Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics…In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions…
The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.
Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done.
I’ve included links to Muller’s Op-Ed piece in the TIMES and his Berkeley site. It always feels nice to see science trump ideology.
Should look at his finances. Conversions like this are typically do to changing income streams.
Can we not agree that the earth is getting warmer?
When climate scientists say the earth will be x degrees warmer in 20XX, then that is an assertion based upon a climatic model that may be wrong and is open to argument.
The evidence that it is man made is pretty overwhelming, but like most things in science is not an absolute.
Many climate model lets use the IPCC estimates of carbon emissions, which are unrealistically high.
#1 Bit cynical today, aren’t we?
According to the numbers above, 40% of this 2.5 degree increase happened pre-industrial revolution. I still fail to see clear evidence that this is a man-made phenomena.
I have not problem agreeing that the earth is getting warmer, but the evidence tying it to man is pretty week and often where the controversy is.
There is more evidence that variations in global temperature are due to activities on the Sun and natural geologic function of Earth than man.
The climate change community has already thrown the IPCC models under the bus along with it data since the evidence of tampering with the inputs has been exposed.
Currently our planet is cooler than in Medieval times. In those times, vast farms existed in northern Scotland and in Greenland. The Earth functioned quite well in those times. How is this current warming any different than that warming period?
Science knows the answer (it is the same type of warming) just now we have intermingled scientific funding, politics, science and dominant atheistic ideology served by AGW hoaxers.
As a scientist I am aware of (beyond any doubt and published/peer reviewed and from rock solid sources):
1) Beyond any doubt Earth is not warming due to any type of greenhouse effect. CO2 (natural or man made) or ANY OTHER greenhouse cause. Data have been obtained by top rated MIT and NASA but results can be boiled down to highschool physics: to have a system warm up due to greenhouse effect, BY DEFINITION temperature rises as less and less energy is sent back out (certain amount of energy comes in, some of it is captured, some emitted back. Greenhouse effect by some agent forces more energy to be captured and T rises due to this additional energy). During very precise satellite study over 8 years T have risen every year, CO2 have risen every year… AMOUNT OF ENERGY SENT BACK TO SPACE HAVE RISEN EVERY YEAR of the study. Beyond, way beyond any error limits. Evidence that can stand in Court. No greenhouse effect of any kind was responsible for the Earth warming during 1990’s, a major warming period).
2) Since ’60s and ’70s we know about correlation of Be11 in ancient sediments and the average Earth temperature. Nobel Prize winning Solar expert at the time provided a theoretical basis why: Be11 concentration follows proportion of high energy particles delivering energy to the Earth – Earth warming/cooling cycles would be related to Solar activity and increase/decrease in a fraction of energy delivered by higher energy particles. Comes 2010/2011 and famous (reported even on this blog) CERN discovery proving that theory – increase in high energy particles, CERN proved not only from the Sun but from the deep space too, tracked by Be11 concentration correlates perfectly to Earth warming now and throughout the past. Remember what officials at CERN did: BANNED scientist from publishing any analysis and explanation, allowed only the raw data (which by the Law they were forced to) to be published… Obstruction of The Science unheard of since Gallileo/Vatican days. Ideology vs. Science. But data is there, unquestionable and Court admissible and precise, same as above mentioned MIT/NASA study.
I’ll try to put (2) to highschool level too: it turns out that the dominant temperature controlling agent on Earth is water vapor. It is more efficient in capturing energy from high energy particles than lower end ones. It is this efficiency that counts. More captured energy is converted to heat if that energy arrives in form of higher energy particles. As now we capture more efficiently, effect of (1) is also obvious, as Earth warms up from more efficient energy capture, it can radiate more of it back… Dominant Earth warming mechanism explained. From existing (some ignored, some intentionally obstructed) research by top Scientific minds and institutions.
I’m with dusanmal on this one.
I will put it simpler terms. The hot thingy in the sky is our heat source.
