Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Skeptic’s own study finds climate change real, but says scientists should be wary
#1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/i...story.html

Quote: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.

What’s different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to “The Daily Show” is paying attention is who is behind the study.

One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.

Muller’s research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.

“The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago,” Muller said in a telephone interview. “And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias.”

Muller said that he came into the study “with a proper skepticism,” something scientists “should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism” before.

There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal’s editorial pages, a place friendly to skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it’s man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.

Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.

“Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world,” he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is.

On Monday, Muller was taking his results — four separate papers that are not yet published or peer-reviewed, but will be, he says — to a conference in Santa Fe, N.M., expected to include many prominent skeptics as well as mainstream scientists.
“Of course he’ll be welcome,” said Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Lab, a noted skeptic and the conference organizer. “The purpose of our conference is to bring people with different views on climate together, so they can talk and clarify things.”

Shawn Lawrence Otto, author of the book “Fool Me Twice” that criticizes science skeptics, said Muller should expect to be harshly treated by global warming deniers. “Now he’s considered a traitor. For the skeptic community, this isn’t about data or fact. It’s about team sports. He’s been traded to the Indians. He’s playing for the wrong team now.”

And that started on Sunday, when a British newspaper said one of Muller’s co-authors, Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry, accused Muller of another Climategate-like scandal and trying to “hide the decline” of recent global temperatures.

The Associated Press contacted Curry on Sunday afternoon and she said in an email that Muller and colleagues “are not hiding any data or otherwise engaging in any scientifically questionable practice.”

The Muller “results unambiguously show an increase in surface temperature since 1960,” Curry wrote Sunday. She said she disagreed with Muller’s public relations efforts and some public comments from Muller about there no longer being a need for skepticism.

Muller’s study found that skeptics’ concerns about poor weather station quality didn’t skew the results of his analysis because temperature increases rose similarly in reliable and unreliable weather stations. He also found that while there is an urban heat island effect making cities warmer, rural areas, which are more abundant, are warming, too.

Among many climate scientists, the reaction was somewhat of a yawn.

“After lots of work he found exactly what was already known and accepted in the climate community,” said Jerry North, a Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor who headed a National Academy of Sciences climate science review in 2006. “I am hoping their study will have a positive impact. But some folks will never change.”

Chris Field, a Carnegie Institution scientist who is chief author of an upcoming intergovernmental climate change report, said Muller’s study “may help the world’s citizens focus less on whether climate change is real and more on smart options for addressing it.”

Some of the most noted scientific skeptics are no longer saying the world isn’t warming. Instead, they question how much of it is man-made, view it as less a threat and argue it’s too expensive to do something about, Otto said.

Skeptical MIT scientist Richard Lindzen said it is a fact and nothing new that global average temperatures have been rising since 1950, as Muller shows. “It’s hard to see how any serious scientist (skeptical, denier or believer — frequently depending on the exact question) will view it otherwise,” he wrote in an email.

In a brief email statement, the Koch Foundation noted that Muller’s team didn’t examine ocean temperature or the cause of warming and said it will continue to fund such research. “The project is ongoing and entering peer review, and we’re proud to support this strong, transparent research,” said foundation spokeswoman Tonya Mullins.
Quote: “A society that puts equality… ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality or freedom…a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.” --Milton Friedman
relax. it's only the internet!
Reply
#2
Quote: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 lies just keep flowing.

He is NOT a skeptic and it is NOT warming rapidly.

His own Co-Author has called him out from his unethical PR behavior.

Dr. Curry:

Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague

Climate Depot has an EDITORIAL.Tearing his deception apart:

Befuddled Warmist Richard Muller Declares Skeptics Should Convert to Believers Because His Study Shows the Earth Has Warmed Since the 1950s! -- Climate Depot Responds

He is NOT a skeptic at all:

Et tu, WSJ?

EXCERPT:

Quote:This is the same Richard Muller who just three years ago was asked by the enviros at Grist: “What should a President McCain or Obama know about global warming?”

And Richard Muller’s answer was: “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.”

So 3 years ago — before he was not a doubter or a skeptic, but rather a proponent of the theory. In fact, he told Grist that in the early 1980s, 30 years ago, he was a proponent of the idea that man is causing global warming. Well, 25% of it anyway.

Meanwhile it is known that Muller tries to hide the non warming of the last decade.His co-author brings it up.Also in this website.Showing the chart based on BEST's own data.

Best Confirms Global Temperature Standstill

The real question should be asked.Why did Muller go into this PR propaganda drive BEFORE he was going to have his "paper" subjected to a peer review?

