Back in 2010, Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist and self-proclaimed climate skeptic, decided to launch the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project to review the temperature data that underpinned global-warming claims…
Muller’s stated aims were simple. He and his team would scour and re-analyze the climate data, putting all their calculations and methods online. Skeptics cheered the effort. “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong,” wrote Anthony Watts, a blogger who has criticized the quality of the weather stations in the United States that provide temperature data. The Charles G. Koch Foundation even gave Muller’s project $150,000 — and the Koch brothers, recall, are hardly fans of mainstream climate science.
So what are the end results? Muller’s team appears to have confirmed the basic tenets of climate science. Back in March, Muller told the House Science and Technology Committee that, contrary to what he expected, the existing temperature data was “excellent.” He went on: “We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.” And, now, the BEST team has released a flurry of new papers that confirm that the planet is getting hotter. As the team’s two-page summary flatly concludes, “Global warming is real…”
The best chuckle is the study being funded by the Koch brothers.
Anyone know who at Coke pissed in Curry’s corn flakes this morning?
occupycoke.com
The Koch brothers were trying to make use of science? Don’t they know they’re Republicans?
Notice where data “ends”…
Now to three simple steps scientific skeptics approach this issue:
1) Is there a recent global warming? Yes. Chart above shows it back to 1800’s but we have single source peer reviewed and published data derived from Greenland ice core:
http://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/nfs/uploaded/u3177/easterbrook_fig5.png
Notice from what kind of long term average are we warming up now… From extreme colds of little ice age. We are not even near 1000 year average. We are in COLD period and warming is good.
2) Is warming caused by human activity – greenhouse effect due to increased concentrations of CO2? NO. Why am I as scientist 100% sure for capital NO? – Extremely good data (peer reviewed, published) by giants of science and technology -NASA and MIT joint effort in late 1990’s to measure this hypothetical greenhouse effect from satellites. Results are devastating for that theory. Every year over almost a decade temperature rose, CO2 concentrations rose and … AMOUNT OF ENERGY RETURNED TO THE SPACE FROM EARTH ROSE (in direct measure and in proportion to total incoming energy to Earth). This result absolutely eliminates any type of greenhouse effect as the cause of Earth warming, including CO2. Not even plausible. Not even close.
3) Plausible and good match theory exists since 1970’s (by Nobel prize winner)… Proportion of Be10 and Be11 in dated layers follows closely Earth temperatures over long time. Also proportional to number of high energy particles from Sun (known in 1970’s) and more recently linked to even higher energy particles from deep space (CERN). And this theory also explains #2: CERN correlated these high energy particles with cloud seeding and increased Earth albedo … more energy reflected back to space as measured.
End of Scientific story. No AGW. Yes Global warming. From Sun and beyond. Best of all – it is good for humanity, we are warming up from devastatingly bad and cold period.
I talk like that when I’m trying to meet girls.
“Trying” to meet girls? And your high water mark is to match the success rate of Dismal?
From what he says, he looks more to be trying to attract witches.
Personally, I’d use the opposite approach.
Ned? Ned Ryerson?
Ned Ryerson? Well, he is a happy guy and if that is your target, I have to take my concern back.
Now, I could post to videos of Elizabeth Montgomery and Nicole Kidman as my kind of witch.
Groundhog Day–one of my top 5 pics. Excellent choice.
Gee Dismal–how many QUALIFIED scientiest studying the issue need to agree before you allow your ignorance to be contested?
Where is your link to the devastating evidence that rising CO2 levels with rising heat levels occurred even though the net return of energy to space was measured? Where did that extra heat come from then?
DISMAL====YOU HAVE ENTERED PINK UNICORN TERRITORY HERE. Post your link.
Good for humans huh? Have you not read or do you similarly just boldly dismiss all the climate shift data resulting in lower food production?
CO2 and Heat levels have also correlated positive over millenia. What is this new process you don’t even name that overrides the dumping of billions of tons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere?
Link?
Link?
Link?
What motivates you Dismal?—Pure love of science?
Ha, ha.
