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?
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
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
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.
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
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."
Is "they hid the decline" the new "teach the controversy"? I'm seeing that phrase a lot lately.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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!).
The Daily Mail is the UK equivalent of Fox News. Nothing reliable comes from there.
...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.
Judith Curry is frantically backpedalling on her blog, having been fooled by the Mail reporter, David Rose, who has prior form, see:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/12/rosegate_rose_does_to_data_wha_1.php
And the rest of the article turns out to be a misrepresentation too:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/judith-curry-opens-mouth-inserts-foot/
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.
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.
You are an idiot if you place any credence in an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail, which has a proven track record of distorting such interviews. At the very least a transcript is absolutely required when dealing with such publications.
Quit calling it climate change, it's global warming. It always has been.
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
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).
Oh blah. I didn't realize I wasn't signed in for the above post. Anyone with mod points, I hope you'll read it and consider it for a +1 or two.
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
Because it's better to judge someone by their actions than by their words?
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.
You will see that when people are doing it. Or would you prefer that outright fraud go un-noted? If so, I would highly advise you to take on a new career in corporate or government accounting!
His co-author says he's full of it, and the results do not match the headlines.
"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."
So you hate people because you haven't a clear idea about what you're talking about? You think you have a clear idea of what evangelicals are like and what they believe and why they believe, but you don't really.
What do you think is more akin to religious belief and grounded scientific reasoning? "I'm not sure if warming temperatures are largely caused by man." vs. "I have a carbon credit (indulgence) to sell you and it will wipe away your guilt (sin)."
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
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.
George Soros is like, what, one of two ertswhile-liberal multibillionaires? (Warren Buffet being the other)
I love how conservatives freak out about Soros (and, to a lesser degree, Gore) and totally ignore the vast amounts of money tied up on "their side". It's akin to how they're going apeshit over Solyndra and wholly failed to shine the light on Halliburton (for whom the budgets of Solyndra, let alone every green initiative on the planet, amount to a rounding error on the balance sheet of).
Yeah, sure. The green conspiracy is all about money. Sure. Go have a look at opensecrets.org and compare the kind of money that green and climate-science entities pour into politics to the dollars that energy, let alone finance and banking, do. Then tell me who has the bigger stake in the status quo.
Campaign contributions don't really tell the whole story, though, since it's all private money (with tightly controlled limits) going into actually election campaigns. You're leaving out all the public money floating around to support climate change memes, all the grants for funding alternative fuels, and all the issue-advocacy lobbying money funneled through various organizations to get public money for spending on "green" projects. In other words, there are far more people that rely on climate change funding, and there is far more funding available to the Al Gores and his ilk.
As for Soros, the guy is the most evil real person I've ever heard of. When Hitler's henchman, Adolf Eichmann, arrived in Hungary to oversee the murder of that country's Jews, George Soros ended up with the man whose job was confiscating property from the Jewish population. Soros went with him on his rounds. Soros has repeatedly called 1944 "the best year of his life." 70% of Mr. Soros's fellow Jews in Hungary, nearly a half-million human beings, were annihilated in that year, yet he gives no sign that this put any damper on his elation, either at the time or indeed in retrospect.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
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.
failed to shine the light on Halliburton
Forgot to mention, Soros owns about 2 million shares of Halliburton. He bought it at a time when the 527 groups he funds were heavily criticizing them. After the purchase, the criticism from the Soros' funded groups stopped, and the stock price has been rising ever since.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
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.
More garbage from the daily Mail? Have we not learned yet to not trust the same rag that started some of this garbage?
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.
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.
For the physics of radiant heat transfer (which is the fundemental basis of the greenhouse effect) there is an excellent blog:
http://scienceofdoom.com/
As for compelling evidence of A (with emphasis on the A) GW., there you will have to get help from others. I haven't found any. For compelling evidence of GW on the other hand, google Ice Age. A good book on geology will provide background on climate change over the last few billion years. If you learn some geology, you will learn that CO2 levels have previously been 10 times higher than today, though rarely much lower. You will learn that climate can change dramatically in a very short period of time. You will learn that our climate today is relatively cool compared to almost all time since the earth formed billions of years ago. You will then scratch your head and ask what all the excitement is about. Don't ask someone though. They will call you a skin headed denier of a flat earth creationist.
Woah there. That's pretty fucking far from a reliable source.
Can everyone STOP quoting the Daily Mail. It's the intellectual equivalent of Godwin's Law.....
