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?
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!"
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?
You lose all credibility the instant you link to the Daily Mail.
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
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?
The final stage is "Why didn't the scientists warn us that it would be this bad?! Sue them!"
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
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/
What they've confirmed is that there was indeed a warming trend from about 1970 (or so) through about 2000. Before that, nothing significant. Since then, nothing significant. So we have a 30-year period of warming. That's an extremely short period when you're talking climate science. It also inconveniently doesn't match up with carbon dioxide emissions growth.
The data before the 1970s correlates with carbon dioxide emissions growth when you take into account sulfur dioxide emissions which cool the earth.
There is plenty of other evidence that carbon dioxide levels are a major influence on the earth's temperature. The question isn't if man made emissions affect the climate, but how much will man affect the climate. I would love to debate what to do about it, but It is pretty hard to do that when their is a significant portion of population who flat out denies basic science.
Indeed, what about Prof Curry herself. She blogged about that particular Daily Mail article and the fact that it misquoted and misrepresented her.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/#more-5526 [judithcurry.com]
In a nutshell she is in full support of the report. She just had a problem with some of the things Muller said about the report. Ergo: She accepts global warming is happening, and she's not claiming that global warming stopped over the last 10 years.
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