The damage was done and the global warming hoax has been continuing ever since.
Anyone, and I mean *anyone* who understands the science of the climate, knows that given the ratios of CO2 to water vapor in the atmosphere, the fact that the IR absorption of CO2 is less than water vapor means that attempting to prevent (or cause) global warming by controlling CO2 emissions is an asinine idea.
Thus, whenever someone talks about Global Warming as real phenomena, or about CO2 as being part of the cause, you know they have rejected (or are ignorant of) science and are following a religion that has grown out of this politically motivated lie.
This is why you find that "climate gate" numbers were manipulated . This is why you cannot get global warming proponents to put forth a falsifiable theory. This is why you can't get them to provide any science that isn't completely reliant on projections (or the fabricate Mann numbers).
The fact that so many people believe in global warming is just like the fact that most people, at one time, believed the earth was flat, even though it had already been disproven. Most people are simply gullible, and they think what they are told to think by political leaders.
If you believe in global warming ,you're gullible, and if you still believe in it, after having read this post, then you are choosing a religion over science. If you believe in science then learn enough about the situation to be able evaluate what I've just said. I've named a scientific fact that disproves a theory. If you are a person of science ,then check it out. IF you don't, then you're going on faith.
Anyone who writes to disagree with me, who doesn't address the core issue: Absorbtion of CO2 and proportions in the atmosphere, is just giving religious testimony, as reliable as those who speak in tongues (and from the same source.)
You're the first poster in this discussion to bring up the holocaust.
A quick template for replying to anyone who disagrees with you in a climate change discussion:
Paragraph one, "You are a moron!": Slander the person you are replying to (e.g. "wing-nut", "idiot", "retard", "moron", etc. Get creative!). Then call them a "denier" so that it seems like they're opposing something like evolution and gravity, which conveniently lumps them into the same category as people who question that too.
Paragraph two, "How dare you question climate change???": Call their argument a "straw-man" and proceed to attack their audacity to question "hard scientific facts" (which you personally haven't seen). Feel free to ignore their argument altogether by calling it "half-truths". Make some sort of reference to this person's education level, mainly that they are not a climate scientist (even though you're not one either!) and as such they have no idea what they're talking about - so they should trust the true experts.
Paragraph three, "Skeptics are coming over.": This is the meat of your argument! Although Richard Muller has actually been FOR climate change, this article claims that he was a skeptic but has now seen the light. If this skeptic has examined the evidence and come on over, why can't you? In fact, it's pretty obvious he was the last major credible holdout (even though if he was really a skeptic, we'd have said he was not credible in any way). We need to make it seem like there is a complete and united scientific consensus about climate change.
Paragraph four, "Case closed.": End on a high note! Make sure to say that case is closed, and has been closed for a long time. The debate is over. Everyone but the person you are replying to believes in global warming. This will make them feel like they are just pushing against a closed door.
Congratulations, you have won! If they are stupid enough to come back with real data, repeat this process until they feel so ashamed that they just shut up.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/10/30/climategate-ii-supposedly-science-settling-proof-global-warming-allegedl
From the article:
Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.
Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.
So how does this fact change the reality that global warming is real?
*Implying there is a difference between Al Gore and George Bush Jr.
These guys are all the same, bought and paid for, largely by the same people.
Not true. If we get off of fossil fuels entirely within 20 years, humans will have an uncomfortably warm period of a hundred years or so before temperatures begin to return to their natural baseline. Wait and the only justice possible will come from burning the Kochs and the rest of the denialists alive, which will be scant solace for a planet that is destined to become unfit for human habitation.
"Yes there is a flattening in global ground surface temperature over the last 10 years."
There is simply no evidence to support a flattening of the global mean temperatures in the last 10 years, especially when 2010 was tied as the hottest year on record. The fact that the oceans are also heating and most of the heating is going on in the oceans is scant comfort, when one recognizes that warmer water will only melt arctic and antarctic ice only not slower.
Calculations and map
Not sure how valid this is, I haven't checked any of the sources outside of the surface area of the earth covered in water, etc. Also, of course there would be other serious changes to the climate, it's not just a matter of water level and amount of land available, etc.
Still it is interesting if this is true that the upper limit is around 60-75 meters. It definitely puts to rest any fears of a 'Waterworld' scenario and seems to suggest overall landmass would remain about the same.
You've been around slashdot for a while, you should know that commenting on any post that uses a phrase like 'mouth breathers' isn't worth the effort. That sort of arrogance without intelligence isn't going to listen regardless of what you say.
Good point. I guess i get suckered into these shouting matches a little too easily.
you don't know shit about the founding of the tea party groups
They haven't even done a peer review of the papers. One of the lead authors, Dr Judy Curry, says 2 of the papers aren't fit for publication yet. Muller has completely "jumped the shark" on this one. Press before peer review and publication. Muller was never a skeptic.
There is much more to the story than what meets the ear. The fact that CO2 has continued to increase for the last decade but temperatures (land based because that is all this study looks at) have not. We are far from "conclusive" anything on this subject.
The earth has been warming for 18,000 years and it isn't an even process. There are periods of earth's past where CO2 levels were in the thousands of PPM and life flourished.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
And further by the way, the Koch brothers do fund denialists (not skeptical as they claim) research and are the funders (and true founders) of the Tea party. Who modded the parent up?
One of the rabidly elitist right wing jokers who infest slashdot, presumably
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Do you really think government will be able to control the climate? Post office; Loses billions every year. Amtrak; Can't operate without subsidies. Social Security; The money is not there! Medicare/Medicaid; Due to be insolvent. What I never hear being mentioned is all the research, work and installation of solar, wind, geo-thermal, methane, ethanol and all the billions already spent (mostly foolishly) around the world for renewable energy. Yet, some are still in a full blown panic and would steal every last cent of personal wealth from Americans while countries like China pollute with impunity.
The twist in this, is that if denialists catch a pro-AGW person lying, it is cause for great guffaws, and a pronouncement that the entire concept is bogus. I wonder if they apply the same rules to their own?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
See, I guess I don't agree with analogies of this sort (yours and one posted earlier about a gas leak in the home). In those cases, it's abundantly clear that stopping it right away has immediate beneficial effects (even slowing a car down 20MPH makes the crash more survivable, and if you stop a gas leak, it's not like it'll take hundreds of years to measure a decrease in the natural gas levels in the structure).
It's also really trivial to take action in those cases.
Not only that, but these scenarios make the assumption that failure to act results in death. The climate change situation results in things like flooding as temperatures SLOWLY rise 1 degree at a time over YEARS. If we're talking 200 years to see temperatures start falling if we act NOW, that means we'll already have many of these consequences to deal with anyway -- except we just banned ourselves from creating a lot of the energy/power we might actually need to do constructive things to better our situation!
Personally, I look at it this way. If flooding is, indeed going to happen and we lose much of our coastlines as a result? Ok ... that's not a *good* thing, but it's certainly manageable. We need to look at rebuilding further in-land and making better use of some of the sparsely populated land we've got today.
By the way, about Muller's turnaround: How to make yourself a reference in a field where you have no competence? First deny forcefully and get headlines, then say that after careful verification, you found out the truth
Problem is, Muller forgot the first part, he never actually was, or claimed to be a skeptic. In an interview from 2008 he claims to have been an AGW advocate since the 1980s. He's just yet another lying sack of shit.