Your attempt to draw a rosy picture of the situation by implying that “warmer is better” is patently wrong. Actually what is even more important than the cause is the effect the warming will have on our, i.e. the global, established way of life. Even if the green-house gasses were the main cause, it is probably already too late to stop the warming chain-reaction as shown by many groups (see Global Warming, A Very Short Introduction by Mark Maslin, Oxford University press 2008), but the problem of what the warming will cause is there and is very real.
There will be a drastic effect on population centers on the ocean shorelines due the rising water levels and by the extreme weather events on many more regions, on where food crops can be produces and the supplies of fresh water, as in drink and farming water. That will entail large population migrations, a forced change on current economic systems, especially the food and water supply mechanisms, and as a results, a large number of possible conflicts, shortages and famines around the world. That is what we have to worry about and prepare for: the forced change in our established systems, not the change in the climate per se. Trying to understand the causes and owning the situation is the responsible way to go, as opposed to implying that it is all nature and everything will be just alright. That is probably true enough for the planet, but not for the people who live on it.
That is exactly so. Thank you Bahram. Down right “evil” the way arguments get conflated and miscontrued. The Earth will continue so whats the problem? The Earth has been warmer before, so whats the problem? but it is the CHANGE from one status to another that will destroy the CULTURE that man has built. People can move but cities cannot.
Warmer temps: many competing species of disease and parasites become more infectious. Many food source plants for hoomans become less productive. Oh–everything wills still be there but Hooman population over 50 years could easily plumet from 15 Billion down to who knows how many. Talk about your housing glut—if you have a row boat?
The dynamics of change. And yes, the argument is the tipping point may be here RIGHT NOW if we stopped adding even more pollutants. We of course plan to add even more pollutants because the oceans haven’t gone up experientially even though the measurements show a steady rise.
So–I just might see the science be agreed upon in another few decades. It will be fun to see the debate on what to do then. Nuke the Sahara Desert to throw dust into the air? Put sulfur into airplane fuel etc. A full range of emergency responses to avoid in extremis what would have been hard to avoid when doable with world wide agreement.
Kinda like yeast in a bottle of grape juice if you know what I mean?
Know what I mean?
Yea, verily.
And here we go, minimum 50 posts by Monday morning. One hundred by next Friday.
PS. Half by bobo and alfie.
Well, you know, it’s now obvious that this guy really wasn’t a skeptic after all. 🙂
What are there dips in 1810 and 1840?
Why is the data a lot more “noisy” prior to 1960? Is this an apples and bananas comparison?
Thing is, whynismit getting hotter. CO2? That’s thenshit they should prove wrong, not the planet is warming up…
Science from press release is a bad idea. Let others look at it and comment first. This is worse than science by press release. Not only is the paper not published, it hasn’t even passed peer-review. Muller did the same thing when testifying to Congress. Also, Muller is not a skeptic, he just gets labeled as such because he properly called out scientists for the mistake of ‘hide-the-decline’, even while getting some details wrong.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk
As for the papers so far, Anthony Watts of wattsupwiththat.com has pointed out that didn’t do a proper comparison with his paper’s 30 year period, instead extending it back to 60 years. This has to do with the quality of the thermometers. Also, they spelled the paper wrong six times, and haven’t corrected it yet.
One interesting note is they found a link to North Atlantic cycles and suggested that maybe it was the cause of the observed warming. So an equally valid headline would be ‘Berkeley study finds CO2 impact on global temperatures is overstated.’
Also, this is a small aspect of skeptics’ statements, and not very important. Several skeptics have already conducted their own temperature analyses and reached the same conclusions. The issue is the magnitude of warming and the causes, as well as the effects. The current warming is less than one degree, and within the bounds of natural variation. If nature has a negative feedback then the overall warming from carbon dioxide would be small, less than one degree, and not a problem.
wait it is global warming? what happened to the butt covering “climate change” phrase??? (hey the climate is always changing!)
There was an “ice age” 10,000 years ago. Thank God the climate is warming up! Oh, and by the way, there were humans roaming the earth back then. I wonder what theories they had about who caused what.
Oops! That’s right, they sacrificed virgins. What a waste.
Disclosure: I did not read the linked article. Why? It doesn’t seem to be loading on my mobile connection. BUT, I have read two articles on this story.
