A Koch bother-funded climate change denier changes his tune

57 posts / 0 new
Last post
Thom Hartmann A...
Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture

A Koch bother-funded climate change skeptic suddenly reversed course – and now proclaims that humans are “entirely the cause” of global climate change.  Three years ago, physicist Richard Muller was given $150,000 from the Koch brothers to co-found the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project to debunk climate change arguments.  But on Sunday, after three years of intense research, Muller is biting the hand that feeds him by promoting genuine science and ringing the alarm bell that climate change is happening and humans are to blame.

As Muller wrote on Sunday in the New York Times, “My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis… it appears likely that essentially all of this increase [in temperatures] results from the human emission of greenhouse gases."  When even Koch-funded scientists are coming out and saying that man-made climate change is happening, then guess what – it’s happening!

From unprecedented ice melting in Greenland – to unprecedented heat waves and droughts in America – to sudden die-offs of reefs and phytoplankton in the oceans – the world is changing rapidly.  And eventually billionaires will no longer be able to buy off scientists to deny the reality of the damage their oil, coal, and natural gas industries are doing to our planet.

Comments

MrsBJLee
MrsBJLee's picture
I wonder how long he will now

I wonder how long he will now be allowed to live.

Capital.1
Capital.1's picture
  Talk about reinventing

 

Talk about reinventing oneself.   Richard Muller was never a skeptic.   He like everyone else on the planet besides Al Gore had a problem wiht the work of Michael Mann,    For Voicing that concern....  The Eco Fascist Branded him DENIER...  Even though he had for years prior to that liberal branding, had always blamed Man Made warming.    

So the question becomes....  WHY is Thom, Media and Muller  engaged in the Full Court Press…..   Simple,  There little house of cards are coming down.    

Muller wrote 4 papers a while ago and went on a Media circus promotion in which he was dubbed the Jesus figure for seeing the Light… Skeptic turned Believer.   So where are those 4 papers…..  ZERO has passed peer reviewing.  So he wrote his 5th paper.  The “results” paper.   Just skating in under the IPCC deadline for the next Report.   STILL NOT Peer reviewed.

 

And what did the Co-Author Judith Curry of the first 4 papers say about Mullers 5th paper. 

 

Quote:
  Muller bases his ‘conversion’ on the results of their recent paper?

 

So, how convincing is the analysis in Rohde et al.’s new paper A new estimate of the average surface land temperature spanning 1753-2011? Their analysis is based upon curve fits to volcanic forcing and the logarithm of the CO2 forcing (addition of solar forcing did not improve the curve fit.)

 

I have made public statements that I am unconvinced by their analysis. I do not see any justification in their argument for making a stronger attribution statement than has been made by the IPCC AR4. I have written MANY posts that critique the IPCC’s attribution analysis. Here I try to give a sense of the challenges in attributing climate change to causal factors.” 

 

So why the Rush from Muller….   New paper being submitted  Watts_et_al 2012

  

Quote:
The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.

 

The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data.

polycarp2
Well, we all know that

Well, we all know that majority of scientists in the research are purposely setting out to destroy their reputations and academic standing. with a scam. That's supposed to make sense.

 Al Gore is evidently going to retire them all as millionaires  because no Univ. of standing will hire them after global warming proves to be an Al Gore scam.

Poor Gore. he's going to bankrupt himself in the effort. It would be easier to take the Koch Bros. approach. Finance a few deniers rather than an overwhelming majority like Gore is supposedly doing.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

 

Capital.1
Capital.1's picture
<p>polycarp2

<p>

polycarp2 wrote:
</p><p>Well, we all know that majority of scientists in the research are purposely setting out to destroy their reputations and academic standing. with a scam. That's supposed to make sense.

You assume it is a Scam and not just a tortured assumption of the Data to garner whatever motivates them.&nbsp;Whether it be fame, money, power or idealism

Who am I to guess what motivatse a man to continually pushes a PR Circus proclaiming

polycarp2
Money and power for a climate

Money and power for a climate researcher? You've got to be joking

Outside of a few ot those who enter scientifc research fields for the big bucks they can offer...like economics..., most enter because of a passion for their chosen field. ...not the money and not the power. Fame only comes if they are correct in what they uncover. If they are wrong,, they destroy their own standing.

.Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

.

stwo
stwo's picture
Thom's quote from Muller is

Thom's quote from Muller is interesting. Let's see some more from Muller:

December 17, 2003 - "Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate."

November 3, 2011 - "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 qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.”

July 28, 2012 - "CALL me a converted skeptic."..."I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

July 28, 2012 - "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..."

July 28, 2012 - "These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism..."

July 28, 2102 - "Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters."

