BS: Global warming: I was wrong!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 03:46 PM

: the hottest temperature ever recorded in the US was in 1913 when we had about 1/4 as many of those evil poluting humans as we do now

So what? It was a hot day.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 03:41 PM

THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS IRONY.

Whoa, dude! Most people who smoke don't get cancer. Only some do. That proves it's perfectly safe, because other people get cancer without even smoking.

END OF IRONIC PORTION OF MESSAGE.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 03:30 PM

You just implied that humans don't pollute. I think you're wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: pdq
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 03:14 PM

"...He further refines his argument showing the distribution of the error, and the problems with the USHCN temperature data. He also sends an email to NASA GISS advising of the problem.

He finally publishes it here, stating that NASA made a correction not only on their own web page, attributing the discovery to McIntyre, but NASA also issued a corrected set of temperature anomaly data which you can see here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

Steve McIntyre posted this data from NASA's newly published data set from Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) These numbers represent deviation from the mean temperature calculated from temperature measurement stations throughout the USA.

According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is.

Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.)"

Top 10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007
Year         Old         New
1934         1.23         1.25
1998         1.24         1.23
1921         1.12         1.15
2006         1.23         1.13
1931         1.08         1.08
1999         0.94         0.93
1953         0.91         0.90
1990         0.88         0.87
1938         0.85         0.86
1939         0.84         0.85

{note: the hottest temperature ever recorded in the US was in 1913 when we had about 1/4 as many of those evil poluting humans as we do now}

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 02:43 PM

And the idea that smoking causes cancer is another lie that's been foisted on a gullible public...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 02:27 PM

Once upon a time I lived in a lake.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 02:12 PM

http://colli239.fts.educ.msu.edu/2004/12/31/arctic-temp-1961-1990/

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 01:14 PM

Relevant words in pdq's link: "Climate skeptics claim "

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 12:36 PM

It's fine to challenge the credentials of those who believe that global warming is happening and that there's a strong man-made component to it; it's also appropriate to challenge the credentials of those who don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 12:03 PM

Give it up, PeeDee. Your BS factoids don't negate the overwheming concensus of 95% plus of the scientific community.

Of course, certain folks deny the Holocaust happened, too......

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 11:31 AM

Climategate
Anthropogenic Global Warming, history's biggest scam


Come on Pdq, try to find us a biased source.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: pdq
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 10:43 AM

There has been adjusting and purging of temperature data for at least 20 years.

Czech this out...

                               http://www.climategate.com/czechgate-climate-scientists-dump-worlds-second-oldest-cold-climate-record

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 05 Aug 12 - 10:18 AM

The informed electorate is a tad more likely to believe "global warming" in the summer, less likely in the winter:

http://news.yahoo.com/opinions-global-warming-shift-weather-181243492.html

And so, as they say, it goes.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 12 - 04:29 PM

"Something needs to curb the explosive population growth which can't be sustained."

You volunteering? That's big of you. So lobg, it's been good to know you...

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Aug 12 - 03:51 PM

Bill it won't "all" go down the tubes. The planet WILL look after its self. Even in the event of human catastrophe reducing the population to a few tens of millions and virtually obliterating all technology and recorded history would not destroy all life. The biosphere would find another equilibrium. What does it matter that tens of millions might be displaced in Bangladesh in out lifetimes or that droughts and other extreme avoidable weather might cause mass starvation. Obviously driving that SUV and using coal powered electricity because it is a few cents cheaper, is a much better priority.


Now the inevitable march of entropy and the expansion of the sun to a red giant completely engulfing the planet in just a few billion years... Now that is something to worry about. But until then, eat drink and be merry for eventually the species dies.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Aug 12 - 03:35 PM

"The planet will look after itself, .."

"Something needs to curb the explosive population growth which can't be sustained."

Both are true... for different reasons. *IF* we care about what happens to us, population AND any possible effect on climate (those are connected) need to be addressed.

The planet will 'sorta' look after itself.. but that is an anthropomorphic concept. The planet merely follows natural laws. It doesn't 'care' what happens. Neither do bacteria, insects, trees, aardvarks..or even apes. WE are the only life form which has any sense of the overall picture.... and eventually, WE are at the mercy of the processes. I just hate the idea of it all going down the tubes before it has to.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Aug 12 - 03:19 PM

>>>"Global warming" is indeed a very misleading term. It invites people in a place like England to say "I wouldn't mind it being a bit warmer, nothing to worry about".