They make a big deal that he “used” to be a skeptic and that he works out of Berkley.
I have three kneejerk problems:
1) if he “used” to be a skeptic, then he has stopped being a scientist
2) Berkley, the heart of unquestioning California liberalism
3) and possibly most important, WHO funded the research?
Also, what I read previously states he now plans to move on to studying ocean temperatures. WHAT? He’s confirmed global warming with only land data? Isn’t 70% of the globe under water?
In any case, who cares? IIRC it was just last June or July that the American Astronomical Society was proclaiming reduced solar activity during the next decade which will bring on … ta daa … global cooling, i.e. an ice age.
http://www.nso.edu/press/SolarActivityDrop.html Not necessarily a definitive study, either. And that’s my point: too many people want to change the future of mankind based on half-assed science.
Instead of worrying about anthropogenic warming, let’s worry about those damned anthros! We’ve got 7 billion now, predictions of 9 billion in the next 30 years or so and 50 billion by the next century!
Unless the climate is like Baby Bears porridge the Man will be able to tax you in order to fix it. Ha. When you have two groups of opposing people/lobby’s both justifying their argument with science, they do a disservice to science. Hypothesis, experiment, analysis and conclusion was how I was taught. This seems to have been replaced by who can get the most media coverage for their view. In the end with all the conflicting claims and far greater day to day problems in peoples lives, I think I’ve come to the revelation that I no longer give a shit.
Holy Scheisse! They confirmed that scientists can accurately read and record data off of thermometers. This is astounding news!!
Tough to tell from that chart, but it likes like there’s been about 2,2.5C of warming from 1800 until now. Weren’t we told by the IPCC that this much warming is dangerous? I believe they issued a declaration that 2C of warming from the industrial age shall not be exceeded.
Boy one of my posts has been disappeared for moderation, while a newer one just shows up with no capcha.
More educated consensus because RaptureII spirited away another batch of loons. Again, Alphie didn’t make the cut.
The science is in!
Climate 101 video experiment de-bunked.
http://tinyurl.com/6ey7n9j
Naughty naughty Bill Nye.
Those kind of debunking studies are fun to watch. Hard to dispute. Must every man become a “scientist?”
I’ve seen debunking videos on Landing on the Moon was Faked, 911 Was an Inside Job, Plane Did not Crash at the Pentagon and so forth.
No one claim claim the human mind is not inventive.
Where’s the report from XOM, I’m sure it’s completely different.
Just more bullshit study, counter-study. I’m sick to death of these so-called scientists barfing up “results” based on someone else’s wallet size. Eff-em all. Let the chips fall where they may.
Your God will provide for you.
Idiot.
Doug,
The chips did fall where they may.
And they confirmed the science behind global climate change claims.
Climate changes,
can we moveon.org now.lol
I’ve never doubted the average temperature is getting hotter. That’s all this study proves.
I’ve doubted we were responsible for it. This study states it does not confirm any reason for the increase. It does imply a correlation between the rise of man’s industrial age and the rise in temperatures but doesn’t say one is the cause of the other.
It is entirely possible it is the warmer temperatures that allow man to make technological progress because he isn’t huddled indoors around a fire trying to stay warm most of the day.
Yeah, but even a cursory peek at the conservative media will provide all sorts of commentary about temps either dropping, being flat, gee look out the window it sure looks cold to me, or it’s all a big Algore scam. In other words, a contrarian view of the research and science. Will this new research change any minds? Ha ha, they’ll call this guy a scammer, too.
If this science is solid, my wish is that the legitimate press would treat rising temp deniers as idiots. But that doesn’t sell clicks or ads.
Let’s parse:
I’ve never doubted the average temperature is getting hotter. That’s all this study proves. /// Well your fellow traveler “unconvinced ((no post number available))” below even doubts that. Says its cities making the temp guages hotter only. Never doubted huh? Grew up thinking that did you?
I’ve doubted we were responsible for it. /// Yes, is that based on we can cover the earth in cities and burn fossil fuel for 100 years and this should have no effect at all–or you don’t like the idea of anyone telling you to burn less carbon and you try to game this philosophical outcome by denying what common sense tells a child?
