Global Warming? are humans to blame?

[hoytedow]

Al Gore owns part of the Finnish company that got over $500 million U.S. Taxpayer funded grant to build cars in Finland. I am sure it is all above board and has no part of Crony Governmental misbehavior within the Socialist clique.

 

[Dave Gudeman]

Sorry Dave but thats nonsense. Richard Muller "was" questioning everything from Man famous "hockey stick" to where weather stations were placed. He even once questioned All Gore's presentation calling it an exaggeration. Some of his "richer" quotes can even still be found on the Skeptical Science web site to this day. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Muller.htm

Seems a little late in the game to now be denying he was ever a true denier.

Help me out, Boston, which of these quotes proves that he was a "denier"?

Temperature has been rising over the last 100 years. That's pretty clear.

The issues that there is strong agreement on is that we have seen global warming over the past 100 years.

Or which of these quotes do you think "respectable" climate scientists would disagree with?

as a scientist I was trained you always have to show the negative data, the data that disagrees with you, and then make the case that your case is stronger

A quote came out of the emails, these leaked emails, that said "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline"

Luis Alvarez taught me the fundamental scientific rule, which is you've got to show everybody your dirty laundry

claims that global warming has harmed the Earth so far are not scientific

Not a single polar bear has died because of receding ice.

What we know is when it gets warmer carbon dioxide leaves the oceans. When it gets cooler it goes back in. It dissolves better.

Or is he just a denialist because he thinks there is propaganda on the alarmist side?

80 percent or 90 percent of what's in Inconvenient Truth is wrong or exaggerated or cherry picked.

Is that because you think that Al Gore, who invested heavily in carbon credits would never stoop to alarmist propaganda to increase his wealth?

It's pretty pathetic when even a global-warming believer is considered a denialist for demanding scientific behavior from the scientists and for scorning political propaganda. Of, course, maybe that's the definition of a denialist? Anyone who demands scientific rigor and honesty in the climate debate is a denialist? Is that the way it works?

 

[troy2000]

Lots of reports on the internet call Richard Muller a former climate skeptic, and Troy's description above might lead you into thinking that, but it's not true. Richard Muller is not and never has been a climate skeptic. He has been a climate alarmist for decades.

The half-truth behind this deception is that Muller was an honest enough scientist to harshly criticized the scientists involved in Climategate when other climate scientists kept quiet about it. That honesty earned him some harsh criticism from the alarmist side, but he was never anything but a confirmed alarmist himself.

Now, all he has done is go over the warming data since 1950 to confirm the temperature measurements. The fact that he largely confirmed the previous results that previous researchers got with the same data is being spread far and wide as big new evidence for the alarmist side. That's the kind of PR you can get then the entire news media is on your side.

I sincerely hope you're talking about 'reports on the internet' rather than about my post, when you start throwing around charges of deception. What I said was simple, straightforward and accurate:

Richard Muller, the physicist chairing it, has been a notorious critic of the science involved in climate change -- which is presumably why he was chosen.

Nothing deceptive about that. Muller in the past has strongly criticized climatologists for what he considered shoddy science: unreliable or unproven methodology, and fudging data or formulae to get the desired results. Quite obviously, if he didn't trust either the data or the methods used to analyze it, he couldn't trust the results -- even if he wanted to.

The moneyed skeptics were looking for a legitimate scientist with legitimate concerns on the subject, because their paid shills and scientific whores have been losing traction. And they found one.

Unfortunately for them, Muller really is a legitimate scientist. When the results of his own methodology mirrored those he had discounted, he changed his mind instead of his methodology or his results.

I do agree that the headlines I've seen are misleading and exaggerated. They leave the impression that the unbeliever Richard Muller landed on his knees in the middle of the aisle halfway through a sermon, started crying and shaking, and received the Holy Spirit of Climate Change.

 

[Dave Gudeman]

I sincerely hope you're talking about 'reports on the internet' rather than about my post, when you start throwing around charges of deception.

Yes, I don't have a problem with your wording. People might jump to the wrong conclusion, but that wouldn't be your fault.

 

[Frosty]

What is this Global warming thread that keeps coming up in my face , 48,000 veiws and only 1000 posts. Hmmm thats only 1 in 48 post after reading.

Such care in wording and suggestion of deception, a place of testoterone measurement and very little else.

The world goes hot and cold, has done for mllions of years, because its got 1 degree warmer surprises you? They told me this at school ice everywhere right down to France and Wooly Mamoths all over the place. It will keep doing it. Its what it does. Dont be scared its like going dark at night --its OK.

Any way never mind consider it a rthetorical question, or remark.

