Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humans

[villager]

Source: BBC

A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures. In a US newspaper opinion piece, Prof Richard Muller says: "Call me a converted sceptic."

Muller leads the Berkeley Earth Project, which is using new methods and some new data to investigate the claims made by other climate researchers. Their latest study confirms the warming trend seen by other groups.

The project received funds from sources that back organisations lobbying against action on climate change.

Their latest study, released early on Monday (GMT), concludes that the average temperature of the Earth's land has risen by 1.5C (2.7F) over the past 250 years.

The team argues that the good correspondence between the new temperature record and historical data on CO2 emissions suggests human activity is "the most straightforward explanation" for the warming.

The paper reiterates the finding that the land surface temperature has risen 0.9C just in the last 50 years.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501

[samsingh]

1. kick

[Berlum]

2. More ugly REALITY for Republicans to lie about

[yurbud]

3. Is this the Cock brothers funded study Thinkprogress posted? LINK:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/

[caraher]

5. Yes...

though it had other funding sources as well. But the Koch brothers were big contributors and lots of global warming deniers who'd previously sworn to stand by the results of the study, whatever they were, promptly jumped ship last year when it became clear that the BEST study would have essentially the same conclusions as all the other studies of the temperature record.

I also think Muller (and Joe Romm) exaggerates his "skeptic" label. My impression has always been that he didn't seriously doubt the consensus view, but simply felt some sympathy for certain particular skeptical arguments, felt they deserved more thorough investigation, and believed there was some merit in charges of scientific misconduct based on the leaked "Climategate" emails.

[nxylas]

8. In which case, the skeptic label was entirely accurate

Most so-called "skeptics" are nothing of the sort, their minds are made up and no amount of actual data will be more convincing to them than the watertight scientific argument that Al Gore is fat.

[caraher]

14. True enough

I guess it's just that most people reading of a former skeptic will automatically assume that means former "skeptic" (i.e. AGW denier). In other words, "skeptics" will say Muller was "never really one of us" - which is true. But you're right that their not really skeptics in the first place; their minds are firmly made up

[nxylas]

18. The Guardian had a big debate over when to use "skeptic" and when to use "denier"

There are some genuine skeptics out there, and so there should be. Science is supposed to be skeptical and not take anything on trust. That's what makes the deniers (and other woo-woos, eg creationists) claims that the rest of the scientific establishment is marching in lockstep and doesn't want to hear unorthodox viewpoints so laughable.

[Gregorian]

4. I wonder how much longer before we realize that population is forcing it.

Even here the arguments remain. It's the untouchable topic. And we're running out of time.

If we stop all carbon emissions right now, we are still in deep trouble. There is no time for engineering. All we can do is limit family size. Now that ought to really garner some replies. How dare I.

[Kolesar]

9. Americans have a cultural hangup about discussing population control

I don't even know if we have any programs to teach contraception or to empower women in third world countries.

[Gregorian]

10. Governments go crazy when population declines. Economic growth depends on it.

I recall France having this issue recently. They were either paying people to have children, or thinking about it.

There is also a personal blindness. Call it nesting instinct, or just not seeing that the mess we're in is population related. I was looking at the bios for Pink Floyd members. I was appalled at how many offspring those guys have issued into the world.

Whether it's Christian/Puritan, or anything else, there is little awareness to this monster in the living room.

It's both cultural and individual. Some people just have lots of children without any care as to what it means for the rest of the world.

This really pertains to modern societies. The poor in underdeveloped countries can have as many children as they want without any real carbon emissions.

What we've done is created a means to artificially support an inflated number of people without the natural consequences that nature hits us with. Sort of like deregulation and real estate values. Prices skyrocketed. In a real world we would never be able to breed to this insane level. But like real estate, there is now going to be a massive amount of suffering.

[Kolesar]

12. &The American plan to deal with the national debt is that "we will grow out of it"

We will grow to 400 million or 500 million people, and the debt accumulated in the last decade will seem small and bearable. I actually read that prediction where some business writer was comparing the debt loads of America versus France, Britain, or Japan.

I was pretty disgusted when I heard about how many children Rod Stewart fathered. Those kids must have felt very special, each one of them.