This study states it does not confirm any reason for the increase. It does imply a correlation between the rise of man’s industrial age and the rise in temperatures but doesn’t say one is the cause of the other. /// Correct–because unlike the cost of hot dogs going up or the decline in men wearing codpieces, there is no scientific or logical connection between the two either.
It is entirely possible it is the warmer temperatures that allow man to make technological progress because he isn’t huddled indoors around a fire trying to stay warm most of the day. /// Yea–except you get cold real fast when you haven’t eaten or you are hip deep in water.
Say there Loser==can you juggle more than one idea at a time? Like AGW will have positive and negative effects on just about any subject you want to name and you have to weigh and assessment and compare and contrast them to one another to effectively evaluate whether something will have a net/Net/NET good or bad impact?
Let’s take a minnie step: IF the world became 2.5 warmer, do you accept that all the ice would melt? IF all the ice melted, do you accept the sea level would rise 75 feet? IF the MSL rose 75 feet, do you accept that would affect cities that are only 10 feet above sea level? Do you accept that moving people out of these sea shore locations would impact society?
Just wondering how far your doubt goes.
Silly Hoomans.
Sigh. I miss my Bobbo filter. A full page of rant and nothing of substance, just agitation.
Loser–when did you shut yourself off from opposing points of view? Imagine “choosing” to be a shut in? That usually doesn’t happen until the late 60’s or you have been a Card Carrying Talking Points Spouting Puke ((CCTPSP for those in the know)) for at least 10 years.
I infer from your word and subject choices that you are physically a “young” person. Sad to see progeria take another victim.
Maybe this will help: learning to disagree with others makes your own case stronger. Ha, ha.===yes THE TRAP!!!!! You might change your mind. But you should, while you still can.
Try it.
You aren’t proposing an opposing point of view.
You are trolling.
DVORAK====FIX THIS BLOG!!!!!! NESTING CAN WORK—BUT NOT THE WAY YOU HAVE IT SET UP. WHAT WOULD STEVE JOBS DO??????
So—somewhere on this thread Loser has posted:
You aren’t proposing an opposing point of view. //// But that is exactly what I have done: opposed your “there is no AGW” position. Of course there is AGW and the arguments and logic for it are overwhelming and supported by 98% of qualified scientists. What a silly little boy you are.
You are trolling. //// No, just the opposite. Shining light into deep dark little stupid holes. Look!!—-there’s Loser. Sad little progerian blocking the sweet light of reason and opposition to bring him the fruits of modern science……..well, maybe just a little bit of trolling, I’m only hooman.
Stop trolling.
DVORAK====PLEASE FIX THIS BLOG.
Count went from 106 to 107 and I found Loser’s new comment only because it was time for the midnight diaper check.
HOW DO YOU EXPECT anyone to follow an issue if they have to hunt the entire thread and hope to notice the “new” comment.
PURE CRAP IS WHAT YOU PRESENT THIS BLOG AS. GO BACK TO THE OLD FORMAT, OR LINK TO THE LATEST POST, OR
DO SOMETHING……
TO MAKE THE BLOG FUNCTIONAL.
I would like to read your rationale for the changes and your refusal to make it work. So counter to your “uncensored” character. “Good Enough” huh?
Oh–to Loser: Oh yeah? Well, I’m rubber and you’re glue.
Silly little boy.
Format, don’t like it? Leave.
Bb, you still fail to grasp the idea that a short post is more readable and LIKELY TO BE READ.
If you were half as smart as you believe yourself to be, you would take this good advice.
Its from booboo if it was one sentence with flashing boobs running across the top those of us who commonly frequent the site would still ignore him.
A grave unintended admission there? Know which half you are. So hostile. Shows up in every thing you do.
Silly Hooman.
Why do you say I think I am smart, or even half as smart? Let me depart from my usual only slightly exaggerating posting persona and be absolutely honest: I don’t now and have never thought of myself as smart. There is so much I don’t know, so much is a mystery. I have noted in life that things I thought I had learned thru hard lessons were still wrong==there was more if not even the opposite to learn. I am in doubt/non judgmental about most things.