While much more stable than most stars it isn’t 100% stable. Changes in solar output are going to mean changes in Earths climate. This explains the observation that when Earth was warming up so was Mars. Well I suppose some fear mongers could claim that the Martians were burning their fossils fuels but so far as we know Mars lacks both fossil fuels and Martians.
The tiny trace of CO2 added by humans is allowing plants starving for CO2 to grow better. Our atmosphere is about .039% CO2. The real number changes with the seasons and location for reasons you can look up if you care.
There is also a theory developed by NASA but now ignored that since Earth is surrounded by a vacuum the supposed heat retaining ability of CO2 actually doesn’t matter.
In any event the previous poster has his facts right.
CO2 is the weak sister in greenhouse gases compared with methane.
When they develop a model that explains how humans are responsible for the melting ice caps, I’ll accept it.
I meant the ice caps on Mars. My bad.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
I love it when astroturfers argue with each other.
There is something odd about how he is sitting in the chair, like he was accused of something bad by someone, and is being blackmailed into something.
Here is some counter to this guy’s new position. . .
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
That website has been a great resource for years. Thanks for dropping it in the comments.
KILL HIM !
The guy was nicely interviewed on Rachel Madow last night. He was 1/4th Koch funded in this study and said there was no interference at all. He was in the second round of Genius Grant folks about 25 years ago and got the grant for his doubts about global warming at that time. Rachel Madow–doing a unique fact based program on little fact covered subjects. Worth the look see.
You have to be a complete RETARD to think what is happening on Mars ((oh!–look==there’s Liberty Loser!)) is anything but coincidental to what is happening of Earth. Its an idiots analogy…. oops==the analogy is never made==just the coincidence is pointed out and all causations simply assumed.
No one ever explains what mechanism could negate the co2 heating of Earth–ie dump billions of tons of co2 gas into the atmosphere and there will be no resulting heating because: ….
NO ONE CAN DESCRIBE HOW HEATING WON’T OCCUR.
Douche-Anal==sounding all correct and everything but NOT A SINGLE LINK. This is what makes a duece into a DOUCHE.
NOT A SINGLE LINK. You must have them and I presume you misuse your sources and have learned in your frenzy not to post them.
So==one idiot will argue how cold it was in their area this year, another that Polar Bears are everywhere, another that the “T” measure show mathematical cooling, another that ice cubes melt on Mars, another that water vapor controls everything, another that hoomans are too insignificant to do anything even with 300 years of acitivity, another that co2 is not a pollutant and that we breath it, and another that Copernicus was wrong or forgiven==it all really doesn’t matter what retarded anti-science BS is offered up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
Yes my friends==the ocean keeps coming up. How far up your chest must it get before you admit what it easy to see if you just look? Open your eyes, clean the BS out, and just LOOK!!!!!
Silly Hoomans. Don’t deserve science.
http://bing.com/videos/watch/video/skeptical-scientist-says-climate-change-is-real-and-caused-by-humans/63g6b3b
Suck it retards.
Climate NEVER stays the same. The Earth’s Climate is ALWAYS changing. Michigan 10,000 years ago had Glaciers miles thick, Egypt farther in the past used to look like the Everglades. Climate NEVER stays the same. It WILL ALWAYS change, it is NEVER Constant!!!
RO==quite right–now what does that have to do with AGW, or Hooman Caused Climate Change to the cognizotti posting here?
I think the link above has Muller stating what any RO should know–if its hooman caused==WE CAN/SHOULD FRIKKEN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. We can in short—save ourselves.
Sad that, for in doing nothing, we will only damn ourselves. A cruel trick played by the Gods. Even they post in disagreement.
Ha, ha.
Next up===time myself in how long it takes to identify a stinking pile of BS on the Watts Up website. But first my capacino.
Posted a link to Wikipedia. Wow.
Yes, I’m here just to stir you folks up. I don’t believe anything I’m posting (who could?).
You would have to be a mindless drone to believe in AGW.
They hated bobbo
Not recognizing that fuel
Kept bobbo going.