Whereas it's quite possible that, in the complexity of the planet's weather systems, an overall rise in temperature could usher in a new Ice Age for this part of the world.<<<

certainly a couple of degrees bend in the direction of the Gulf Stream, where it passes 20 miles form my door could have interesting consequences for the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Brian May
Date: 04 Aug 12 - 03:03 PM

Mmmm, can I have the second one please, I'll go for the Carpe Diem option.

I point blank refuse to feel guilt or run around worrying about some thing that may or may not happen. All this emotional blackmail leaves me cold . . . hence a rise in temp suites me.

The temperature on this planet has been fluctuating for eons. The planet will look after itself, whether 'we're' here to see it of course is another matter. Something needs to curb the explosive population growth which can't be sustained. Why not this?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 12 - 02:29 PM

"Global warming" is indeed a very misleading term. It invites people in a place like England to say "I wouldn't mind it being a bit warmer, nothing to worry about".

Whereas it's quite possible that, in the complexity of the planet's weather systems, an overall rise in temperature could usher in a new Ice Age for this part of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 04 Aug 12 - 02:08 PM

So will Amsterdam.

People seem to have a hard time differentiating between "weather," "local conditions," and "climate."

As I wrote on another thread, there is no scientific doubt whatsoever that the earth is warming. The only doubt (whether much of it is due to human industrial activities) has now been laid to rest by it foremost proponent.

Only two arguments are left for ignoring it. One goes as follows:

"But it won't get really bad for another seventy-five years. I won't even be here! Anyway, the future can take care of itself! What's more the Lord won't let it happen, because the earth was made for man and not the other way around. They'll fix it at the last minute, like they always do, with technology that hasn't even been invented yet! Get real!"

The other is:

"Who the hell cares? There's nothing they can do about it, so carpe diem, y'all! Mmmmmm, more profits and products for my quality of life!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Aug 12 - 12:55 PM

"...warming generally meant the mercury rose in the thermometer..."

Come to MY yard in Maryland USA. We have all YOUR lost degrees and more.... and the polar bears have some of them also. Inuits are having trouble finding safe places to fish & hunt as sea ice melts early.
Glaciers are melting in Alaska and Antarctica... it was 111F (43.89C) in Kansas a couple days ago. Don't worry, you'll get your share.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Brian May
Date: 04 Aug 12 - 12:01 PM

Climates change.

I could really do with a really good dose of global warming in my back garden. This summer in UK has been one of the coldest and wettest in my memory.

I thought that warming generally meant the mercury rose in the thermometer, not went the other way.

But since I have Gore-Tex, I join those that don't really give a shit, because if we don't die from that, then arguments over religion will succeed in hastening the scheduled demise of humanity.

The only certainty is death - that's it.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Aug 12 - 11:53 AM

Echoing Q and McGrath: This is a situation where, even if you 'suspect' the alarmists might be wrong it is prudent to 'err on the side of caution'.

The steps needed to TRY to combat climatic change... developing clean energy, etc., ... will be of benefit, even **IF** the entire hypothesis were wrong.... and most competent scientists now believe the hypothesis is correct.

Most of the opposition is coming, directly or indirectly, from those who fear some sort of disruption to their financial interests in the short run. Some people are emotionally incapable of looking beyond their personal wallet.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Aug 12 - 11:49 AM

Good news- the ocean is huge,(70+ percent) and can absorb much carbon and heat from the atmosphere.

Bad news - Warmer oceans impact currents, and storm levels and frequency, and marine life. More ocean carbon changes acidity levels. Gradual changes leads to adaptions.

Climate changes can impact areas differently. Some could see dryer conditions, some wetter, major storm events could be more frequent in some areas.

Climate always changes to some degree. More rapid changes makes it more difficult to adapt to these changes - that is for all species.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Aug 12 - 11:42 AM

Dang, Ed, thank you. Makes much more sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Aug 12 - 11:35 AM

"The name itself is both misleading and imo a misnomer.


Good point. That's why many scientists now refer to "Climate Change".

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Aug 12 - 11:13 AM

Spoken like a true denier, PeeDee. Nice job of cherry-picking irrelevant factoids.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Aug 12 - 10:24 AM

The name itself is both misleading and imo a misnomer. We'd likely be better off calling it global temperature upset or a term like it. Warming carries the sense that we can feel the world average temperature and of course we cannot. It's hard to tell a Canadian that there is global warming when it's 40 below in February. The planet is for most intent and purpose a closed system. Basically, what ya see is what ya got to work with--forever. There are only three places to put stuff: air, sea, land. Mess any of them up, which we have, and it's possible we could so screw things up as to make recovery beyond our capabilities. Sooner or later we're gonna figure that out. Sooner would be better.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 12 - 09:57 AM

Regardless of the causes- and this is important - steps must be taken to diminish the effects and provide alternatives.