No–only a fool is dead certain/absolute/unreceptive to opposing points of view.
I will admit I meet a lot of people I think are so stupid I marvel that they breed. About half the people posting here are clearly such. We all choose our own halves?
Stoopid Hoomans we all are, each in our own mostly chosen ways.
Yea, verily.
I doubt hostility has anything to do with it I like tits, even if you littered your diatribes with them it still would be the useless drivel we have learned to ignore. So parse your ass off your easy enough to ignore.
Please stop saying ‘let’s parse’. You’re killing me
Its easier than typing: “So now, let’s encourage the hilarity to ensue on the feint expectation it ever will.”
As bad as “Let’s Parse” is, it’s not that bad.
But I do assume you are kidding. As usual, I post for without your insight, humor, and deep appreciation of life and its challenges.
Yea, verily.
I’m feeling pedantic today and want the thread to get to 100 just to see it not get bumped, the sentence should read: “As usual, I post for THOSE without your insight, humor, and deep appreciation of life and its challenges.” Again, I would assume you would read this in, but so many would be left clueless, and I certainly don’t want to be criticized for encouraging any fixation on bouncy boobs. Wait a minute……yes I do!!!
Pro’s and con’s to all we do. Leave errors, correct. but I dither. Yes–feint was my word choice as well. I think its humorous.
All those hooomans huffing n puffing.
Never mind the energy flux of the sun.
A belief is a belief and all attempts at
rationalisation such as concepts of null-hypothesiees
have little effect. The mind is closed that you very which, the ‘no-vacany’ sign is out.
Too blurry in the morning too self-edit.
The study only states the planet is getting warmer. It SOUNDS like you’re jumping to a hasty conclusion based on your theory / hypothesis.
And the empirical evidence for man-made global warming is where exactly? You’re concluding things in the absence of the Scientific Method due to your own predispositions.
It’s okay to have a theory but nothing has been proven to scientifically conclude that humans are either the root cause for the warming or collectively significant in their contributions (ASSUMING CO2 is in fact the root cause of the global warming)
Common sense is don’t p1ss in your backyard. Common sense is not jumping to hasty conclusions. Jumping to hasty conclusions is neither science nor the scientific method.
So are you trying to argue that correlation IS causation?
So move. Survival of the fittest. Or do you need big government to help you out? 🙂
ASSUMING that AGW is a scientific fact then perhaps you may have a point. Why do you try to ignore the scientific method when it suits you?
How about another mini-step: Since AGW’ers believe scientific computer models are adequate substitutions for the scientific method and empirical evidence, how about making 5, 10, or 15 year predictions based off of these models instead of 100-year predictions that no-one can prove nor disprove?
You want to scream the sky is falling, but you AGWer’s won’t stick your necks out to make a prediction.
You’re ALMOST as bad as the religious nut jobs who predict the end of the world is coming tomorrow.
AGWer’s are just another religion. Maybe you should pursue religious protection? 🙂
http://tinyurl.com/yf8m75q
McGuyver, lets mini parse:
How about another mini-step: Since AGW’ers believe scientific computer models are adequate substitutions for the scientific method and empirical evidence, /// There can be no scientific proof of AGW as there is no second earth to act as the control group. I guess that can honestly be part of why you are so dense. Took millenia to get you to accept science, the subtlety of dealing scientifically with only some of the tools of science is too high on the shelf for you to reach. This point has been made between us about 5 times now. What do you think this is, a political issue you can just repeat until you drive the rational out of your marketplace? Agreed–idiotic yammering has been by and large working===or should I just blame the industrialization of the third world?
how about making 5, 10, or 15 year predictions based off of these models instead of 100-year predictions that no-one can prove nor disprove? /// No one cares about such “mini” predictions==the sea level going constantly up, perma frost melting, species moving away from the equator. You take what is BY DEFINITION LONG TERM PREDICTIONS and say why don’t they make them short? Ha, ha. Yes, and Obama walking on water is proof he can’t swim. Well done Bubba.
You want to scream the sky is falling, but you AGWer’s won’t stick your necks out to make a prediction. // No one is screaming, and its the oceans rising, the skies turning to a toxic gas–not falling. There are enough misplaced metaphors for you not to be so far off. Keep your nonsense closer to reality and you can continue your charade.