Genesis
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
OK–back again for this amusing self stimulation as the fake bobbos post as retardedly as they do in person. Yesterday I quickly glanced at watts up and didn’t notice any glaring BS on first flash, so this might take some time. After all, I’m not a scientist, just an honest reader of the popular literature, who doesn’t have shit for brains.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Starting at 8:53…………………………………
8:53==well, right at the start==the guy comments on “everything” thereby indicating he is expert in nothing? Just a thought, my first reaction, not a glaring pile of BS which is my mission…….
Still 8:53==first headline is “New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial” /// Half? as in 50% wrong??? My, my–what an EXTREME ERROR to be missed by the entire scientific community except for this guy? I guess thats why generalist are such an important check on life time devoted experts. Following detail is:
Posted on July 29, 2012 by Anthony Watts
PRESS RELEASE – U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments. /// Well, at least that makes sense–if the real data is doubled, then there would be an error of 50%. At least the math is correct so far. But look—its now 8:56. Slow typer, or really enjoying my cappacinno?==you decide.
8:58–compliant/non compliant, category 1-2-3-4-5, colors? Too complicated for me. It doesn’t matter what the temperature is as far as placed to close to a heat vent and what not–what matters is how it trends over time which is a different issue and seems to be addressed by the terminology, but too complicated for me. Lets sally forth
9:00 OH Wow!!! A review of our Richard Muller and the damning evidence of WHAT HE DIDN’T SAY. This is usually a goldmine of BS. I’m so happy I challenged myself this way. Lets seeeeeeeeeee………..oh crap, nothing there beside the video and the hurt feelings that Watts Up faulty station reading issue wasn’t addressed. That does seem unfair as Mullers study was all about surface temps. That could well be worth the follow up==as in looking at Muller’s actual report and not a short video interview. By inference, nothing Muller did say was wrong???? Like the Earth is Warming and its definitely caused by Humans? BWHAHAHAHAH. The great skeptic wattsup hopes you don’t notice that. No pile of GS there—just a great stink.
……I won’t go to the comments that follow other than first one==an obvious retard who doesn’t understand what “conversion” means. Ha. ha. Retards + Science===makes my stomach hurt with laughter—except they vote.
………”If Climate Science operated under the same rules as Forensic Science, the compromised data would be tossed out on its ear…” /// Yeah==that is a problem with this issue: Climate Science (sic) in its import is about PREDICTING the climate in a highly chaotic system where formal scientific proof (a test with a control–which is why analogies to Mars are irrelevant. We have no “control Earth” to measure/test against) is impossible. Forensic science is about the past, not predictive at all. In a very real sense, there is no science about Climate Prediciton==its only a best guess based on what we know, knowing we don’t know it all. That makes it easy to poke holes in and still allows Big Tobacco to truthfully say that Cigarettes have never been proven to cause cancer. Best evidence is that they do, but not the proof science is known for.
ain’t that a bitch? Yes, it is. So—more smell, but can’t call it a Pile.
9:11 (oooh, what portense is this?))………..well, I kept going to 1/3rd way down to the Ozone Hole was faked merging into a discussion of radiation forcing which may be close to the T issue DoucheAnal is confused about. But I’ve lost interest, and this is all about ME after all.
9:18–I don’t identify a steaming pile of BS in my very short review. Just a bunch of odious smells–not the same thing.
The SCIENCE is way above my simple understanding. I take it on faith that scientists with all their foibles and biases slowly move that truth ball up their Sisyphean Hill, retards and shills throwing rocks all the while.
Faith and Science?…… Amusing.
kjb434 says:
“Should look at his finances. Conversions like this are typically do to changing income streams.”
Much of this project’s funding came from the Koch brothers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family
“David and Charles have funded conservative and libertarian policy and advocacy groups in the United States. Since the 1980s the Koch foundations have given more than $100 million to such organizations, among these think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, as well as more recently Americans for Prosperity. Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks are Koch-linked organizations that have been linked to the Tea Party movement.”
More relevantly, Richard Muller was a Rockerfellow Genius Grant Awardee==recognized for his potential to contribute something wonderful if allowed to do whatever he wanted to do.
