Welcome to PatsFans.com

Climate change skeptic becomes a believer

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Oct 22, 2011.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,724
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +159 / 4 / -4

    He must have gotten a big fat government grant. ... But, wait, the grant came from the Koch foundation!

    Climate Change Deniers Abandon ‘Befuddled Warmist’ Physicist Who Came Around On Global Warming | TPMDC

    Climate change deniers thought they had an ally in Richard Muller, a popular physics professor at UC Berkeley.

    Muller didn’t reject climate science per se, but he was a skeptic, and a convenient one for big polluters and conservative anti-environmentalists — until Muller put their money where his mouth was, and launched the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, in part with a grant from the Charles G. Koch foundation.

    ....

    “When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find,” Muller wrote in a Friday Wall Street Journal op-ed. “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.”
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2011
  2. chicowalker

    chicowalker Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    12,835
    Likes Received:
    94
    Ratings:
    +149 / 2 / -1

    I'll have to re-read this section in his book. I didn't think he was a skeptic of global warming. (Of course, the real issue is the influence of man on global warming. I don't think many scientists reject the premise that warming exists, though I'm sure many loons do.)
  3. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,617
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +120 / 7 / -12

    Well the author of the article is certainly a good propagandist if a lousy journalist.


    He appears to have not read the preliminary paper abstract (since the paper is under peer review)


    I know of no skeptics that don't believe that the Earth has warmed since the Dalton minimum which marked the end of the Little Ice Age, if there hadn't been warming we wouldn't have the sort of crop production we see today.


    Muller has not been a 'climate skeptic' to the best of my knowledge and I follow the issue rather closely. It is interesting he went forward with a media blitz before the review has been done. Watts is concerned with this since he was one of the people consulted on this project due to his work with weather station siting.

    The temp data is derived from one source not multiple sources as the article you cite implies, again hard to say whether it is ignorance or political intent on the part of the author Roger Pelke Sr comments on this with links to his comments on other sites (inc Wattsupwiththis):

    Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. | by Roger Pielke Sr.

    Then a mathematician weighs in a series of emails about issues in the time series analysis. Read the emails from the bottom of the page up to the top to get the correct order:

    Informath >> BEST is Bogus


    Comments on the Keenan emails on incorrect statistical methods being used:

    A mathematician’s response to BEST | Watts Up With That?

    Judith Curry one of the authors of the 4 papers gives her summary she say work remains to be don, mentions that she thinks this is helping to develop a better data set for land based data and NOTHING more, this study doesn't have anything to do with the thesis that Humans are affeting the ongoing continious climate change that has been occuring for billions of years on earth.

    Berkeley Surface Temperatures: Released | Climate Etc.



    Watts comments on hos agreements and disagreements with the paper (something that is normally part of the peer review and comment process for published papers in science). The reason for these comments is that the process was bypassed because of the publicity blitz in the media:

    BEST: What I agree with and what I disagree with – plus a call for additional transparency to prevent “pal” review | Watts Up With That?


    There is a lot of political jockeying going on right now why? Well the next iteration IPCC report is going to be put together soon. There is a deadline for peer reviewed papers to be included/excluded. So some papers are being rushed in and others are being delayed. This is because of all the hits the warmist have been taking as the data comes in from various papers sources and their predictions made in previous IPCC reports are diverging from measurement in ways that show Humans are the drivers of climate.


    Comments on the media coverage of the papers and what the papers actually say from Dr Peyser (a skeptic) who has read the papers in question.

    Sceptical Berkeley Scientists Say, “Human Component Of Global Warming May Be Somewhat Overstated” | Watts Up With That?

    The most interesting quote from the papers abstract that the media like the article Patters cites is being ignored:


    The article in the OP is crap however it is informative to show how the media mislead the public about what the science is and what is saying.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>