You’re ALMOST as bad as the religious nut jobs who predict the end of the world is coming tomorrow. //// Again—the world is not ending. Do you ((think???—no, its not thinking, its: )) emote this way on every new subject, subject neither one of us is qualified to review? Imagine that? Recognizing personal limitations and accepting the long, diverse, and well grounded consensus of qualified scientists. NOT SCIENTIFIC PROOF====only the best science available. Its the religious who seek certainty. Another point for Bubba.
AGWer’s are just another religion. Maybe you should pursue religious protection? 🙂 //// I am the pragmatic, existential, anti-theist. No religion for me. No thinking from defective premisises. No establishing impossible standards and finding them not met. No Bubba—your course is not for me.
http://tinyurl.com/yf8m75q //// Read the first paragraph. So–employees can report violations of law and be protected from retaliation. Nothing new.
You have a good brain Guyver—use it for something other than a speed bump.
I have only one observation and that is as our populations and citeis expand not only do cities occupy a larger percentage of the land mass. As well many recording stations once out in the country are now located within the city perimaters
Thank you for your observation, but i hope don’t expect any thinking person to join your skepticism based on the first thing you could think of in a Sunday afternoon in front of your computer. I’m sure no matter what you do professorially, you realize that a scientist’s job is to figure stuff out, that entails hours and days and months and years of thinking really hard about every conceivable source of error or hypothesis to explain the observed data. As for your observation, it has a name; “urban heat island effect” and it has been known and taken into consideration since many years.
So, no matter what you say, the warming and its potential adverse effects can not be denied, end of the story. As for the reasons, there is room for discussion, but refusing to see the reality and insisting on denial the warming itself will be our doom.
Yeah, you know how I know you didn’t even bother to read the article? Because it covers this exact topic, and the study avoided using any weather data collected in cities. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your conspiracy theories. Global Warming and Evolution are just a hoaxes to distract you from the truth about the moon landings and 9/11.
Old Experiment:
Release CFC’s into the atmosphere for a couple decades and see what happens to the ozone.
Old Experiment:
Spray DDT to kill shit we don’t like and see if the nice birds and fish are OK with it!
On-going Experiment:
Let’s burn oil and coal for 70 years, 24×7 and spew it into the atmosphere and see what happens!
On-Going Experiment:
We’ll pump hormones into cows and chickens to make them grow to adulthood in 72 hours. Hopefully junior will like his tits.
The only reason this kind of thing is even relevant to anything important is that certain EVIL sacks of shit try to use it to further their own ends. Look at the consequences of the actions we supposedly must take and the path is clear. Telling Americans they must lower their standard of living is evil and a crime against humanity. It actively and deliberately harms people.
The Earth needs an exorcism.
The exorcism was friday, Oct 21. Why are you still here?
Re Bahram: “I’m sure no matter what you do professorially, you realize that a scientist’s job is to figure stuff out, that entails hours and days and months and years of thinking really hard about every conceivable source of error or hypothesis to explain the observed data.”
That is a reasonable expectation. However, that isn’t what has been observed of climate scientists by many of their peers, after hours and days and months and years of thinking really hard about every conceivable source of error or hypothesis about other sources (than AGM) of climate change, and it’s relativity to millions of years of data, rather than only the last 200 years.
And what is your evidence for this statement? “that isn’t what has been observed of climate scientists by many of their peers”. The last figure I have in mind was something like a 96% consensus. In any scientific field, e.g. in cell biology in which i happen to work, such consensus is more than enough for any hypothesis to be accepted as a “fact”, especially when the opposing arguments are so flimsy, biased and heavily tainted by conflict of interest.
And again, it is not clear to me what you are disputing? the warming itself due to bad science, the “real” cause of it, or the consequences?
What i see appears to be a conspiracy theory mentality which tries very hard to stay in denial by any means necessary. And if you think spending about 5% of the global GDP to try to stop the possible human contribution -with the side benefit of creating millions of new jobs, industries and technologies- and prepare for consequences is hard now, think about the predicted 20% of global GDP that will be necessary to spend when the effects start to be more “tangible”.
