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?
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
Actually, the sceptics have been claiming that temperatures have not been rising. Muller's study exists entirely because of their refusal to accept that idea.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I see that Watts has changed his opinion on Muller's credibility rather abruptly.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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
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/
Now the denialists are denying the denialists' study because it conflicts with denialism! LOL!
Actually when I first read about this study, I thought it didn't contribute anything new, and was just repeating past experiments under Koch funding to rule out any possibility of bias due to TEH GLOBAL AGW CONSPIRACY!
But this study is actually based on a much more robust data set than any other before in history, so it at least more concretely proves the observed warming record:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Their official position seems to support the idea that they have an agenda that would be in favor of supporting skeptics whenever possible.
What is "enough evidence" in this instance? Why were the previous two nigh-identical studies on the same data set not sufficient? Why should we imagine that Muller's study will somehow convince the doubters? He's already getting hung out to dry by armchair scientists and former supporters like Anthony Watts.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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.
In this case, it wasn't even about that... All the data we needed was there... But kept from anyone outside their group... And then modified, and the original data deleted.
That's just not how science is done. There's no way for an independent group to verify the results.
So this new research, using different data, means a LOT more. It's actually been verified, and (I assume) others could also use the data to verify as well.
So I've switched my stance on AGW. It does appear to be a real thing, and could be a problem. Now my worry is that people will 'solve' the problem by creating a bigger one. CO2 isn't a pollutant, but a lot of the options for removing it have been. We could do far more damage than we fix.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
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?
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
So, when climate scientists analyse their data carefully, but they omit even the slightest potential source of error, their results are worthless. If a climate skeptic throws the raw data into a big lump in a spreadsheet and makes a wiggly-ass, clearly nonphysical chart, that's a convincing analysis.
And you wonder why these people don't get past peer review.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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."
Are we all clear on that now?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
He has never been a skeptic of man-made global warming. He has been a proponent of the theory since the 1980s. He even wrote a book in 2008 called "Physics for the Futue President" in which he called he said the next President would have to institute policies to address it.
This is what most makes me question his motives. He has been preaching man-made global warming for decades, now he has a new study and is claiming that he was a "skeptic" until he completed this new study.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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
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/
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.
Our power output per capita is not a meaningful contribution to global warming. The problem is that the main source of our energy, fossil fuel combustion, happens to release large amounts of a gas (co2) that happens to be a more effective insulator than the mix of gases that made up our atmosphere before the industrial revolution. If we switched to 100% nuclear tomorrow, and had 70 billion people using 10x as much energy on average, we still wouldn't have a problem dissipating the heat.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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.
In America, yes.
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.
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?
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
Okay, fine, you want to try to play silly games.
Use the period between 1980 and 2010 instead of the period between 1970 and 2000. Thats gives you thirty years to average out, which is the claim I keep seeing as long enough. Now is that 1980 to 2010 period cooler than the 1970 to 2000 period?
I'm sorry you don't like the facts but they don't support the theory at this time.
In reality we haven't studied the problem long enough to actually MAKE an educated guess, let alone act on it, and second, 30 still isn't long enough to matter. The Earth experiences 100k year cycles of temp change and you're arguing over 10 years and 30 like you know whats going on? Seriously?
Anyone who thinks they 'know' whats going on is wrong and needs to be thrown out of the discussion for utterly failing to understand how science is supposed to work, I don't care WHICH side you're on.
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