Climate Change Skeptic Results Released Today 776
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."
Not news (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [slashdot.org]
I wonder (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I wonder (Score:4, Insightful)
Different thing (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".
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
You lose all credibility the instant you link to the Daily Mail.
Won't make a difference really (Score:3, Insightful)
However, probably only 1% of the AGW are like this guy and are legitimately uncertain about the science and want to know more Most are like Glenn Beck or Rick Perry and don't believe in global warming simply because it is(for them anyway), politically and economically expedient to do so. They will of course evoke the word "science" as if somehow just using that word automatically gives credence to what they are saying, but those guys don't even have a basic grasp of climate science, or even the scientific method as a whole.
I remember one of the rabid right-wing blogs going crazy because a new paper had shed more light on a particular topic and thus they seemed to think that it somehow "disproved" all climate science.... BUT THAT IS HOW SCIENCE FUCKING WORKS! The beauty about the scientific method is that we are constantly getting a clearer picture of what is going on and increasing our understanding of how things work, and reversals of some research is inevitable AND a good thing. However, these people look at changing your beliefs in response to new information as an anathema, you must be ideologically pure and no amount of empirical data should ever change how you view the world.....
Anyway, getting back on topic, this data will not convince the 99% of the AGW whose beliefs about global warming aren't even remotely rooted in science, and so the dark ages in the US will continue.
Re:Rather than pointing the finger at the Koch bro (Score:2, Insightful)
Their official position seems to support the idea that they have an agenda that would be in favor of supporting skeptics whenever possible.
Re:Not news (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
No, it is more likely that Mullar, who has always been on the mainstream side, knew his data set would show 10 years of no warming while CO2 increased. This would be fuel to the fire of climate skeptics, so he pre-empted with a press release stating that the data shows one thing when it actually shows the exact opposite.
Given the number of true believers here (people I equate with the deniers on the skeptic side), I am wondering how long this post, all of which is factual and can be confirmed with relative ease, will be modded "troll". Seems to happen to all posts that are in any way skeptical.
Re:Rather than pointing the finger at the Koch bro (Score:3, Insightful)
Published position != Official position.
Their official position is simple: Do what ever generates the most revenue at the highest profit margin or positions the company to do so in the next quarter.
If that means lobbying to get emissions and safty regulations lightened, they will. If that means buying out other companies producing solar or wind generators, they will. What ever it takes to increase their income.
-Rick
Re:Rather than pointing the finger at the Koch bro (Score:2, Insightful)
No for all his faults it seems that he is a Real Scientist, because changing your mind, when you have tested and confirmed your opponents position as true, is how science is supposed to work.
Re:I wonder (Score:4, Insightful)
The final stage is "Why didn't the scientists warn us that it would be this bad?! Sue them!"
Re:Different thing (Score:5, 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.
Re:Never a Global Warming Skeptic (Score:5, 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".
Re:Science is based on skepticism (Score:2, Insightful)
You didn't switch your stance at all. You just changed your rationalization for it. Your previous stance was "I don't want to do anything about it" and that's identical to your new stance.
Re:Different thing (Score:5, 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.
Re:Not news (Score:2, Insightful)
Muller has destroyed that narrative. By formulating a test outside of the conspiracy in the narrative, he has demonstrated that the narrative is myth. The CRU was right. GISS was right. The narrative that they colluded to fake the data is debunked.
Re:Different thing (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Different thing (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...
Re:Different thing (Score:5, 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.
Re:Different thing (Score:2, Insightful)
The only thing left to argue about is how much do we contribute... 80%? 50%?
Really? That's how little you understand the big picture? And you really think that if the number is 10%, or 50%, or 90% it makes no difference?
Regardless, the "denialists" you're loving to hate actually do want to know the number, because people like Al Gore and his large AGW money-handling machine say that human activity is the cause of climate change. Period. And people like him propose the re-arranging of trillions of dollars and government growth in power and intrusiveness (in a way that, gosh, just happens to line up nicely with what generally lefty activists and politicians have always wanted to have happen - how convenient!) as the cure for the 100% AGW that they're preaching.
You think there's nothing left but to settle on a number, just for sake of having it written down someplace? The people who want to cripple economies (just some economies, of course, but not poor, third-world, developing economies like China's) to atone for what they say is 100% man-made, are the people you should be keeping an eye on. They are in it for one thing only, which is why they set up all sorts of money-making entities poised to capitalize on politicians' urges to be seen "doing something." Something, of course, that - mysteriously - never seems to touch on the actual issue (too many people feverishly reproducing in places where they still do things like scrape rainforests down to the ground to get one season's wood and cowpasture, and build a new coal-fired power plant every week to keep up with population growth).
The people you sniffingly dismiss on this topic are looking at what other people, who claimed years ago to have this entirely figured out, numbers and causality and degree be damned, and who want to leverage the situation to get the cash and power. No surprise. Pictures of hurricanes coming out of smokestacks have obviously worked on you.