…”especially when the opposing arguments are so flimsy, biased and heavily tainted by conflict of interest.”
Where is your evidence for that? Name a few examples.
“(ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers”
This is also from the same paper. And, don’t even try to say that this guys are also biased. PNAS is a major peer-reviewed scientific journal, unless you generally don’t believe in science and the scientific method, then you have to forgo using any of the technologies and comforts that you use in any given moment of your life, and go back to living in the style of dark ages.
As for the bias and conflict of interest; one of the usual claims is that the scientists report such data to make the field “hotter” to get funding. In science it does not really work that way; one strike and you are out, your career is ended. Unlike what the most polluting industries can do and do every day; lobbying, where money buys access, influence, fake studies and surveys, enabling you to make more money. Examples are plenty, if you care to read.
There was no survey, there was no official data collected and there is no scientifically accurate list. All you provide is nothing more than an opinion!
And you call yourself a scientist?
I cited the paper where the quality of the experts is assessed. As for the rest, i did not look for a survey because, believe it or not, convincing you is not exactly on the top of my priority list, you can deny the industry and lobbying links if you like. But just as a taste, you can look at this list, many names from your list also appear here. http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database
The page to that link doesn’t exist.
Warming deniers? Really? Are you that ignorant of the current debate? It’s all about climate change and what are the overriding factors causing it… warming, cooling whatever. You aren’t even on the same page.
a slash (/) goes missing after “.com” when you click on the link.
No all the ice will not melt with 2.5C of warming. It is VERY cold in Antarctica.
i REALLY hope you are kidding.
First of all, I find it hypocritical of some here to take this physicist’s observations seriously, when clearly he isn’t an expert or trained in climate science. If here were a skeptic, he would be insulted and humiliated by you AGM pundits.
Second, I went to his website. He has a new book: “The Instant Physicist. Learn why wine is required to be radioactive to be legal, and why you don’t want the greenhouse effect to end.”
Hmmm, still seems that he is not in agreement with the IPCC. I would love to see what he has written on the subject.
You really need to enroll in a few basic science courses to get a better understanding of the issue if you conclude “…still seems that he is not in agreement with the IPCC” from “….why you don’t want the greenhouse effect to end.”
From your response you are saying that the IPCC doesn’t want the greenhouse to end. Are you kidding me?
Yes, because:
“If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%[6] (or 28%[7]) of the incoming sunlight, the planet’s effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) is about −18 or −19 °C,[8][9] about 33°C below the actual surface temperature of about 14 °C or 15 °C.”
from Wikipedia. You should really think about that science courses.
That’s the kind of rhetorical nonsensical non-answer that earns disrespect of the scientific community. The fact is the IPCC want to politically influence (force) society to pay for the reduction of CO2 emissions that they believe are the cause of recent global warming. Ergo, they want the (implied) greenhouse effect of CO2 to end.
You should take a lesson on telling the truth, actually studying the opposing views, and acknowledging that there are prominent scientists that would put most of the climatologist bootlickers to shame!
Wrong again. Go to Amazon and fine the book, use the “Look inside” feature and go to page 14-15, you see that he is talking about the general greenhouse effect which will be devestating to Earth ifit was ended, in line with my answer, hence there is no conflict between his book and the IPCC recommendations.
IPCC wants to politically force the people? what people? how can they? It would be nice if UN could actually enforce its recommendations, the world would be a better place.
He wasn’t trying to determine WHY the climate was changing.
He was taking all the temperature data (along with his team of physicists and statisticians) and determining the trend of the numbers.
You don’t need to be a climatologist to crunch numbers.
“You don’t need to be a climatologist to crunch numbers.”… and I agree with you. That’ wasn’t my point. If he had come to a different conclusion he would be branded as a nutball by AGW pundits, and dismissed because he isn’t a climatologist.
Gotcha, my bad.
Maybe when the farmers can no longer provide food for your tables to shovel into your fat pudgy faces you might realize that there may be something to this climate change stuff. Course it’ll be too late by then.
Richard Mueller is an extreme left wing political activist. Anything coming from him needs to be seen in that light.