Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real

[Crabtownboy]

Another nail in the coffin of the deniers of global warming.

WASHINGTON — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.

 

[mandym]

oh well then ....its settled

 

[Crabtownboy]

oh well then ....its settled

Why not try to reply with a rational comment. Even knowledgeable critics are changing their stance.

Audiences are always better pleased with a smart retort, some joke or epigram, than with any amount of reasoning.
Charlotte Perkins Gilman

 

[mandym]

Why not try to reply with a rational comment. Even knowledgeable critics are changing their stance.

Maybe you should look up the definition of rational. The so called science behind the whole myth has long been discredited. The polar bears are not dying off but increasing, the ice caps are not melting at that rate originally claimed and the released emails have shown a collusion to withhold information that brings doubt to the whole thing. At first the claim was it is settled science and anyone opposing this has been demonized and attempts have been made to ruin their careers. That behavior alone damages the credibility of this myth.

Any scientist who falls in line with this myth will lose credibility and most likely has been given some personal benefit.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Maybe you should look up the definition of rational. The so called science behind the whole myth has long been discredited. The polar bears are not dying off but increasing, the ice caps are not melting at that rate originally claimed and the released emails have shown a collusion to withhold information that brings doubt to the whole thing. At first the claim was it is settled science and anyone opposing this has been demonized and attempts have been made to ruin their careers. That behavior alone damages the credibility of this myth.

Any scientist who falls in line with this myth will lose credibility and most likely has been given some personal benefit.

You have shown nothing here, either old nor new references, to support you opinion. Thus it remains an unsubstantiated opinion. All the latest evidence goes against your opinion. But then some still believe the world is flat.

 

[mandym]

You have shown nothing here, either old nor new references, to support you opinion. Thus it remains an unsubstantiated opinion. All the latest evidence goes against your opinion. But then some still believe the world is flat.

What I said is common knowledge. It seems you are engaging in a debate tactic rather than a real conversation. And you have not shown (by your own standard) "all the latest evidence" to prove that it goes against the facts I have stated. But I will tell you what. I will cater to your whim:

'No evidence for accelerated sea-level rise' says Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute – December 12, 2008
Excerpt: In an op-ed piece in the December 11 issue of NRC/Handelsblad, Wilco Hazeleger, a senior scientist in the global climate research group at KNMI, writes: “In the past century the sea level has risen twenty centimeters. There is no evidence for accelerated sea-level rise. It is my opinion that there is no need for drastic measures. It is wise to adopt a flexible, step-by-step adaptation strategy. By all means, let us not respond precipitously.”

U.S. Senate Report on Scientists Counter Computer Model Sea Level Rise Fears - September 26, 2007

Excerpt: Nearly two dozen prominent scientists from around the world have denounced a recent Associated Press article promoting sea level fears in the year 2100 and beyond based on unproven computer models predictions.

Florida State University: "Global [both Southern and Northern Hemisphere] Tropical Cyclone Activity [still] lowest in 30-years" - Updated April 17, 2009
Ryan N. Maue - Department of Meteorology - COAPS - Florida State University

Another Hurricane Expert Reconsiders Warming/Hurricane Link - Associated Press - May 19, 2008

Global warming isn't to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject. Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and those making landfall, research meteorologist Tom Knutson reported in a study released Sunday. In the past, Knutson has raised concerns about the effects of climate change on storms. His new paper has the potential to heat up a simmering debate among meteorologists about current and future effects of global warming in the Atlantic.

 

[mandym]

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/...lobal-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Another nail in the coffin of the deniers of global warming.

My whole problem is not even if the globe is warming or not, perhaps it is. The question is it a natural cycle or anthropogenic?

We have had warmer periods before when there were less people and less burning of fossil fuels.

 

[mandym]

Professor denies global warming theory

Physics professor William Happer GS ’64 has some tough words for scientists who believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

“This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda,” Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, said in an interview. “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”

Happer served as director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush and was subsequently fired by Vice President Al Gore, reportedly for his refusal to support Gore’s views on climate change. He asked last month to be added to a list of global warming dissenters in a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report. The list includes more than 650 experts who challenge the belief that human activity is contributing to global warming

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/

 

[mandym]

Worlds leading scientist fighting against global warming is opposed to cap and trade

James Hansen is the world's leading climate scientist fighting against global warming.

Yesterday, Dr. Hansen told the Guardian:

He is vehemently opposed to the carbon market schemes – in which permits to pollute are bought and sold – which are seen by the EU and other governments as the most efficient way to cut emissions and move to a new clean energy economy.

Therefore, Hansen says:

It would be better for the planet and for future generations if next week's Copenhagen climate change summit ended in collapse.

Hansen has previously said that cap and trade "will not work", and he has previously called cap and trade "a Ponzi-like ... scheme".