Oh is that the time..... Got to go I feel very uncomfortable here.

 

[troy2000]

What is this Global warming thread that keeps coming up in my face , 48,000 veiws and only 1000 posts. Hmmm thats only 1 in 48 post after reading.

Such care in wording and suggestion of deception, a place of testoterone measurement and very little else.

The world goes hot and cold, has done for mllions of years, because its got 1 degree warmer surprises you? They told me this at school ice everywhere right down to France and Wooly Mamoths all over the place. It will keep doing it. Its what it does. Dont be scared its like going dark at night --its OK.

Any way never mind consider it a rthetorical question, or remark.

Oh is that the time..... Got to go I feel very uncomfortable here.

You pop up here on a pretty regular basis, for someone who doesn't think this thread is worth posting in....

 

[Frosty]

You pop up here on a pretty regular basis, for someone who doesn't think this thread is worth posting in....

Well lets see now there is this one and the one before that and the other,---so that three and one I did 2 years ago so that 4 posts.

Is that a lot then?--certainly feels like it.

Any way my afternoon tea and biscuits have arrived. I think the tea might have heated the galley so ille breath in the heat and let it out as urine into the sea rather that open the window and let the heat damage the ozone layer.

What--- Im not takng the piss no never,-- who me.

But you know thanks you for your invitation I might just pop in now and again if I get any ideas that might help.

Has anyone studies whale farts?

 

[Boston]

Help me out, Boston, which of these quotes proves that he was a "denier"?
Or which of these quotes do you think "respectable" climate scientists would disagree with?

Those quotes you noted were from "after" his independent study results were in. Had you used or researched his quotes found on, say, the Skeptical Science web site, you would have seen innumerable quotes previous to his "revelation" concerning the realities of climate shift.

Or is he just a denialist because he thinks there is propaganda on the alarmist side?

He "was" a denier because he like so many other deneir's were ignoring the data and merely complaining about anything he could think of. Now that he's actually done his homework and discovered the truth of the mater, he's, like so many others, changed his tune.

Is that because you think that Al Gore, who invested heavily in carbon credits would never stoop to alarmist propaganda to increase his wealth?

All politicians do that. They push for laws that benefit themselves. No one is saying All Gore is a saint, What I'm saying is that on the issue of climate shift. He pretty much nailed it. My bet is anyone with any investing savvy at all will take a serious look at alternative energies and carbon mitigation technologies. Give it ten or fifteen years and these industries should be going full tilt.

It's pretty pathetic when even a global-warming believer is considered a denialist for demanding scientific behavior from the scientists and for scorning political propaganda. Of, course, maybe that's the definition of a denialist? Anyone who demands scientific rigor and honesty in the climate debate is a denialist? Is that the way it works?

Not at all Dave, thats "not" the way it works. The deniers earned there tittle because they "deny" things like "temperature drives vapor content" a very simple scientific concept that no one had any trouble with right up until an honest person mentioned that CO2 was the "primary" green house gas in the atmospheric chemistry. CO2 is the primary forcing agent, H2O is a feedback. The temp drives vapor, CO2 drives temp. Yet countless times I've heard deniers dogmatically insist that water vapor is somehow "responsible" for warming. Another one is the data collection sites. Yes some sites are in urban areas. Because we need to collect data from an average land type. If black top tar is some significant fraction of that land type then of course some data should be collected from those locations. What they study found was that it didn't mater if you threw out the highs and the lows or used all data the results were the same. Global warming is real, its occurring actually slightly faster than the IPCC prediction and it represents a huge problem for the very near future.

So once again, I'm not seeing your point. Are you still denying global climate shift is occurring, or are you simply arguing that someone else isn't or wasn't a denier. Either way your not commenting on the articles findings, which is kinda interesting. So now we have "four" independent study groups all in agreement with the general consensus. This last chaired and led by scientists distinctly outside the specific study of climate science and nearly all specifically chosen by the deniers camp obviously because of there individual stances "against" the science. Yet they return a stamp of approval to the previous scientific consensus view. There was no other honest conclusion possible, apparently.

Kinda sends the deniers into a panic from what I can see. The typical deniers response is to dance around the issue and argue anything but the core issue. Rapid Global Climate Shift has been "confirmed" yet again. With "no" significant scientific objections to the previous findings.

As I said a few thousand posts ago, in the original climate thread, "I was hoping to hear a rational and coherent counter argument to the "science" involved". But not only was there no counter theory every presented, not even a counter hypothesis was ever suggested. Basically the only denialist argument is to complain about individual character flaws. Which I suppose we are all guilty of. But at least now we can lay the science to rest and get on with finding ways to fix the problem.