July 28, 2012 - "Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase."

July 28, 2012 - "It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong."

July 28, 2012 - "I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed."

July 28, 2012 - "And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings."

July 28, 2012 - "And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous."

MrsBJLee
MrsBJLee's picture
Is he afraid to go one way or

Is he afraid to go one way or the other? Reading his quotes over the years (although I usually prefer to read at least a paragraph instead of a selected sentence so it's not taken out of context) makes it seem like he's walking on a balance beam with regards to what he is willing to say. Actually I would like to see the complete paragraphs because these statements are a small part of a whole statement that could lead you to believe one way when if you saw the entire statement you would see it differently. We see that very often in politics.

drc2
I listened to Muller tonight,

I listened to Muller tonight, and he has definitely changed his views on the CO2 correlation with warming as well as the human causation.  He came across as a good scientist and testimony to those who find skepticism a good trait in science.  On the other hand, the science community depends upon a pluralism of approaches, and Muller would have been very late to address the crisis had he been the model for all.  

What bothers me is his continuing presumption, as a scientist, that the economic bounds of realism trump any nature-based vision.  We have to use natural gas because the current establishment is not going to change rapidly enough to bridge the gap.  Even if it is true, it is more an analysis of our political and cultural pathology than good science.

I appreciate his not being bought.  It is clear that he resisted a lot of pressure from the Koch funders to be an honest man.  But, I think many "honest" people fool themselves by the range of objectivity they select.

MrsBJLee
MrsBJLee's picture
Is there a link to a radio

Is there a link to a radio show or text of what he said that you listened to that you can share?

DynoDon
Somebody is not on the Koch

Somebody is not on the Koch Bros Christmas list anymore.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
In direct contradiction to

In direct contradiction to Richard Muller’s BEST study, the new Watts et al 2012 paper has very effectively shown that a substantive warm bias exists even in the mean temperature trends. This type of bias certainly exists throughout the Global Historical Climate Network, as well as what Anthony has documented for the US Historical Climate Reference Network.

 

Quote:
Anthony has led what is a critically important assessment of the issue of station quality. Indeed, this type of analysis should have been performed by Tom Karl and Tom Peterson at NCDC, Jim Hansen at GISS and Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia (and Richard Muller). However, they apparently liked their answers and did not want to test the robustness of their findings.

stwo
stwo's picture
MrsBJLee wrote:Is there a

MrsBJLee wrote:
Is there a link to a radio show or text of what he said that you listened to that you can share?

Check Rachel Maddow's website MrsBJLee.

 

MrsBJLee
MrsBJLee's picture
Thank you!

Thank you!

anonymous green
Better to read Thomas Gold's,

Better to read Thomas Gold's, The Deep Hot Biosphere, and learn the true nature of hydrocarbons in the Universe, and as it is on Earth.

How does CO2 'rise up' in our atmosphere, when it's heavier than air?

It can't.

How does it then get up there?

Because it's coming down, not going up.

It's coming down as the unlimited, massive amounts of methane that are continuously leaking out of the Earth, and which do rise up to great heights in our atmosphere, are oxidized (burned), into CO2, which then falls to the Earth, and is washed out of the air by rain, into the sea, where shellfish use the carbonates to make shells.

Nothing can stop the methane from leaking out of our planet. Earthquakes are actually caused by huge bubbles of methane rising up from our core, leaving a space into which the surrounding rocks fill suddenly, creating a quake at whatever depth the bubble has so far reached.

Unfortuantely, by the time we were all born, so many lies had been told by oil geologists, hiding their endless supply of hydrocarbons in order to fix the price of energy, that only more lies could be told, especially after Bush classified the real science on the matter.

Yes, the climate is changing, the earth is releasing lots of heat, and methane, and the geologic crisis we are experiencing is real.

The key to the 1%'s reaction to this that if they lie to you, keep you working on a fool's errand for your flag and your Country and to 'save the Planet', when the shit really hits the fan, you'll find they can only say "run for your lives"!

But not to the shelters they have built for themselves to survive. These are private.

So is their food, and their water.

 

 

drc2
ag, what is the point you are

ag, what is the point you are making and what do you want others to do other than read this one book?    If you have provided an accurate synopsis, and if others who hang out in that intellectual neighborhood think of it as highly as you do, how does it get us focussed on doing what needs to be done in time?

Or, is the point you are making that there is nothing to worry about because the system is self-correcting, no matter how much "ancient sunshine" we add to the mix?  In which case, it is only the greed of the oil companies we have to worry about, not the environmental apocalypse.