So, he was given a shit load of money to follow his intellect whereever it might lead==and because Climate Science Prediction is not science, but only our best guess based on not having shit for brains, Muller thought the science fact basis for AGW was faulty and went about to look at it independently.
Is he right? I don’t know. I would still be accepting the IPCC panel of experts with the expectation that they would address Mullers report where appropriate.
SCIENCE–still hooman beings, in the best of cases still making mistakes, just doing the best they can. But combine shit for brains with an invested interest in maintaining the status quo with a genital based pleasure system based on shitting in the public water supply…. and progress comes slowly.
Course—the rest of the world is off and running way ahead of us…. but we are still No 1—cause we say so.
Yea, verily.
Your point? There are conservatives and libertarians that believe in AGW.
Believing in AGW is not just a symptom of the loony left.
Ultimately, the debate is not settled. If it was settle, then we don’t have to call it a theory anymore.
Ha, ha. No retard. There is a fact of gravity, and a theory of gravity. There is global warming, and a theory of global warming.
Basic language skills.
Buy a dictionary…… use it.
Speaking of basic English skills, are you implying that Global Warming and Man-made Global Warming as one in the same thing?
Always open to opposing points of view even when garbled thru mounds of Bull Shit,
….. seems to me the last time DouchAnal brought up the Cern Cosmic Ray issues it was resolved as not proven and that cosmic rays were addressed/considered in the IPCC model?
Anyway, I googled (cern global warming cosmic rays) and simply took the very first non retail site offered: http://popsci.com/science/article/2011-08/cern-experiment-finds-fragile-link-between-cosmic-rays-and-cloud-formation-climate-change
…”The early findings are far from deciding the issue of whether climate change is man made or otherwise../// just as early reports usually are. Only Douches of various sorts, anal to impacted, take early reports and read what they want to from them.
So DouchAnal==got a direct link to ANYTHING that states your case so dispositively? No==you don’t. Only retards speak as unequivocally as you do.
Prove me wrong.
Was the guy EVER a skeptic?
He did support the criticisms of the hockey stick graph concerning how one gets the “hockey stick”, but he’s openly stated that he has believed global warming is man-made.
So what EXACTLY is news worthy here?
He just issued his independent findings.
What do you think newsworthy means?
Maybe kj will loan you his dictionary when he gets one? You could use it if its really big and thick: you can look up:
“implication” and tell us how two independent statements imply a third?
Yes—basic language skills. Another lack I find too irritating in retards. It only takes a minute to look a word up and decide whether or not to skip, amend, or double down. Most retards double down.
Ain’t that a bitch?
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Proverbs 1:7
The guy has been on record as stating he believes global warming is man-made.
The “newsworthy” part was he’s allegedly a “global warming skeptic” who has converted. Problem was he hasn’t been a skeptic.
The tragedy is it’s not newsworthy and only the self-absorbed can’t see that because they’re too intellectually dishonest to concede that point. 🙂
Oh Guyver—says you. got a link to exactly what HE said==or are you going by someone else’s recollection/summary/agenda?
Oh==Gee Whiz==lets link to or just read the very first paragraph of the OP?===THIS IS WHAT HE SAID: “Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.” ///
3 years ago he was a self described skeptic.
Whats newsworthy is now he has confirmed the problems he thought were there aren’t AND HE NOW CONFIRMS for the first time the HUMAN origins of the problem.
Contradiction – growth – unexpected. But YOU have your own made up BS to counter that with?
Ha, ha===by its definition: newsworthy is what gets reported. Recipients of Genius Awards following their own interests. Not unqualified guttersnipes that have half their information wrong and lie about the other half like you and I.
I said “GENIUS” grant Guyver–not a cartoon character.
Ha, ha. PONTIAC.
He said the following comment in 2005:
So he was a believer before he was allegedly a skeptic.
http://tinyurl.com/cak6hpn
Gee Whiz McGuyver–can’t tell shit from shinola. Muller was a skeptic over the mathematical models that produced the alarming hockey stick graph. It was Science Deniers LIKE YOU that reported this skepticism as even more damning because it came from a GW believer.