 

[troy2000]

Richard Muller has a piece in the Wall Street Journal (which is hardly a bastion of left-wing environmentalists). He begins with "Are you a global warming skeptic? There are plenty of good reasons why you might be."
He runs through the list of concerns skeptics have about temperature data and how it's being analyzed, then says, "Without good answers to all these complaints, global-warming skepticism seems sensible. But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer."

He then goes through his own group's methods and results, and concludes with, "When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html

Note that he's only addressing the question of whether the warming itself is real, and he considers that question closed now. Why global warming is happening was outside the scope of his project....

 

[Boston]

where the excess CO2 came from is a no brainer, and anyone who's honestly asking the question can find more than adequate answers at http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ncreases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/ The question of what the earths response to past alterations in the atmospheric chemistry are is equally obvious. Mass extinction. All previous mass extinction events, regardless of what triggered the alteration in the atmospheric chemistry, where accompanied by such changes. The effects are catastrophic

 

[Boston]

a little more on the transformation of at least one famous denier

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html

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.

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

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."

 

[troy2000]

Al Gore owns part of the Finnish company that got over $500 million U.S. Taxpayer funded grant to build cars in Finland. I am sure it is all above board and has no part of Crony Governmental misbehavior within the Socialist clique.

It's an American company, not a Finnish company. After spending money for the research, development and design work in the US, they sub'ed the actual construction out to a Finnish plant. According to them, it was because they couldn't find anyone here who was already set up and qualified.

I don't know whether that's true or not. But I certainly haven't heard of any American plants complaining that they were ready and able to do the work, and got passed over....

 

[Boston]

its a ruse

anything but realize that four out of four independent groups have determined the science is right on the money on this one.

its just kinda funny that the independent denier funded study came up with egg on there face. Oh well, now that thats settled maybe we can move forward with some solutions. Assuming its not to late. Which is the next big question.

 

[Dave Gudeman]

So once again, I'm not seeing your point. Are you still denying global climate shift is occurring, or are you simply arguing that someone else isn't or wasn't a denier.

I don't see why you are confused on this issue, Boston. Here is what I said:

Lots of reports on the internet call Richard Muller a former climate skeptic, and Troy's description above might lead you into thinking that, but it's not true. Richard Muller is not and never has been a climate skeptic. He has been a climate alarmist for decades.

At that time, you seemed to understand what I had said because you responded with your usual air of careful scientific neutrality:

Sorry Dave but thats nonsense. Richard Muller "was" questioning everything from Man famous "hockey stick" to where weather stations were placed. He even once questioned All Gore's presentation calling it an exaggeration. Some of his "richer" quotes can even still be found on the Skeptical Science web site to this day. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Muller.htm

Seems a little late in the game to now be denying he was ever a true denier. Classic move by the deniers squad where apparently its never to late to do a flip flop.

Obviously He's changed his tune and obviously there's a lot of worming and squirming going on in the deniers camp.

Pretty embarrassing for the Kotch bro's and dam funny to the rest of us.

Then I responded by showing that your evidence for Muller ever being a skeptic didn't hold water, and that seems to have caused you to forget what we were arguing about. It's almost like you want to go back now and deny that you were ever a true denier of his non denierness.

 

[Dave Gudeman]

its a ruse

anything but realize that four out of four independent groups have determined the science is right on the money on this one.

its just kinda funny that the independent denier funded study came up with egg on there face. Oh well, now that thats settled maybe we can move forward with some solutions. Assuming its not to late. Which is the next big question.

No, the groups were not independent. They used at least some common data. Still, most skeptics have always agreed that the earth got warmer in the 20th century. So far, the warming trend has not continued in the 21st century, and none of the models used to justify the global warming alarmism predicted that. For someone who really wants to know the truth, this would be a serious issue.

Actually, I should say that most climate skeptics agreed that the earth had warmed in the 20th century until Climategate demonstrated how the alarmists were hiding the decline and using political pressure to keep skeptical scientists from getting published, and sharing data and work with the other supposedly independent groups more than had been previously acknowledged. This raised serious questions about the methods that led to finding the warming trend. The only thing this recent study did was restore some confidence that was lost by Climategate. It couldn't restore all of the confidence, though.

It's revealing, Boston, that you assume this study is so painful to climate skeptics. I guess it's because you assume that we are all just like you, who treats this like a football game, booing the opposition and cheering when your team scores a touchdown. But not everyone treats this issue like a sport. Real skeptics are just people who refuse to be railroaded into important decisions on the basis of inadequate evidence. They just want to know the truth, and are never disappointed at having more information.