Cap wants us to read a load of crap so we won't believe that Muller is an honest guy, a real scientist.  I think his political imagination is lacking, but his conversion from skeptic to affirmation of what he denied is worth more respect.  As for the ridiculous meme of the "green" funding spigot for global warming scare tactics, Muller's story has the delicious irony of the Koch's having funded his study and of having tried to influence its findings.  

In the world of science, there are honest skeptics as well as grant fund sniffers who will be found on the same side as Corporate Money.  Muller is one of the former, and adds extra weight because he could not be predisposed to read the evidence as he did.  All that nonsense about hyperbole in a good cause in the environmental science department, and the reverse is true.  All the incentives are against being on the side of global warming and climate change.

I wish Reaganomics had worked and prosperity had flowed down like a mighty flood and lifted all boats.  I cannot say that I wish our American Century Empire had worked, because that is a fantasy too far.  It would be great to discover that the environment can do God's Work and adjust to our reckless behavior.  My grandkids would love it too.  But, I cannot trust that to be true and I want their world to be as much fun as mine has been.  

Everything about the global petro-empire is wrong.  It mocks freedom.  It mocks initiative and vision.  It establishes the worst politics and unleashes the nastiest elements other than nuclear.  Nuclear is part of this frame: The Conquest of Nature.  It even stinks.  As does the American Century as an idea.  Or, the "exceptional" Manifest Destiny of Whiteness.  What about the New Rome is supposed to honor democracy?  When do "we, the people," have a real get down to business reckoning of what we have become?

Ideology cannot be bothered by any distractions, so even if the sky is literally falling, the phenomena must be repackaged to fit the ideological frame.  Imperialism cannot stand honest scrutiny, and the rationale for "great power responsibility" is morally flawed endemically.  There is nothing but an Evil Empire, no good or great ones, just crimes committed in the names of gods.

microsrfr
Contributers to the Heartland

Contributers to the Heartland Institute -- Eat Your Heart Out!

Capital1
Capital1's picture
drc2 wrote:   Cap wants us to

drc2 wrote:

 

Cap wants us to read a load of crap so we won't believe that Muller is an honest guy, a real scientist.

Mullers paper have not passed Peer review and BEST is not Publish in over a year since release.  Muller ISN"T honest,  Because his betray him.   What is a "real" scientist? 

I have post you a scientific Paper,  Feel free to Read Mullers papers...   than you decide. 

OR...   just post a bunch of hyperbole,  and pretend to convince people you actually have the slightest clue about what you are talking about.. 

Either one..

A paper was released on Monday,  that if/when published, Blows BEST/Muller out of the Water. 

anonymous green
drc2 wrote: ag, what is the

drc2 wrote:

ag, what is the point you are making and what do you want others to do other than read this one book?    If you have provided an accurate synopsis, and if others who hang out in that intellectual neighborhood think of it as highly as you do, how does it get us focussed on doing what needs to be done in time?

Or, is the point you are making that there is nothing to worry about because the system is self-correcting, no matter how much "ancient sunshine" we add to the mix?  In which case, it is only the greed of the oil companies we have to worry about, not the environmental apocalypse.

The point is, unless you read Gold's book, you have no idea what you are talking about concerning hydrocarbon formation and behavior on Earth and in the rest of the Universe.

You are not adding ancient sunshine to the mix.

The greed of oil companies is the crux of the issue, and their ability to buy the whores of science makes sorting out real data nearly impossible, until you read Gold's book.

Until we have separation of Science and the State, we only get State/Corporate science, which of course is a lie, a classified lie.

For the same reason, you'll never hear the truth about the Kennedy's early demise.

It's all a big secret, but Gold broke through and actually printed real science.

Why do you think no one will speak of him? He was right about the surface of the moon too, before we ever set foot on it.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
anonymous green wrote: The

anonymous green wrote:

The point is, unless you read Gold's book, you have no idea what you are talking about concerning hydrocarbon formation and behavior on Earth and in the rest of the Universe.

And quite frankly niether does Gold.  

Gold is an Astrophysicist who wrote a book about his “Hypothesis” of the inner workings of the earth.. 

anonymous green
Capital1 wrote: anonymous

Capital1 wrote:

anonymous green wrote:

The point is, unless you read Gold's book, you have no idea what you are talking about concerning hydrocarbon formation and behavior on Earth and in the rest of the Universe.

And quite frankly niether does Gold.  

Gold is an Astrophysicist who wrote a book about his “Hypothesis” of the inner workings of the earth.. 

Christ Al Mighty, if only I had known he was just a lowly astrophysicist! How dare he study the Earth and apply the laws of the Universe here, where God made different rules, like snakes that talk and apples with 'knowledge' in them.

Linda, you're absolutely right.

Thank you for settling the issue.