[MindMover]

6. +++++++++++++++++++

[nolabels]

7. How about if we just call him a "cheap trick" instead

They Koch bros must of forgot to send him some more money.

[xocet]

11. How does your ad hominem attack on Dr. Muller improve the discourse?

Do you not see a difference between skeptics and deniers or do you suspect something more sinister from Dr. Muller's group?

Even Dr. Mann, whose research was criticized by Dr. Muller, offers no such ad hominem attack. Why should you?

Michael E. Mann / Saturday at 5:11pm

Folks have asked for my comment on the new finding by Richard Muller's "BEST" Team. Here it is:

There is a certain ironic satisfaction in seeing a study funded by the Koch Brothers---the greatest funders of climate change denial and disinformation on the planet--demonstrate what scientists have known with some degree of confidence for nearly two decades: that the globe is indeed warming, and that this warming can only be explained by human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. I applaud Muller and his colleagues for acting as any good scientists would, following where their analyses led them, without regard for the the possible political repercussions (they are of course almost certain to be attacked by climate change deniers for their findings).


http://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/404224656300409

[nolabels]

13. Yea, like i needed a friend to agree or something

I have never been in the mood and have never felt the need to kiss the ass of these right-wing neanderthals so we can all co-exist or something. Like this guy has a PHD and he wasn't even smart enough to learn in elementary school (like most people do) that our world is getting very fouled up by us humans. For that point alone he is either not too smart or bad liar. I am voting on the latter.

Somehow, someone asked him to invent the wheel and he said okay. It seems to me that it is stupid on all accounts and especially when one would want to implement an empirical line of research on something as complex global warming. It's almost like telling someone you will be able give the exact amount of water available on earth for use by humans with only the use of a measuring cup and some calculus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research

[caraher]

15. Muller was never getting rich off Koch money

He has many funders, of whom the Koch brothers were merely the most unsavory. Even if Koch foundation money dried up there would be no shortage of funds from others in the fossil fuel industry willing to fund more skepticism from Muller were he inclined to simply "sell out." The fact that he followed where the data led him is itself empirical proof that Muller is not simply selling himself to the highest bidder. If anything, it's his contrarian streak that got him on the radar screen of Koch and the denier crowd. But he was bound to be their hero only temporarily.

On one level yes, BEST mostly duplicated previous results. But the way it operated did perform a service beyond mere replication, because Muller sat down with "skeptics" and took their science-based arguments seriously, earning pledges from some to accept his results. His group put a lot of effort into looking at things like the urban heat island effect and siting issues with NOAA weather stations - things other climate scientists had done, but without the level of collaboration with the champions of those specific objections Muller engaged in. And of course, as early results trickled out those same "skeptics" fell all over themselves reneging on those pledges. So I think the project was a fantastic success at removing any lingering doubt as to the real commitment of many prominent "skeptics" to disbelief in AGW over the accepting scientific evidence. Muller may have a bit of an ego, but the last thing he did was sell himself to the highest bidder.

[nolabels]

19. Thanks for the reply

I was shooting at a ghost in the dark. Wishing to have found more time to be informed on the subject as you, also. I have been truck mechanic for 34 years and have watched the exhaust coming out of trucks turn from black to almost clean and at the same time the trucks are way more efficient and reliable. It's just one finger in the dike but it also might be progress. My House runs on solar and looking out over the horizon it looks like there is lot more space for a green revolution to happen in many ways

[killbotfactory]

16. The damage is done already.

I would condemn this corrupt asshole, but it's been made quite clear that republican politicians, along with their sycophants in the media and their big business benefactors, favor short term profits over science, and they would have just relied on any number of patsies blinded to the obvious by piles of cash they've been sending them, to justify and spout their climate change denial bullshit.

[Permanut]

17. Okay, but Pat Robertson disagrees...

April 17 of this year; says lack of SUVs on Mars proves global warming is a hoax, and that climate change activists are like a "religious cult". That should settle the matter. I say pfffft on all these pointy- headed scientists.



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/17/pat-robertson-global-warming-a-hoax-because-no-suvs-on-mars/