Thanks for putting that so succinctly Q. It's so obvious it shouldn't need saying, but it does.

I can't understand the kind of attitude that would presumably say "Stop trying to put out this burning house. I don't think it was actually set alight by an arsonist, it was a lighning strike. Nothing to do with us."

As for stuff like lasat winter's freeze in Amsterdam, that only happens pretty rarely, and it's been that way since the canals were built. It's weather, not climate. "What do you mean by 'global warming' - it was very cold this morning."

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: pdq
Date: 03 Aug 12 - 10:13 AM

Q...

You completely left out changes in the energy output of the Sun.

It seems to be down a bit since 1998.

Odd that world-wide temps are also slightly lower in the last 14 years and the canals of Amsterdam are freezing-over once more after a decade-longe absence.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 09:58 PM

Global warming has two components.
One is due to changes in the earth itself; shifting of the earth's axis, continental drift and piling up on continental margins causing changes in oceanic and atmospheric currents, amount of volcanic activity, etc.
Ice ages occurred in many periods, we are most familiar with those of the last million or so years because of the physical evidence preserved in the rocks and in the shaping of our landscape, and in remaining vestiges of glaciation.

The second is the result of man's activity, beginning with the Industrial Revolution and increasing with time, as we pollute the atmosphere and destroy the forests, disrupting the ecosphere.

Denial of the latter effect, or quibbling about the contributions of different possible causes, is resorted to by those who have a vested interest in particular industries which contribute to atmospheric pollution, and well as by those of us whose livelihoods depend on those industries in some way.

Scientific evidence is found in the gases and pollutants preserved in ice cores taken from ice sheets that have accumulated over the past 1000 years, and in the disruption of atmospheric layers, not just in the retreat of glacial sources of water, increases in oceanic temperatures or changes in the distribution of life forms.

Regardless of the causes- and this is important- steps must be taken to diminish the effects and provide alternatives.

As noted, the average Bangladeshi or shoreline dweller is severely affected by a rise in sea level, regardless of whether it is caused by long term earth cycles or man's activities, the Indian farmer is starved by the decrease in water as rivers dry up because of less ice in the Himalayas, and temperature changes cause shifts in location and extent of arable lands.

Mankind, however, tends to muddle on until disaster strikes.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 09:13 PM

Bobert, where did you get the information that Muller is in the employ of the Koch brothers? How could that even make sense?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 09:11 PM

Most scientists worldwide agree that global warming is happening and that human activity is a significant contributor. See http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/facts.html

As to what is to be done: To preserve our planet, scientists tell us we must reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from its current level of 392 parts per million to below 350 ppm. See http://www.350.org/en/mission

I stand by my statement that it is past time for the deniers (corporate polluters and their political and media shills) to shut the fuck up and stand aside, so that action can be taken before it's too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 09:03 PM

The Koch brothers, who BTW hired this hit man, are trying to get ahead of a major push back against them for trying to buy the 2012 election...

So their PR folks told them that they needed to put forth a little more kinder and gentler raping on out planet...

I heard Muller on NPR today and he made my skin crawl... He is a hit man of all hit men... He doesn't know squat about squat when it come to climatology... He is a loser and so are his bosses, the Koch brothers...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 08:32 PM

I have talked with scientists who contribute to global climate studies that are convinced of global warming. However, even though there are many contributing scientists, it seems odd to me that one can be so totally convinced, given the complexity of the issue, historic scale and information gaps.

On the other side, some folks are too eager to throw all the science out because a few of the many researchers made errors in judgement. To compound this, it seems hard for some to understand the differences between longer term global climate and short term local weather, and to weigh the differences between peer reviewed scientific research and the personal perspectives of folks with scientific backgrounds.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 08:17 PM

Those remarks weren't directed at you, 999. I said "in general." I have no opinion about fracking. I don't know that much about it.

The phrase "bought and paid for," however, has been tossed around by both sides in the public-relations war about Global Warming and many other issues. It's easy to make, because people don't usually work for free.