The link between GW-denial and religion (Score:0, Insightful)
One of the things that sometimes people get confused about, is why it's-happening vs it's-not-happening seems to be, in US, divided along party lines. The people who preach the loudest that all the worlds' scientists are conspiring to deceive the public, just happen to be Republicans.
It's generally assumed the reason for this, is that Republicans are anti-science. This isn't a hard leap, since that group just also happens to be the one who says that we're not sure evolution happened, and that there currently exists an "alternative theory" to evolution (thus, both showing misunderstanding about what theories are, and also showing a distrust for observations -- that science gives us clues about reality).
I think there's more to it than that, though, and the above question, which makes a reference to how the earth is "supposed to be" shows it. Supposed by whom? Is the poster a druid who reveres nature itself? Or is the Earth supposed to be a certain way in accordance with a creators' plan?
Basically: yes. One of those two things or something like it: Mankind should not assert its will over nature/god/whatever_is_happening. And admitting that earth is going to become more expensive than it need be, implies "somebody's gotta do something" to make it less expensive (and that charge is what you actually hear most often -- that the motivation for the pro-it's-happening conspiracy is to justify their version of "do something").
As usual, though (the same situation happens with evolution denial), religious fundamentalists don't want to admit the very premise that all their fears rest upon. If they would just admit that they believe earth should not be deliberately terraformed to suit an agenda (whether it's an anti-nature agenda or an anti-pollution agenda doesn't matter), then they would also be able to admit that warming is happening, or for those who already have, admit that evidence suggesting why it's happening, need not be viewed as adversarial.
Republicans could then be viewed as both consistent and honest, at the price of being outed as mystics. But they just can't do it, which is hilarious, since they've long-ago been outed as mystics anyway. Republicans: we all know that you deeply and sincerely believe in things unseeable and unmeasurable. Everyone knows that you hold a "truth" which defies the powers of observation and every single person's individual experience. Please, just come out of the closet. Embrace your faith publicly. I don't just mean you should say "I believe Jesus died for my sins," I mean explicitly state that you believe all the connecting "facts," such as that Jesus got better after he was executed, that Moses really did part the red sea, and that the purpose of mankind and the earth is to execute God's plan instead of being a place where individuals execute their personal liberty. Come out and say the biggest part of your platform: that things are not as they seem, observations and experiences cannot be trusted to reveal the truth about reality, because truth can only come from within, through faith.
Do that and you'll still be hated, but it'll be a more respectful hate, because you'll be honest. And think about this: if you can't admit all of that, then are you really religious? If you're not sure God did all those things, then why the fuck are you implying that the "temperature the earth is supposed to be" is an ideal to strive for or that it's even worth wondering about?
re: humans are causing it? (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that the "Global Warming" (oh sorry, now it's "Climate Change" since Al Gore's P.R. folks sat around and came up with that as a more palatable term to use instead when speaking in public) crowd wants to call everyone else a "denialist" shows the amount of polarization on this topic.
I don't consider myself a "denialist" at all, yet I've never gone along with the propaganda coming from the camp advocating serious changes be made NOW to fix this "crisis".
I'm actually glad to read that Muller proved himself to be a legitimate scientist, willing to question the popular opinion of the present time until he could gather enough evidence of his own to make a decision -- and then wound up deciding he agreed with the popular opinion, despite that not being where his initial suspicions fell.
That's what science is all about!
There are really TWO things left to argue about here. One is, like the original poster said, "How much do we contribute?", and the second is, "What, if anything, makes logical sense for us to change if we want to turn this situation around?" The studies I've read about recently (albeit mostly summarized in articles in magazines like Newsweek) seemed to indicate that even if we could somehow stop ALL of our CO2 emissions tomorrow, we'd be looking at many hundreds of years before we'd see temperatures fall back into the "normal" range, globally. That tells me it's pretty illogical to make costly changes in our behavior in a hurry. How about continuing to develop better and more efficient forms of alternative energy, while not blowing billions of dollars on government mandated changes prematurely? Today's solar panel of cost X and efficiency Y will surely cost much less than X with more efficiency than Y if we hang on another 5-10 years to let technology advance. (When the latest, greatest CPU comes out, do you recommend that all computer users rush out and buy one? Or to perhaps make a closer analogy to our Federal govt. and its energy policies -- Do you make a law requiring all computer users to upgrade immediately, since this new CPU uses less wattage per line of code processed? No! You let the early adopters and "edge case" customers buy it at full price, and everyone else waits a little while for it to trickle down to a more sensible price-point for them!)
Muller is part of the narrative (Score:3, Insightful)
His co-author says he's full of it, and the results do not match the headlines.
Re:Different thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything so long as you don't have to change your behavior.
Re:Different thing (Score:5, 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.
Re:Different thing (Score:2, Insightful)
In reality, it is more likely that any warming we are seeing actually comes from higher levels of water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor emissions are strongly correlated with CO2 emissions, after all. Not only that, but water vapor is a lot easier to get out of the atmosphere than CO2, and can be scrubbed for if desired. Even if my physical analysis is wrong, scrubbing water out of the atmosphere will have a much more rapid remediation effect than carbon credits or any other such money grubbing scheme.
