Scientists discover that climate-change skeptics are bozos

[Sonny Limatina]

Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real

By SETH BORENSTEIN
The Associated Press

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.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/skeptic-finds-he-now-1213107.html

 

[naughtycakes]

Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real

By SETH BORENSTEIN
The Associated Press

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.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/skeptic-finds-he-now-1213107.html

Interesting. Koch brothers aren't gonna be too please, methinks.

 

[seamus221]

New climate study deals blow to skeptics
By Matthew Knight, CNN

London (CNN) -- An independent study of global temperature records has reaffirmed previous conclusions by climate scientists that global warming is real.

The new analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project examined 1.6 billion temperature reports from 15 data archives stretching back over 200 years in an effort to address scientific concerns raised by climate skeptics about the data used to inform reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Dummies to "Berkeley!" in 5...4...

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/americas/climate-study-warming-real/

More lies and fake studies to cover up past lies and bullshit,only morons believe this climate stuff and so far they are!
Planets fine but the people are getting dumber and this proves how dumb they all are!
They lied,they got caught,they changed the name and are back at it like the left wing loser's they are.
Keep drinking the Fool aid you tool!!

 

[evesdream]

Seamus is not taking the news very well.

 

[cjh]

More lies and fake studies to cover up past lies and bullshit,only morons believe this climate stuff and so far they are!
Planets fine but the people are getting dumber and this proves how dumb they all are!
They lied,they got caught,they changed the name and are back at it like the left wing loser's they are.
Keep drinking the Fool aid you tool!!

did you answer col. hogans' question yesterday, by any chance?

 

[cjh]

Seamus is not taking the news very well.

he needs a good editor.

 

[Peregrinator]

More lies and fake studies to cover up past lies and bullshit,only morons believe this climate stuff and so far they are!
Planets fine but the people are getting dumber and this proves how dumb they all are!
They lied,they got caught,they changed the name and are back at it like the left wing loser's they are.
Keep drinking the Fool aid you tool!!

Only two right-wing empty-headed echo chamber talking points in this post. Not a very good effort.

 

[mercury14]

Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real

By SETH BORENSTEIN
The Associated Press

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.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/skeptic-finds-he-now-1213107.html

Yeah I saw that. Mueller was pretty much the most respected scientist in the 'GW is not real' camp. Him switching sides is a big deal. Especially since what tipped him over was research funded by oil mega-corps.

 

[trysail]

Yeah I saw that. Mueller was pretty much the most respected scientist in the 'GW is not real' camp. Him switching sides is a big deal. Especially since what tipped him over was research funded by oil mega-corps.

You have your facts wrong ( again ).


Muller was never what you've described him. Where do you get this stuff ?

 

[Sonny Limatina]

You have your facts wrong ( again ).


Muller was never what you've described him. Where do you get this stuff ?

It doesn't matter--leave that aside for a moment, since it's a red herring.

Simple question: Muller was skeptical before he undertook primary research. He ended up, after analyzing the data himself and specifically testing the skeptics' various hypotheses, a believer.

Was he wrong before or is he wrong now?

 

[Peregrinator]

Mueller was pretty much the most respected scientist in the 'GW is not real' camp.

That's a stretch. I would think Lindzen would take that honor.


But it's still a big deal to see Muller flip and support the hockey stick. This is from Muller's wiki page:

In a 2004 article, Muller supported the findings of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick in which they criticized the research, led by Michael E. Mann, which produced the so-called "hockey stick graph" of global temperatures over the past millennium [4] In response, Mann criticized Muller on his blog RealClimate.[5] Marcel Crok, a reporter for the Dutch popular science magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, later did a story on the incident.[6]


In October 2011, Muller recanted his global warming skepticism in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal[7], saying "When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections. Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that." Although Muller's research was funded by the oil-billionaire Koch Brothers who profit from global-warming skepticism, Muller's detailed research of some 1.6 billion temperature records from more than 39,000 temperature-reporting stations worldwide, led him to conclude that the "hockey stick graph" of global temperatures that he had once criticized was accurate after all.[8][9]

 

[JohnnySavage]

This is getting close to never ending. I hope I don't have to put Sonny on ignore...