I have repeatedly pointed out that cap and trade won't work. Indeed:

The economists who invented cap-and-trade say that it won't work for global warming

Many environmentalists say that carbon trading won't effectively reduce carbon emissions

European criminal investigators have determined that there is a tremendous amount of fraud occurring in the carbon trading market.

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/12/worlds-leading-global-warming-crusader.html

 

[mandym]

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

 

[mandym]

What the BEST data actually says

My theory is that the BEST folks must have eaten at a Hollywood Chinese restaurant. You can tell because when you eat there, an hour later you find you’re hungry for stardom.

Now that the BEST folks have demanded and received their fifteen minutes of fame before their results have gone through peer review, now that they have succeeded in deceiving many people into thinking that Muller is a skeptic and that somehow BEST has ‘proven the skeptics wrong’, now that they’ve returned to the wilds of their natural scientific habitat far from the reach of National Geographic photographers and people asking real questions, I thought I might take a look at the data itself. Media whores are always predictable and boring, but data always contains surprises. It can be downloaded from the bottom of this page, but please note that they do not show the actual results on that page, they show smoothed results. Here’s their actual un-smoothed monthly data:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/24/what-the-best-data-actually-says/

 

[mandym]

The Games Climate Scientists Play

Here is another good example why I have come to view parts of the climate science research enterprise with a considerable degree of distrust.

A paper was released yesterday by PNAS, by Stefan Rahmstorf and Dim Coumou, (also freely available here in PDF) which asserts that the 2010 Russian summer heat wave was, with 80% probability, the result of a background warming trend. But if you take a look at the actual paper you see that they made some arbitrary choices (which are at least unexplained from a scientific standpoint) that bias the results in a particular direction.
Look at the annotated figure above, which originally comes from an EGU poster by Dole et al. (programme here in PDF). It shows surface temperature anomalies in Russia dating back to 1880. I added in the green line which shows the date from which Rahmsdorf and Coumou decided to begin their analysis -- 1911, immediately after an extended warm period and at the start of an extended cool period.

Obviously, any examination of statistics will depend upon the data that is included and not included. Why did Rahmsdorf and Coumou start with 1911? A century, 100 years, is a nice round number, but it does not have any privileged scientific meaning. Why did they not report the sensitivity of their results to choice of start date? There may indeed be very good scientific reasons why starting the analysis in 1911 makes the most sense and for the paper to not report the sensitivity of results to the start date. But the authors did not share that information with their readers. Hence, the decision looks arbitrary and to have influenced the results.

Climate science -- or at least some parts of it -- seems to have devolved into an effort to generate media coverage and talking points for blogs, at the expense of actually adding to our scientific knowledge of the climate system. The new PNAS paper sure looks like a cherry pick to me. For a scientific exploration of the Russian heat wave that seems far more trustworthy to me, take a look at this paper.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/10/games-climate-scientists-play.html

 

[InTheLight]

My whole problem is not even if the globe is warming or not, perhaps it is. The question is it a natural cycle or anthropogenic?

We have had warmer periods before when there were less people and less burning of fossil fuels.

Exactly. Another factor is the selection of the endpoints for the timespan over which the warming is recorded.

I like to qualify someone's position on global warming, er, climate change with these three questions. How a person responds to these questions gives me a good indication of where they stand on the issue.

1. Is the earth increasing in temperature?

2. If so, is the increase in temperature being caused by man's activities?

3. If so, how catastrophic will the results of increasing temperature be for life on earth?

I would say yes to #1, depending on what year you start from.

I would say "we don't know" to #2, and therefore I couldn't answer #3.

 

[preachinjesus]

My whole problem is not even if the globe is warming or not, perhaps it is. The question is it a natural cycle or anthropogenic?

This is the key issue imho. Too many who are trying to exploit the reality of warming are causing half the backlash.

Granted I'm a fan of zero emission products because I believe that being a good steward of our creation is a biblical command. But I don't see how mankind, in its current state, has impacted world in such a way to bring on the catastrophic destruction, erroneously, predicted by many of fringe environmentalists who are using it to push an agenda and not a true point.

We have had warmer periods before when there were less people and less burning of fossil fuels.

One cannot look at the overwhelming evidence from across the globe (the rising temps in oceans, the thinner ice layers in the ice caps, the hotter summers in almost all regions, the general uptick in overall temperatures, etc etc etc) and not see that warming is happening. That said it is too rash to say it is solely caused by mankind.

We have had periods of warming and cooling. Much of it is, imho, a product of God's built in design for regulating the more effecient and effective environment where humanity can, and does, prosper. Because of the cyles we see a lot of benefit.

Of course there will always be people who believe whatever they heard from their favorite (non-scientist) preacher pushing their political point over the evidence. Thankfully, the enlightened minds of our culture move beyond the extremes represented in these conversations.