Can you separate the shit from your shinola? Skeptical about the math and therefore its credibility against a focused challenge? Another example of DOGMATIC non-think unable to avoid CONFLATION.
Straw man and red herring all the way along. Your side is WILD with this conflation–assuming that a statement here IMPLIES something it doesn’t imply at all, and when that lack of implication is show, you think the original statement wasn’t made or was biased?
What a simpleton==and it does go to basic language/thinking skills that children should avoid.
A person is an expert and newsworthy when he agrees with us==but irrelevant, a hypocrit, and uninteresting when he disagrees with us. THAT is your position Guyver. Right up there with Alfie.
Why don’t you get to the bottom line and just call Muller a Progressive?
Retards.
So he says.
And how does that change the fact that he in the same discussion was talking about how he believed global warming is man-made Bobo?
So in other words, if someone believes that man-made global warming is real, but they were only critical of one graph that tried to support their belief system that they are somehow called a skeptic? ROFLMAO. 🙂 Sure, I suppose that is newsworthy for some lemmings.
He was only being “skeptical” over one facet because it didn’t support his beliefs.
It wasn’t newsworthy. Newsworthy goes hand in hand with something being noteworthy.
Only thing noteworthy is how some people wish to stretch the label of skepticism to those who really aren’t skeptical AT ALL. 🙂
Guyver –seriously Dude==you have it all backwards. Hard to untwist if you don’t see it clearly straight on?
Maybe this will help?
Muller NEVER said he was skeptical about GW. He said he had concerns about the statistical tools used to support the concept. You Guys calls him that until he confirmed the raw data and reported it was worse than he initially thought AND human caused. Of course THAT is news. Someone getting paid by the Koch Brothers, NOT being paid by the evil IPCC Panel, INDEPENDENTLY agrees we are choking ourselves on burning coal.
Don’t you think that is newsworthy? Newsworthy whether or not promoted by one group 3 years ago and then covered up by the same group today?
He was SKEPTICAL —OF THE MATH—and is no longer. Like any good scientific theory, it gains its support and credibility from a number of multiples of disciplines and rationales. Science is skeptical of each and every one until a consensus is reached.
BTW–thanks for providing the link you did. It made everything more clear. Did you read the paragraph before the sentence you copied and pasted?
Its all pretty clear. Why you so befuddled? You are smarter than this Guyver.
THEN other people from the GW Denier camp called him a GW skeptic. HE NEVER CALLED HIMSELF THAT.
You should go back and read what I’ve been saying. You’re echoing my point. He was only criticizing the hockey stick graph and was somehow labeled a “skeptic” as a result. He’s maintained he believes in AGW.
He was never a skeptic. He was looking to validate what he already believed. But I’m okay with him putting his stuff out for peer reviews…. but he’s not a skeptic.
He criticized the hockey graph of its flaws and was inappropriately labeled a skeptic when he’s been a believer of AGW.
Yes I did which is why I don’t understand why you’re using me as a strawman when I never said he was skeptical of AGW. I’ve been saying I seriously doubt he was ever skeptical.
Of course you’ll notice his study is purely land based. Presumably because he can then ignore the significant cooling of the South Pacific; counter to IPCC4.
But the sea level keeps rising. Only one person has disputed that factoid and he was OBVIOUSLY incorrect in his observation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
So Rob–how far up your chest will the water have to get before you admit what you can see with your own eyes.
WITH YOUR OWN FRIGGIN EYES.
Blinders I guess.
So what Chicken Little? Sea levels have been much lower in Earth’s past.
Climate was HOTTER in Roman, medieval times than now: http://tinyurl.com/823h6hc
Did Richard Muller account for that? Or did his skepticism get in the way?
LOL. You have a thing for the dramatics. 🙂
I give up.
Nothing dramatic to add.