To too many people, partisanship and ideological purity are more important than facts, which they often deride as "just an opinion" or the result of "deeply flawed studies." Of course, these phrases never seem to apply to their own position.

("Flawed study" is another easy charge to make, since a perfect study is by definition impossible. Anyway, it usually requires more than one less-than-perfect study to establish a new fact.)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 06:46 PM

A bit of a thread drift, but - a few years ago I was arranging for some home construction. I was told by all of the companies I dealt with that ABS sheathing was just as good as plywood, and that there were scientific proof to back it up.

I looked up the contact list for a plywood organization, and sent an email to one of their engineers on the validity of the statement. He told me that there was significant differences, and that research tests show that ABS was definately inferior to plywood, end significantly so under some circumstances. When I asked him about the statements I received, he said that ABS is where the marketing money" is and it is difficult because almost every supply and construction organization is influenced by the marketing and have a vested interest. He indicated that even the plywood manafacturers (and their agents) were unlikely to "set the record straight" on this issue as they manufactor both products.

My message is, in todays world, keep a keen eye on where the marketing money lies before you rule on important issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 06:22 PM

We do tend to find the lowest common denominator, and sometimes it's lower than any of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 06:01 PM

I suspect the abilene paradox influences science, as well as other elements of our society.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 05:55 PM

I worked with scientists for many years and have never seen a case of a scientist or a research result "bought" by private dollars. In fact, I know of no cases where even an attempt was made to directly influence such projects.

However, I have observed cases where I suspect the type of research projects selected and how they operated were significantly influenced by the monies available, (where funds were made available through organizations representating the vested interest financing). I have also seen "confounding factors" overstated or understated in results, which, at the time, I suspected were somewhat influenced by where the project's funding came from. I also suspected that, where scientists competed for private funds, the successful canididate selected was the scientist viewed as being favourable to the funding sources interests.

While scientific independance is alive and well, many organizations reward scientists supporting the majority viewpoint and isolate those who consistantly do not. So, I suspect a "group think" scenario can easily evolve.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 05:28 PM

"I'm pretty tired in general of the popular certainty that legitimate researchers come up with whatever results their "corporate masters" pay for."

You are ascribing to me what I did not say, Lighter. I did say that some scientists get bought. BTW, you said that, too. I did not say that all scientists get bought.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 05:20 PM

True, unfortunately.

The unshakable rule in too many minds is that media prominence equals genuine significance.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 05:17 PM

""and an expectation that most researchers lie for cash""

But, at, at times, it only takes "a few" well marketed "researchers" nes to skew public opinion amd turn many around, especially those making up a good percentage near the middle on many issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 05:07 PM

I'm pretty tired in general of the popular certainty that legitimate researchers come up with whatever results their "corporate masters" pay for.

Of course it happens.

However, professional journals exist to review and essentially cross-examine any papers that are submitted to them, to keep bogus or slanted "findings" from appearing. This process usually works, though once in a while something fraudulent slips through.

If they suspect fudging of data, or outright deception, rival researchers with advanced degrees try to ferret it out, both to further their own careers and to get at the truth.

Professionals adhere to professional standards. I think the notion that all experts are bought comes from a number of places, including:

the phenomenon of "expert witnesses" in court,
unfamiliarity with the research and publication process,
absolute faith in one's own prior beliefs,
a failure to understand the difference between fact and opinion,
and an expectation that most researchers lie for cash.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 04:03 PM

" fracking has good science that proves it is not harmful to ground water; however, the science that says so was bought and paid for by frackers. "

It was a lot worse than it is and safer wells cost more that is for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 03:59 PM

From the article: "Reality is always objective, but unfortunately it's rarely unanimous."

As a sometimes-supporter of Green politics, I must say that we aren't always right. For example, fracking has good science that proves it is not harmful to ground water; however, the science that says so was bought and paid for by frackers.

Only a fool would suggest that global warming is not a reality. The fucking ice in the Arctic is melting. Why? Well, duh, it's getting warmer. If I made my billions in an industry that contributed to global warming, guess what? I'd spend a percent or two to tell you what I was doing does not cause/contribute to global warming. That ain't rocket science. What also ain't rocket science is this: corporations can buy all the scientific proof they need, and they do. I don't know whether that speaks to prostitution as a good or a bad thing, but it's paying someone's bills--underwritten by cheques cashed on the bank account of the human race.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 03:25 PM

But if after the scientific conversion of this latest prominent skeptic, you still can't acknowledge that what's happening is happening, then you are hopelessly lost in the maze of your own arrogant paranoia.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 03:21 PM

An end to skepticism-Not!