 

[Sean]

Normally I don't bother with GW threads any more, it's like reading a bunch of Labradors talking about Mozart. But this one's hilarious.

 

[trysail]

"You're Not Allowed To Do That In Science"

Richard A. Muller, Ph.D.
Professor, UC ( Berkeley )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk&feature=player_embedded

 

[Peregrinator]

"You're Not Allowed To Do That In Science"

Richard A. Muller, Ph.D.
Professor, UC ( Berkeley )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk&feature=player_embedded

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/Peregrinator/MullerBelieves.jpg

 

[Peregrinator]

Normally I don't bother with GW threads any more, it's like reading a bunch of Labradors talking about Mozart. But this one's hilarious.

It's amazing the lengths people will go to. Did you see where AJ compared me to Lovelynice? And the continued reference to those of us who believe the science as religious...it's truly incredible.

 

[Peregrinator]

Just in case my last screen grab was too subtle for the audience.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/Peregrinator/MullerBelieves-1.jpg

 

[mercury14]

You have your facts wrong ( again ).


Muller was never what you've described him. Where do you get this stuff ?

Sorry, he did not believe that global warming wasn't real, merely that there wasn't evidence showing it was real. Mah bad.

Now he believes there's sufficient evidence for it.

 

[trysail]

I'm not sure that Richard A. Muller, Ph.D. knows what he believes.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/

http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#skepticism


Is it time now to end global warming skepticism?

Our study addressed only one area of the concerns: was the temperature rise on land improperly affected by the four key biases (station quality, homogenization, urban heat island, and station selection)? The answer turned out to be no – but they were questions worthy of investigation. Berkeley Earth has not addressed issues of the tree ring and proxy data, climate model accuracy, or human attribution.

http://berkeleyearth.org/FAQ.php#peer_review

Why didn't Berkeley Earth wait for peer review?

Some people think that peer review consists of submitting a paper to a journal and waiting for the anonymous comments of referees. Traditional peer review is much broader than that and much more open. In science, when you have a new result, your first step is to present it to your colleagues by giving presentations, talks at local and international conferences, colloquia, and by sending out "preprints." In fact, every academic department in the sciences had a preprint library where people would read up on the latest results. If they found something to disagree with, they would talk to or write the authors. Preprint libraries were so popular that, if you found someone was not in the office or lab, the first place you would search would be in the preprint library. Recently these rooms have disappeared, their place taken over by the internet. The biggest preprint library in the world now is a website, arXiv.org.

Such traditional and open peer review has many advantages. It usually results in better papers in the archival journals, because the papers are widely examined prior to publication. It does have a disadvantage, however, that journalists can also pick up preprints and report on them before the traditional peer-review process is finished.

Perhaps because of the media picking up on talks and preprints, a few journals made a new rule: they will not publish anything that is distributed as a preprint or that is discussed openly in a meeting or colloquium. This policy has resulted in more attention to several journals, but the restrictive approach had a detrimental effect on the traditional peer review system. Some fields of science, for example String Theory, objected so strongly that they refuse to publish in these journals, and they put all their papers online immediately.

The best alternative would be to have the media hold back and not report preprint material. Unfortunately they refuse to do that. The situation is made more difficult by the fact that many of the media misreport the content of the preprints. For that reason Berkeley Earth has tried to answer the questions given to us by the media, in hopes that our work will be more accurately reported. The two page summary of findings is also meant to help ensure that the media reports accurately reflect the content of our papers.

 

[Ishmael]

I'm not sure that Richard A. Muller, Ph.D. knows what he believes.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/

It may be worth my while to drive up to Santa Fe tomorrow.

Ishmael

 

[trysail]

By SETH BORENSTEIN
The Associated Press

Borenstein is a professional regurgitator and genuine idiot. This is a guy whose entire raison d'etre is to fill space between advertisements. I'd be amazed if he ever had an independent thought in his life.