Also note that labeling your intellectual opponents is a sign of the weakness of your argument, and a method for reinforcing your own bias.
Re:Different thing (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Denying the hockey stick graph does not make one a global warming skeptic. It makes him a hockey stick denier. The title of TFA is, "Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real".
1) The article is dishonest by claiming that Muller is a Global Warming Skeptic.
2) I find it sad that if a scientist, even one environmentally conscious as Muller is labeled as a AGW denier simply because he had issues with the Hockey Stick Graph. It's like the environmentalists are saying, "You are either 100% with us or you are against us. If you are against us, we will label you a denier and destroy you."
Re:Different thing (Score:5, 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?
Re:Different thing (Score:4, Insightful)
"I don't care what papers he backed and what papers he didn't. "
Right. You don't care whether he backs denier papers -- all you care about is grabbing a couple random quotes with no context (something that can be done for pretty much any denier). As if the latter is what matters and the former is irrelevant.
Re:Different thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Simply put: A ____ truther is a person who believes their position must be right because it is NOT the majority opinion.
Re:Different thing (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm all for reducing carbon emissions, if it comes in the form of non-subsidized nuclear, wind, and solar energy.
When you come down to it deniers are always deniers because of conflicts with their political beliefs. It's never really down to science. Deniers are invariably Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, tea partiers, believers in small government, believers in the free market and other right wing groups. They feel that any attempt to do something about AGW conflicts with their ideology. So they will grasp at anything to deny it.
They are like the tobacco companies and their lobbyists and apologists that denied that tobacco smoking causes cancer, and kept on denying it for decades after the science was clear that it did. For them, the freedom to make money from selling tobacco in an unrestricted fashion is more important than the fact that it kills lots of people. But rather than being honest about that, they just denied that it killed people.
Re:Different thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Different thing (Score:4, Insightful)
God you're one ignorant fuck, you know that?
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.
Thats pretty much what we 'denialists' have always said, if you'd been paying attention rather than having your head up someones ass saying 'they are right and you are wrong because we're louder!'. Instead, you don't even actually know what the debate is about.
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.
You completely fail to understand the difference between science and politics. Science has SOME theories suggesting what you say, no proof. Politics turn those theories into 'proof' for people like yourself who hasn't actally looked at the research, you've just picked a side.
No intelligent person is claiming that global warming isn't happening. Its been happening for 100k years or so that our planet has been climbing its way out of the last ice age. There is no denying it. And we're now we're into the disputed territory, as to whats going to happen in the future and how big of an impact we have on it.
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...
Then you need to have an actual discussion with intelligent people rather than the morons you're talking too. CC is happening because its part of the Earth's cycle and has been for millions of years due to many variations in the planet that existed before humans existed. You're just too ignorant/lazy to bother to learn any actual facts yourself, instead you'd rather repeat what some stooge on TV or elsewhere parroted at you. The fact that you don't know this tells me you must have payed absolutely no attention what so ever during your education, or you didn't get one in America.
which is the reason why I call them "denialists".
No, you call us denialists as an insult and a way to degrade our opinions in the eyes of others. Its basically the same thing as me call you a moron. The difference is, I'm clear that I'm calling you an idiot, you're just a passive aggressive ignorant little lacky for politicians.
I'm a 'denialist' and I can safely say that you have absolutely no fucking clue why we 'denialists' are so.
I believe you would be referred to as a 'follower' for blindly following without understanding, at least I listen and make an attempt to accept both sides of the argument based on evidence. You're clearly basing your entire belief on faith, arrogance and pride. Its like you've joined a cult and are ignoring evidence because you 'know' you're right.
Ah, so he's a real skeptic then. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Different thing (Score:4, Insightful)
It's even more than that.
What many people see is the craziness people get over one degree (or even a half), when we see things all around that suggest far more drastic changes:
The "Fertile Crescent", which went from Iraq through Israel/Palestine to Egypt and Ethiopia, is now desert. All of it. There was no significant raise in generation of carbon.
There are mammoths in Russia that are flash-frozen with jungle foods in their bellies. Nobody's SUV caused that.
The fact is that we live on a planet which undergoes constant changes, some of which we can control and some we can't. The disagreements are that some don't believe we are warming significantly (compared to obviously-worse past events) and don't agree that the human cause is a significant percentage of the problem. Many people also believe that simply planting more trees takes care of the carbon problem, or that increased carbon dioxide actually CAUSES more trees to grow naturally, self-correcting the problem.
Spending billions to address 1% of the problem would obviously be a huge mistake, and that's what people object to. Likewise, doing nothing about something that could cause major catastrophes is a huge mistake as well. This is why people are so emotional on both sides.
Unfortunately, like most things in life, most people are massive fanbois to the side they have chosen and refuse to consider the arguments and evidence for both sides, instead calling the other side names and trying to shame them and invalidate their arguments with ad hominem attacks.