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."

12 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 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!

    3. 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...

    4. 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).

    5. 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."
    6. 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.

  2. Re:I wonder by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  3. 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?

  4. 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/

  5. 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.

  6. 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.