 

[patrick1]

I'm not sure that Richard A. Muller, Ph.D. knows what he believes.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/

Well isn't that healthy, about a scientist looking at evidence?

That's one thing I've never understood about this debate. Why it's ok to arrive at the evidence with your view already formed.

For me, the jury's still out here. And I'm by prejudice as 'green' as can be. The majority seems to believe in 'agw'. To me it would therefore be wisest to act, in the public sphere, as if that were probably true.

Why are people, in the face of contradictory evidence, so convinced that humans don't cause global warming? I just don't get that whole argument. The conviction about it. Scepticism, yes, I get. But conviction?

But...to be clear...I'm perfectly game to be proved wrong.



Patrick

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Borenstein is a professional regurgitator and genuine idiot. This is a guy whose entire raison d'etre is to fill space between advertisements. I'd be amazed if he ever had an independent thought in his life.

This is awesome.

 

[trysail]

Well isn't that healthy, about a scientist looking at evidence?

That's one thing I've never understood about this debate. Why it's ok to arrive at the evidence with your view already formed.

For me, the jury's still out here. And I'm by prejudice as 'green' as can be. The majority seems to believe in 'agw'. To me it would therefore be wisest to act, in the public sphere, as if that were probably true.

Why are people, in the face of contradictory evidence, so convinced that humans don't cause global warming? I just don't get that whole argument. The conviction about it. Scepticism, yes, I get. But conviction?

But...to be clear...I'm perfectly game to be proved wrong.



Patrick

Somewhere around 2006, at the height of the hysteria created by the determined and frenzied campaign of Al Gore & Co to proselytize the self-delusional apocalyptic vision of climate Armageddon by whatever means necessary ( including a truckload of false information and shonky science ), the antennæ of many sentient persons were stimulated. The Gore & Co. campaign had all the hallmarks and fingerprints of a missionary sales effort orchestrated by a bunch of hustlers.

Gore & Co. tried to pull a fast one on the country and the world insisting on precipitous and ill-advised action long before the "science was settled." They preferred and would not entertain the idea of any debate. To this day, they have failed to produce evidence that the climate change we have witnessed is anything other than normal, naturally occuring climate change— and, fortunately, there is going to be a debate rather than the ill-considered and premature rush to judgment that Gore & Co. attempted to impose.


Dr. Curry reports on her meeting with Dr. Muller at Santa Fe:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/discussion-with-rich-muller/

 

[Peregrinator]

Somewhere around 2006, at the height of the hysteria created by the determined and frenzied campaign of Al Gore & Co to proselytize the self-delusional apocalyptic vision of climate Armageddon by whatever means necessary ( including a truckload of false information and shonky science ), the antennæ of many sentient persons were stimulated. The Gore & Co. campaign had all the hallmarks and fingerprints of a missionary sales effort orchestrated by a bunch of hustlers.

Gore & Co. tried to pull a fast one on the country and the world insisting on precipitous and ill-advised action long before the "science was settled." They preferred and would not entertain the idea of any debate. To this day, they have failed to produce evidence that the climate change we have witnessed is anything other than normal, naturally occuring climate change— and, fortunately, there is going to be a debate rather than the ill-considered and premature rush to judgment that Gore & Co. attempted to impose.


Dr. Curry reports on her meeting with Dr. Muller at Santa Fe:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/discussion-with-rich-muller/

Gore's book had a couple errors but was largely accurate.

This:

To this day, they have failed to produce evidence that the climate change we have witnessed is anything other than normal, naturally occuring climate change...


is an utterly false and contemptible piece of nonsense. I can't believe there's a thinking person alive who could post it.

Look up a few posts to see what Muller said about the hockey stick.

Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Do you deny that we're releasing it in unprecedented amounts? Shit, even Lomborg says it's factual. Are you aligning yourself with the true denialists as opposed to the skeptics?