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?
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".
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
Their official position seems to support the idea that they have an agenda that would be in favor of supporting skeptics whenever possible.
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
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.
A denier isn't interested in what is real, just convincing people to follow them.
Which is what Richard Muller appears to be, except that he wasn't denying man-made global warming, he has been shilling for it. He has never demonstrated any skepticism of the theory. He has been promoting it. Even though he has been talking about global warming as "settled science" for a well over a decade, he has come out with a new study that supports what he has been saying all along, but that wouldn't make news, so he claims he was "skeptical" of man-made global warming until he did this study and "now, he is convinced".
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You didn't switch your stance at all. You just changed your rationalization for it. Your previous stance was "I don't want to do anything about it" and that's identical to your new stance.
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?
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!)
His co-author says he's full of it, and the results do not match the headlines.
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