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
Altering consumption isn't really sustainable with current worldwide growth rate. We need to kick our fossil fuel habit if we're going to continue enjoying anything like the lifestyle we're used to, even cutting back drastically won't eke out many more years until oil and coal are too expensive an option. That's true no matter which side of the climate change fence you happen to find yourself on.
Here is the co-author condeming the very article you are linking to! http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/#more-5526
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.
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
Remember to keep some of your cash money available to eat as salad and use as kindling when the current system crashes under its own weight and mismanagement.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Some people who are interested in truth are not at all interested in environmentalism. This is why your preference for environmentalism over truth did not impress them.
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
Sadly, idiots like you will continue to pretend politicians on your team are somehow different than the ones on the other team because they have a different mascot and color.
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
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.
Sounds pretty much exactly like something an Evangelical Christian would say...
It's also interesting to note that AGW church members only see 2 sides to the issue (which also is eerily similar to religious proselytizers.) You either believe or you're a denier. There's no room for any other position.
Or one of those from the Church of Evolution...
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?
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.
Yeah, because evolution and AGW are the same thing...
It's one thing to look at the fossil record and say you don't believe in evolution and another altogether to look at global climate science and say "Do I trust the people who have a financial interest in this to tell me the truth." or "Do I understand all the science that's being used to explain global climate change and if not do I take it on Faith that everything the "scientists" tell me is true and they truly have accounted for every variable that affects climate on a global scale."
They are both very well supported by peer-reviewed science.
or "Do I understand all the science that's being used to explain carbon dating, and if not do I take it on Faith everything the "scientists" tell me is true.
Pretty similar tactics by deniers.
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).
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.
"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.
I've not seen much "revision" coming from evolutionary science in the past 20 years. Right now the global climate predictions change more often than the weather. Add to that the fact that there's a vocal group of pseudo scientists out there that likes to tell us climate change is responsible for every weather event when the NOAA tells us otherwise and I simply don't think we know enough to reliably predict and model the weather for the planet. The science is too young and certainly too political for me to put any faith in it at all at this point.
Maybe 5 years from now they won't be revising every chart in every "peer reviewed" paper every 6 months and changing the hottest day on record from this day to that one and I'll believe they've figured it out, but until then I'll continue to be suspect of ever changing numbers that seem to be linked more to funding efforts than the actual climate.
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.
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.
No, because each person radiates only about 100 watts of heat, which is only about 700 billion watts for the whole planet. This is trivial compared to solar insolation of the Earth, which is about 700 quadrillion watts, or 7 million times as much. Even if the greenhouse effect only adds about 2 watts per square meter, it still causes a difference of 1 quadrillion watts which is more than 1400x as much as all heat radiated from humans.
Of course there are other factors which I'm ignoring here. If people are eating food that wasn't grown with fertilizer, then the land would otherwise have produced plants which would be decomposed by fungii which would produce the same amount of heat anyway, so humans in that case aren't even adding to the heat output. In that case we're just displacing heat which would've been emitted by fungii. However, if we didn't use fertilizer, then only about 2 billion of us could be alive, so the net amount of heat added by human body heat in this case is 500 billion watts, not 700 billion. Of course there are still other factors, but all of them are minor.
The amount of heat you add to the atmosphere directly via body heat is trivial even when you compare it to the amount of waste heat radiated directly by industrial machinery or cars. Your car could heat two medium-sized houses in winter using its radiator. Even waste heat from industrial machinery, however, is trivial compared to the effects of GHG.
It wasn't a stupid question.
I think that people who make these models did a back-of-the-envelope calculation and decided to ignore direct heat radiation from humans since it's so trivial.
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.
I suggest Skeptical Science and Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming which is available both in book form and online.
The Sun's output is increasing... quite a bit too.
LOL. How is it then that the satellites we specifically put in orbit to monitor the Sun are unable to detect this increase in the Sun's output? I agree that long term the Sun's output is increasing but it's so slow that it's practically undetectable in a century. It took 3 billion years for the output to rise 25%. That's 8.333e-11 percent per year.
It's a pretty simplistic assumption that the cause of temperature changes on other planets is caused by the same thing as on Earth. For instance I have not heard of any temperature changes on Mercury or Venus and they're even closer to the Sun than we are. The temperature changes on Pluto are easily explained by the eccentricity of its orbit.
Go visit the blog of the co-researcher. She made claims that the Mail misquoted her.