Reply
#3
Muller way back in 2003 is a warmist.

From his own hand:

Quote:Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.

LINK
Reply
#4
Aren't we discussing this fellow on another thread?

I'm wondering if he is an actual believer, or if he has really done this in order to garner funds for his department? This whole thing is just so bizarre that it never stops boggling my imagination. Anyone, with any small amount of common sense, would know that a warmer planet is a safer and more livable planet.

And on top of that the increase in temperature would not be at the equator, but the further north one traveled. This is not rocket science, unless you are filled with emotion and wish to blame others for every little thing in the world. Someone like Buzz comes readily to mind.

I guess it just goes to show that intelligence and wisdom are actually oxymorons. Sort of like Military Intelligence?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#5
Hey Aurora -

That article, and similar floating around recently, are a great example about what is wrong with those that claim "global warming" or "climate change" is being caused by our CO2 emissions.

The article title: "Skeptic’s own study finds climate change real, ..." and parts of the article would make it seem that "skeptics" saying we haven't been warming or "denying" global warming are now shown to be wrong and their is now no longer a reason to remain a "skeptic".

The problem - there really aren't any scientists or general skeptics who have been claiming we haven't been warming since the end of the LIA or that global warming isn't real. This is the "red herring" that is almost always in the room. What the skeptical scientists are skeptical about is what the causes are of this warming and whether human CO2 emissions are having any effect, either warming or cooling) on the atmosphere and if it is, how much of an effect it is.

Unfortunately, the way this and other recent articles read (and imply), one is led to believe that skepticism regarding "climate change" and "global warming" is now shown to be false. Skeptics are wrong. Skepticism is no longer necessary.

No - what is wrong is this form of deception and misleading information. Look more closely at the article - it says things like:

" “Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world,” he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is."

Exactly. This is where the skeptics agree. Whether humanity is having an effect and the level of that effect is not proven. Also, note he said "could have".

and

"Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. ... Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.


In other words, his study mostly showed what we already knew - we have been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. Further, it showed that the warming has had a number of short warming and cooling trends. It somewhat appears to show that problems with poor station siting and Urban Heat Island/Local Heat Island effects aren't affecting our general ability to determine the "global temperature", although this may still be somewhat up for debate.

I'll repeat - what the overwhelming majority of "skeptics" and "luke warmers" believe is summed up here:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Whenever someone implies that a "skeptic" believes something other than that, I would suggest you request direct quotes and links that show that the "skeptic" stated what is claimed. Warning - be prepared to experience the smell of rotten red herring.





I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#6
Yes, the left is excited about this "apostasy". Their drool is unbecomingly obvious. I hope the excitement is not too much for them to bear.

The question is: why should the world pay attention to one scientist who has purportedly "made a thorough study of the subject". Many others have done so previously. Supposedly we are to assume that since once "skeptic" has been converted, all the rest are cretinous uninformed denialists. One good thing will come of this: Muller will get invited to more upscale cocktail parties than he can biologically handle.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#7
I mainly posted this story because I knew it would get you guys talking. S1 glad to see that I wasn't wrong.
Quote: “A society that puts equality… ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality or freedom…a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.” --Milton Friedman
relax. it's only the internet!
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Holy Grail to Climate Change: Cosmic Rays John L 4 616 07-23-2019, 09:11 AM
Last Post: John L
  Nuclear Energy: That or Climate Change John L 26 9,720 05-28-2014, 12:43 AM
Last Post: WmLambert
  New study links current events to climate change quadrat 32 11,319 08-10-2012, 05:44 PM
Last Post: John L
  New Climate Change Directory John L 1 1,315 10-14-2010, 04:19 PM
Last Post: JohnWho
  humanity will be extinct in 100 years by climate change quadrat 26 6,870 07-04-2010, 02:54 PM
Last Post: Fredledingue
  Climate change heresy in Colorado mr_yak 22 3,850 02-28-2010, 07:32 PM
Last Post: jt
  Barack Obama's climate change policy in crisis JohnWho 9 2,113 02-22-2010, 11:39 AM
Last Post: Palladin
  There is fundamental uncertainty in climate change ... JohnWho 17 2,677 01-27-2010, 06:54 PM
Last Post: jt
  The Cloud Mystery: The Real Driver Of Climate Change (2007) John L 4 1,385 01-09-2010, 06:20 PM
Last Post: John L
  Climate Change Not Linked To Sun Activity quadrat 9 2,362 08-08-2009, 01:10 AM
Last Post: John L

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)