Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Climate Change Skeptic Results Released Today

Posted by samzenpus on from the on-second-thought dept.

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."

26 of 776 comments (clear)

  1. Different thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

    1. Re:Different thing by Tmann72 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Warming is bad because it will make the earths inhabitable area diminish. This significantly changes the available land mass that humans, and other animals, can effectively colonize and live fruitful childbearing lives. Also, warmer temperatures will create more hostile weather patters further limiting usable land area as certain weather patterns hit certain regions harder. (ie. hurricanes on the east coast). Lastly, increasing temperatures melt polar ice and raise sea levels. Further limiting usable land mass. You try to act like its all about temperature, but clearly you don't really understand the full breadth of the idea. How about this fun fact. Hotter summers make for colder winters. How long before we trigger another ice age. Perhaps you should look up positive feedback loops.

    2. Re:Different thing by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:Different thing by monkeythug · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

      --
      Don't you wish you hadn't wasted 3 seconds of your life reading this sig?
    4. Re:Different thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Exactly! You can tell all those CC scientists guys 'cause they're always going around in those fancy cars and fancy suits and reporting year after year of record profits and record bonuses and how they have all that lobbyist influence with Congress and the White House. Damn them! Damn then to hell!

    5. Re:Different thing by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Informative

      The prominent skeptic in question was the author of the research that was revealed last week.

      Title of the TFA: Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real

      The problem is that the supposed skeptic is not a skeptic at all. Here is what he said in 2008:

      The bottom line is that there is a consensus -- the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] -- and the president needs to know what the IPCC says. Second, they say that most of the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to humans. You need to know that this is from carbon dioxide, and you need to understand which technologies can reduce this and which can't. Roughly 1 degree Fahrenheit of global warming has taken place; we're responsible for one quarter of it. If we cut back so we don't cause any more, global warming will be delayed by three years and keep on going up. And now the developing world is producing most of the carbon dioxide.

      I'm not a climatologist. All I can base my opinion on is what I read and what I make of what I read. On one side, I see global warmongers saying that those that don't believe in Global Warming are flat-earthers and science obviously proves that GW is happening and it's all man's fault. On the other side, I see "skeptics" claiming that Global Warmongers are government supported scientists looking for grants and anti-capitalists looking to gain power. Who is telling the truth?

      I find it really difficult to believe that Global Warming believers are telling me the truth when they trot out guys like this claiming that a skeptic has seen the light and all who are non-believers should follow his lead. After all, who can give a more non-biased story than a climate skeptic to begin with, right. The problem is, as I've stated, is that this guy was NEVER a climate skeptic and those that say he was are lying to my face. Why should I believe anything else the warmongers tell me?

      More:

      Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?

      Oh yes. [Laughs.] In fact, back in the early '80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.

      Yeah... This guy is no "skeptic". Why do the Global Warming believers need to lie to me if the science is as solid as they say it is?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    6. Re:Different thing by tmosley · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

    7. Re:Different thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    8. Re:Different thing by MrHanky · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    9. Re:Different thing by finarfinjge · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, 390 ppm in the entire atmosphere is the same as a 50% CO2 atmosphere over 5 meters. So, yes, from a radiative heat transfer point of view it is a lot. So much that increases now have a marginal effect. Ironically, if there really were "very little" CO2, then an increase would matter. It is precisely because there is so much in the atmosphere that it doesn't matter much how much more we add, up to about 2,000 to 3,000 ppm where it might begin to impact on respiration. (Yes, I am an expert in radiant heat transfer).

    10. Re:Different thing by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      Um, Muller was one of the main people who supported McKitrick and McIntyre's paper against the "Hockey Stick Graph". Before that, he was a big backer of Soon and Baliunas's denialist work.

      What we're seeing here is a lovely bit of revisionist history. *Most* of the denialist scientists accept at least some tenets of global warming, so you can dig up old quotes for almost any of them. But it's simply a fact that Muller was one of the leading critics of the "Hockey Stick Graph", and now he's gone and published a graph that confirms the Hockey Stick.

      --
      Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
    11. Re:Different thing by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:Different thing by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    13. Re:Different thing by FoolishOwl · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    14. Re:Different thing by Xest · · Score: 5, Informative

      He was skeptical of the science being claimed to prove the issue, not the issue itself. The two are very separate things - it's possible to say "Yeah, I think global warming is happening, but I don't believe the science being done thus far is of decent enough quality to prove it so we can't say for sure".

      He has now done research that appears to fit quite closely to the science he was skeptical of.

      Why do the global warming denialists need to make things up and jump to false conclusions if their belief is as solid as they say it is?

      Nothing will help someone like you though, you're clearly set in your ways and not one of those people who will ever change their mind despite being faced with mounting evidence contrary to your claim, and no evidence supporting your claim. So stick to the straw man arguments, if they really make you feel better. I'm sure that's what flat earth theorists did to make themselves feel better too.

    15. Re:Different thing by Belial6 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Denier" is an ad hominem attack that clearly was popularized because of the association to holocaust "deniers". Its use is a Goddwinning of the discussion. It is used by people that have no reasonable argument themselves, but feel they MUST be right because they are going along with the majority. Thus they resort to name calling.

  2. Never a Global Warming Skeptic by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Never a Global Warming Skeptic by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A denier isn't interested in what is real, just convincing people to follow them.

      Which is what Richard Muller appears to be, except that he wasn't denying man-made global warming, he has been shilling for it. He has never demonstrated any skepticism of the theory. He has been promoting it. Even though he has been talking about global warming as "settled science" for a well over a decade, he has come out with a new study that supports what he has been saying all along, but that wouldn't make news, so he claims he was "skeptical" of man-made global warming until he did this study and "now, he is convinced".

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  3. Re:I wonder by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  4. Re:Muller is the biggest skeptic the world. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  5. Oh goody... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  6. Re:Rather than pointing the finger at the Koch bro by openfrog · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?

  7. Re:A co-researher disagrees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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/

  8. Re:I wonder by brainzach · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:Not news by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Informative

    Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious âClimategateâ(TM) scandal two years ago.

    The Mail on Sundays CLAIMS she said that. Prof Curry herself says that she was misquoted and misrepresented by the Mail On Sunday on this and several other things.
    http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/#more-5526

    For those not from the UK: The Mail on Sunday, and it's Sister paper The Daily Mail are are pretty much the Fox News of British journalism.

  10. Re:I wonder by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.