As a scientists, I wonder how many times he uses the term “believe” to fill in for the hard evidence to back up what he now believes? And I still question the validity of all “computer models” that are used to project future climate. At best, they are an elaborate shell game. Juggling the variables about, to confuse and confound, the layman, with their rapid speed and mathematical tricks. Coughing out a results that usually fits what they wanted, all along. When haven’t these models predicted dire events? I’ve been seeing them do this for decades, no matter how crude an inaccurate they are. And how wrong their dates have been. They’re just in the same business as all the phony religious doomsday prophets. The doomsday scientists just want to get in on a little of that fame and fortune.
I wonder how much richer this former skeptic has now become? They you pay good money for switching sides.
Say Glenn—why don’t I put your crap of a post thru my BS meter?
Why yes—so crappy you don’t even have a computer model to present to the public for criticism==just totally made up final conclusion based on no facts at all, just your own negative belief system>>>the very thing you erroneously accuse others of doing.
Shall we go on?
Gee—your opinion is opposite to mine, so like you, I will accuse you, J’ACCUSE!!!!!!===of being paid by the evil forces arrayed against me. You can’t possibly have a well reasoned researched position with facts, data, consulting team of scientists.
So we disagree on what a piss poor thinker you claim to be….. maybe we can both agree neither one of us gained a Genius Grant for the potential of original work we might provide to society….. now did we.
Idiot Hooman. Believing whatever you want to…. because you want to.
Moron.
I accuse you of being a climate terrorist. So there. It’s pretty obvious, by your fly off the handle, hot headedness. Is this guy’s work you’re defending a relative or something? Why the h*ll do even care that much. Are you so egotistical that you think your rants are going to single-handedly save the world from itself. So just assuming you and your climate scare buddies are right. What’s your ultimate solution gonna be to save us, Hitler’s approach? Because it’s never going to be enough, just recycling paper and plastic. Which I already do, almost religiously. How about you? Or are you just a load of hot air about what everyone else must do? While you do nothing but rave at the doubters on blog sites. Most of us have lives. And not so much free time as you apparently do, to waste time police-stating the comments.
And personal attacks and BULLYING everyone else, just proves my point that you’re unbalanced. You need therapy and counciling. Please get some help soon. Before you crack up all together. Because I doubt the climate is going to conform to your fantasy of perfection, anytime soon. And I fear you’re “real” name will show up on some news report of someone who decided take matters into their own hands, and “take care” of all the greenhouse gas emitters.
This guy is a total shill sponsored by the natural gas industry. Adam Curry exposed this clown on no agenda.
Climate wackos are terrifying, but the people who exploit this insanity for profit are even worse. One is just crazy, the other is an opportunist.
You got that right , I saw this guy on “Democracy Now”the same BS big story about how he looked at all the facts bla, bla. Then he suggested , twice, that natural gas will save us if we go fracking full bore. Expect to see more of these storys in the future considering the pres of Chevron said recently ” climate change is real”.
One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed in it. They have also believed the world was flat.
— Mark Twain
Scientists cannot accurately predict the track of a hurricane, yet they can accurately project the speed and trajectory of a spacecraft to successfully intersect and orbit a moon of Jupiter.
Predicting weather and climate models involves enormous data sets that are subject to myriad random variables that are incomplete or unknowable.
Sort of like predicting the stock market.
Climatology is not an exact science. It is educated guesswork with the aid of computer models that suggest a range of parameters based on incomplete and/or unknowable data.
No climatologist can say anything with certainty at this stage of the art, but they are able to guess the trends that are suggested by the models.
Climatology is more of an art than a science, where honest men may sincerely disagree.
“Scientists cannot accurately predict the track of a hurricane, yet they can accurately project the speed and trajectory of a spacecraft to successfully intersect and orbit a moon of Jupiter.”
Actually that second part is a bit of a fallacy. They make very good estimates of trajectory, and course correct as they go. This was evident in the Apollo missions, between the moon and earth. Especially Apollo 13. When they had to make at least one, mid course correction. When they probably wished they didn’t. But without it, the ship would either would have hit earth’s atmosphere at to sharp an angle and burned up. Or bounced off it, and drifted out into space.
