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."

Comments

Not news

[Sockatume]

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

Re:Not news

[finarfinjge]

Not to mention that Mullar was never even close to a skeptic and his co-author (Dr. J. Curry, a prominent climate researcher who would hardly be called a skeptic either) is disputing his comments about what the data shows. The great thing about the BEST project is all of the data and methods are available. Unlike Hadley CRU who have lost their original data, and still refuse to provide the various Ural data sets.Or GISS that won't provide the method(s??) used to 'normalize' their data. With the BEST project, we can see things like this comparison of what Mullar released to the press and what the data actually shows. Note that the two graphs have different time scales on the x axis, which is not quite cricket, but the point is valid.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

No, it is more likely that Mullar, who has always been on the mainstream side, knew his data set would show 10 years of no warming while CO2 increased. This would be fuel to the fire of climate skeptics, so he pre-empted with a press release stating that the data shows one thing when it actually shows the exact opposite.

Given the number of true believers here (people I equate with the deniers on the skeptic side), I am wondering how long this post, all of which is factual and can be confirmed with relative ease, will be modded "troll". Seems to happen to all posts that are in any way skeptical.

Re:I wonder

[KeensMustard]

We've had hints of that already. After that comes "But is it really a problem if poor people die? Don't the environmentalists say there a too many people? They should be happy to see these people dying!"

Different thing

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:Different thing

[Sockatume]

I don't care what temperature the Earth is "supposed" to be, I care about keeping it at a temperature which allows human civilisation to maintain itself.

Re:Different thing

[monkeythug]

It's perfectly true that there isn't a "correct" temperature for the Earth. In the past the planet has been both much hotter than now and much colder and, well look at that, it seems to have come through OK.

However what with the predicted extensive desertification, rising sea levels, more extreme weather conditions and what have you, CC is likely to be somewhat inconvenient for the soon-to-be 7 billion people wandering about.

Re:Different thing

[tmosley]

God damn. I was inclined to believe that guy, as he was going against his bias, but now it seems that he WAS biased for AGW.

I don't think there is anything anyone can say to convince me of this theory any more. There have simply been too many lies, and the liars have been placed into positions of authority. Even reading TFA, the language is disturbing, saying that people should no longer be skeptical. Lack of skepticism is the single most deadly sin in science and in any economic system. Anyone calling for less of it is much more likely to have an agenda that he doesn't want people examining.

Re:Different thing

[Anonymous Coward]

> I see "skeptics" claiming that Global Warmongers are government supported scientists looking for grants and anti-capitalists looking to gain power.
The powerful scientists living their lives in luxury ruling the world while eating caviar paid for by government grants. Have you ever seen the office of some of those money grabbing scientists? And have you noted all the power they wield in our society? Yeah... I thought so.
If you want money and power you sure as hell won't become a climate scientist. There is much more of both on wall street and more of the latter working as consultant for people like the koch brothers...

Re:Different thing

[MrHanky]

Perhaps you simply confuse the term 'sceptic' with 'denialist'. Being sceptical of the measurement of global temperatures does not mean he also needs to deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Re:Different thing

[MightyMartian]

Anything so long as you don't have to change your behavior.

Re:Different thing

[Sique]

But the hypsographic curve of the earth shows that a large part of the world's population lives within less than 10 m above sealevel, for instance half of Bangladesh is less than 10 m above sealevel. It's not just surveyors who will know the difference, it's half of Bangladesh's population (about 70 mio of 142 mio inhabitants) who will notice this.
What do you think will happen if 70 mio people are looking for a new home? And that's just the people from a single country.

Re:Different thing

[FoolishOwl]

Don't forget the history of European and US support for dictatorships and direct military intervention in the Middle East in order to maintain control of the largest climate science research stations in the world. If climate scientists are willing to kill for their astronomical profits, don't you suppose they'd be willing to lie?

Re:Different thing

[Rei]

"I don't care what papers he backed and what papers he didn't. "

Right. You don't care whether he backs denier papers -- all you care about is grabbing a couple random quotes with no context (something that can be done for pretty much any denier). As if the latter is what matters and the former is irrelevant.

Re:Different thing

[Attila Dimedici]

Except that it's been more than ten years and things haven't progressed as AGW proponents said they would.

Re:Different thing

[BitZtream]

God you're one ignorant fuck, you know that?

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, if you'd been paying attention rather than having your head up someones ass saying 'they are right and you are wrong because we're louder!'. Instead, you don't even actually know what the debate is about.

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.

You completely fail to understand the difference between science and politics. Science has SOME theories suggesting what you say, no proof. Politics turn those theories into 'proof' for people like yourself who hasn't actally looked at the research, you've just picked a side.

No intelligent person is claiming that global warming isn't happening. Its been happening for 100k years or so that our planet has been climbing its way out of the last ice age. There is no denying it. And we're now we're into the disputed territory, as to whats going to happen in the future and how big of an impact we have on it.

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...

Then you need to have an actual discussion with intelligent people rather than the morons you're talking too. CC is happening because its part of the Earth's cycle and has been for millions of years due to many variations in the planet that existed before humans existed. You're just too ignorant/lazy to bother to learn any actual facts yourself, instead you'd rather repeat what some stooge on TV or elsewhere parroted at you. The fact that you don't know this tells me you must have payed absolutely no attention what so ever during your education, or you didn't get one in America.

which is the reason why I call them "denialists".

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.

I'm a 'denialist' and I can safely say that you have absolutely no fucking clue why we 'denialists' are so.

I believe you would be referred to as a 'follower' for blindly following without understanding, at least I listen and make an attempt to accept both sides of the argument based on evidence. You're clearly basing your entire belief on faith, arrogance and pride. Its like you've joined a cult and are ignoring evidence because you 'know' you're right.

Re:Different thing

[PRMan]

It's even more than that.

What many people see is the craziness people get over one degree (or even a half), when we see things all around that suggest far more drastic changes:

The "Fertile Crescent", which went from Iraq through Israel/Palestine to Egypt and Ethiopia, is now desert. All of it. There was no significant raise in generation of carbon.

There are mammoths in Russia that are flash-frozen with jungle foods in their bellies. Nobody's SUV caused that.

The fact is that we live on a planet which undergoes constant changes, some of which we can control and some we can't. The disagreements are that some don't believe we are warming significantly (compared to obviously-worse past events) and don't agree that the human cause is a significant percentage of the problem. Many people also believe that simply planting more trees takes care of the carbon problem, or that increased carbon dioxide actually CAUSES more trees to grow naturally, self-correcting the problem.

Spending billions to address 1% of the problem would obviously be a huge mistake, and that's what people object to. Likewise, doing nothing about something that could cause major catastrophes is a huge mistake as well. This is why people are so emotional on both sides.

Unfortunately, like most things in life, most people are massive fanbois to the side they have chosen and refuse to consider the arguments and evidence for both sides, instead calling the other side names and trying to shame them and invalidate their arguments with ad hominem attacks.

Re:I wonder

[the eric conspiracy]

You lose all credibility the instant you link to the Daily Mail.

Re:I wonder

[amorsen]

The final stage is "Why didn't the scientists warn us that it would be this bad?! Sue them!"

Re:Never a Global Warming Skeptic

[Attila Dimedici]

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".

Ah, so he's a real skeptic then.

[Chris Burke]

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.