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 03:14 PM

Hmmmmm. So Ed, the debate now is not about the data, which is increasingly clear, but on esoteric points of theoretical philosophy?

That is sure to encourage the Bangladeshis. Or Texas and most or the mid west, this summer for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 03:02 PM

Right or wrong, science and cultish thinking - who do you trust and how do you decide?


Trust?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: pdq
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 02:01 PM

Dr. Richard Muller is a brilliant man, but his fields of expertise are particle theory and astrophysics.

Collecting data about temperature from weather records is boring, hum drum stuff, and would cause distress in the overly-bright Muller.

Muller sharply criticized the "hockey stick graff" put forth from "climate scientist" Mann. It was a hybrid made from two completely different types of data, hence the sharp change on the graph's slope. Muller rightly called it "misinformation" which caused some problems for him at ultra-Liberal UC Berkeley.

This exercise should make life much easier for him. The other profssors may even start talking to him again.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 01:34 PM

Quite the contrary.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 12:53 PM

A Bangladeshi friend off mine would disagree with you there lighter, as his country is already feeling the effects of climate change. Mind you, you probably don't give a fuck obviously.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 12:03 PM

The emerging fallback position is clearly that there's nothing to be done, so it's a non-issue. Get over it, lefties! It's business as usual!

(Muller seems not to be saying this.)

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Stu
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 11:38 AM

"Perhaps if you state your point it would start good dialogue."

Dialogue is irrelevant, and a waste of time. Action is all that matters at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 11:22 AM

Maybe we all eventually may be proven to be right, or maybe wrong - based on the right or wrong reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 10:57 AM

I will now accept I was wrong too.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 09:19 AM

Probably too late to do anything about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: GUEST,marks
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 03:20 AM

michaelr

Any suggestions on just what are the somethings which should be done about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 12:43 AM

The scientist in question, Richard Muller, had agreed in an article reported in October 2011, that the earth was getting warmer.

The difference between then and now is that new analysis, including information added to the studies, have lead him to conclude that human activities are the main cause of the warming that is being observed and documented.

It is perhaps of some significance that the organization that produced the new information, and the new opinion, was produced with major funding from what is commonly referred to as the "Koch Foundation."

Originally published at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45099973/ns/technology_and_science-science/ but the page is no longer up: Headlined "Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real"

By SETH BORENSTEIN
Associated Press
10/31/2011

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.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Aug 12 - 12:08 AM

Professor Muller was browbeaten by the data.
It's the way science works.

Perhaps if you state your point it would start good dialogue.

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Aug 12 - 10:35 PM

Yes, by all means, let's browbeat everyone who doesn't agree with us about whatever the subject may be into "shutting the fuck up". Isn't that what democracy and good dialogue are all about?

Subject: RE: BS: Global warming: I was wrong!
From: michaelr
Date: 01 Aug 12 - 10:27 PM

From the article linked above:

"A prominent scientist who was skeptical of the evidence that climate change was real, let alone that it was caused by humans, now says he has made a "total turnaround." Richard Muller, a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, says he has become convinced that "the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct," and that humans are "almost entirely the cause" of that warming.

Muller co-founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) team two years ago in order to independently assess what he viewed as questionable evidence of global warming. In a series of papers published last year, BEST presented their statistical analysis of 1.6 billion temperature reports spanning the last 200 years, controlling for possible biases in the data that are often cited by skeptics as reasons to doubt the reality of global warming.

Their analysis indicated that global warming is real — that the average global land temperature has risen by 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) since 1750, including 1.5 degrees F (0.9 degrees Celsius) in the past 50 years. The numbers closely agree with the findings of past studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA and others; but finally, they were rigorous enough to satisfy Muller.

Now, in a brand new study that probed the causes of that warming, the BEST team says it has cleared from blame the natural variations in Earth's climate that so often get implicated by skeptics. Muller and his colleagues implicate carbon dioxide emissions by humans as essentially the sole cause of global warming."

Thank you, Professor Muller. Now will all the prominent climate change deniers please shut the fuck up and let something get done about it? We're running out of time.

Subject: BS: "Global warming: I was wrong!"
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 01 Aug 12 - 09:33 PM

So says this influential scientist:

http://news.yahoo.com/former-global-warming-skeptic-makes-total-turnaround-113037588.html