The reason for this is the famous “Three Body Problem”, in mathematics. The impossibility to accurately predict the motion of any one body, when two others are acting upon it. In Apollo 13’s case it was the Earth and Moon. Out in deep space it’s usually the Sun, and any closest planetary body. But several could be effecting it. So they just get the best estimate possible, for a given leg of the trip. And course correct as they go. It’s never stop on perfect from the second a probe is launched from earth. Though they may want you to believe they’re that good.
You are good at missing the point.
To put it simply, but not too simply, climatology is not as easy as orbiting a spacecraft around a far planet.
There is plenty of room for educated guesswork and various models may honestly be constructed from the same data sets.
A disagreement in climatology does not suggest a conspiracy.
Looking in the staff of this “Berkeley Earth Team”, doesn’t exactly impress me as being independent of corporate and/or government influences. Some work or have worked for aerospace corporations or organizations. And most, if not all, of them have been on board with the whole Global Warming thing. Others involved with other financial entities and consultants. And the list goes on, and on. Check it out at the Berkeley Earth Team site. While it’s still working. Because some of the site’s team’s credentials, don’t seem to work. I still can’t find out what “Global Warming Art” is. The link is broken. As well as “Muller & Associates LLC”. Which Richard Muller is supposedly the president of. He’s proven AGW? But he can’t get his company’s website to work? That should tell you something.
His daughter name comes up in something called the OECD, whose website touts Corporate Governance. And we all know how in love we are with the idea of Corporates governing us.
1. Rant and Rave and then complain of others doing so. CHECK.
2. Groundlessly assume and charge all others being under the pay of unknown suspicious interests. CHECK.
3. Equate anyone with a different opinion with Hitler. CHECK.
4. Assume you are in the majority and most agree with you. CHECK.
Hmmm. No doubt a truther, birther, and Flat Earther as well.
Ha, ha. Stoopid Human.
There you go jumping to conclusions as well.
Silly hooman.
This guy was never a skeptic. He merely recognized that some of the science behind the hockey stick was bogus. “I used Mike’s nature trick to hide the decline. This tells me some names of scientists whose papers I don’t have to read any more.” He writes this editorial because he knows it is more likely to get attention to himself.
The hockey team has responded back with Michael Mann saying that it looks like this guy is just looking to promote himself. Last year at this time, Muller was issuing press releases for his papers, even though they hadn’t passed peer review. Ross McKitrick has the details, and has posted up his reviews.
Upshot is they came up with an interesting way to merge temperature stations, but it looks like they may have gotten some of the data wrong. They also revealed all their methods and code, which too many in climate science fail to do.
Oldest trick in the book.
You get some shill to pretend to be skeptical for while and then have a very public epiphany.
It worked for Obama’s birth certificate issues with Trump.
Most people never catch on.
>>Most people never catch on.
I’ll agree with that part of your post.
John, don’t you think this pretty much shows it’s time to thank Eideard for his BS contributions and show him the door and quit letting him waste the electrons on your site?
IT’S A LIE! The scientists who cooked the data admitted it! They did it for money! They publicly said all the man-made global warming data is a lie and still Eideard pushes this crap?!?
John, please. It’s time to give him the Kool-aide.
What a life John must have.
Hide the kool aid.
I say the Bilderberg conferences may be right on the money. There are just too damn many humans on planet earth and there needs to be a culling (thinning of the herd)!
…Don’t worry. It’s coming one way or another.
It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic – only a scientific skeptic. […] But I never felt that pointing out mistakes [in Gore’s movie] qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.
RIchard Muller last year to The Huffington Post.
My view is that Muller’s efforts to promote himself by belittling the collective efforts of the entire atmospheric/climate research community over several decades, though, really does the scientific community a disservice. Its great that he’s reaffirmed what we already knew. But for him to pretend that we couldn’t trust this entire scientific field until Richard Muller put his personal stamp of approval on their conclusions is, in my view, a very dangerously misguided philosophical take on how science works. It seems, in the end – quite sadly – that this is all really about Richard Muller’s self-aggrandizement 🙁
Michael Mann
fight! fight! Fight!
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/08/ipcc-lead-author-misleads-us-congress.html