Montag

Capital1
Capital1's picture
anonymous green wrote: Christ

anonymous green wrote:

Christ Al Mighty, if only I had known he was just a lowly astrophysicist! How dare he study the Earth and apply the laws of the Universe here, where God made different rules, like snakes that talk and apples with 'knowledge' in them.

Linda, you're absolutely right.

Thank you for settling the issue.

Montag

You put a lot of faith in a mere Hypothesis.  There are a couple more Steps in the Scientific Method. 

You realize his hypothesis is the plagerized hypothsis of Soviet Geologist. 

stwo
stwo's picture
Capital.1,   Watts, et al

Capital.1,   Watts, et al 2012 has not been published or peer reviewed- it is a pre-submittal release and the same caution that should be applied to Muller/BEST should be applied to Watts, et.al.  Well, not quite the same since watts has not yet been reviewed and  Muller/BEST didnt just fail intial peer review- it was rejected.

I remain open minded regarding abiotic origins of (some) oil.   I do not believe in the idea that because there are possilbe abiotic contributions, therefore there is a hidden abundance and ongoing conspiracy to create (artificial) scarcity for increased profits. 

anonymous green
Capital1 wrote: You put a lot

Capital1 wrote:

You put a lot of faith in a mere Hypothesis.  There are a couple more Steps in the Scientific Method. 

You realize his hypothesis is the plagerized hypothsis of Soviet Geologist. 

You seem to confuse hypotheses and hypothsis, both of which are different words, and only one means something.

But then, you are still trying to capitalize numbers, which mystifies me.

You also seem to have no grasp of the scientific method, in which one scientist builds off the work his peers have done. To you, and to the right-wing propagandist oil company whore scielentists who have branded Gold's work as plagerism, oil and natural gas are still million year old Shrimp Gumbo, and although we've been running out of this mythical substance since the 1970's, more of it is discovered every day.

Stick to capitalizing numbers, they say if beings like you type and type and type, eventually, they'll copy Shakespeare2.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
stwo wrote: Capital.1,  

stwo wrote:

Capital.1,   Watts, et al 2012 has not been published or peer reviewed- it is a pre-submittal release and the same caution that should be applied to Muller/BEST should be applied to Watts, et.al.  Well, not quite the same since watts has not yet been reviewed and  Muller/BEST didnt just fail intial peer review- it was rejected.

I remain open minded regarding abiotic origins of (some) oil.   I do not believe in the idea that because there are possilbe abiotic contributions, therefore there is a hidden abundance and ongoing conspiracy to create (artificial) scarcity for increased profits. 

As I said,  Announced Monday.  

You should look at some of the interesting background on issues between Watt's and Muller.    Muller's Entire BEST project and resulting papers is based on Watt's Surfacestation.org project.  Muller rush his science and started his PR circus.  and to date None of his papers have been publish.  Why the BEST papers failed to pass peer review 

Will Watt's paper suffer a similar fate...  Time will tell.   But the Two papers are contradictory.  Where BEST papers failed,  Perhaps the Watt's Paper will not.  And IF his papers are accepted,  They seriously challenge the current Numbers used by all the Biggies to scare the public.  If you can't even tell me what the Global temperature is today,  You sure as hell can't tell what it was 200 years ago. 

For a Skeptic who has witnessed the thousand papercuts to AGW over the years,  This could be a big deal.    But as a skeptic,  Science HAS TO stand the test.  If it doesn't,  It should get thrown out.  Like ALL of Muller papers. 

 

Capital1
Capital1's picture
anonymous green wrote: You

anonymous green wrote:

You seem to confuse hypotheses and hypothsis, both of which are different words, and only one means something.

Nope.. Think I nailed that use...

Quote:
But then, you are still trying to capitalize numbers, which mystifies me.

Too easily distracted... lazy mind maybe?

Quote:
  You also seem to have no grasp of the scientific method, in which one scientist builds off the work his peers have done. To you, and to the right-wing propagandist oil company whore scielentists who have branded Gold's work as plagerism, oil and natural gas are still million year old Shrimp Gumbo, and although we've been running out of this mythical substance since the 1970's, more of it is discovered every day.

I get that a lot... Mostly from people who don't know there ass from a hole in the ground.   And Jason  (yes I know your lurking)

Except his work WAS plagiarized from the early work of soviet geologist. Most people don't even dispute that. Except you of course.,

 

stwo
stwo's picture
anonymous green wrote:You

anonymous green wrote:
You seem to confuse hypotheses and hypothsis, both of which are different words, and only one means something.
Oh, the ironing.

 

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
august-1-2012-fred-guterl has

august-1-2012-fred-guterl has a few things to say on the most trusted news source in the country.

Quote:

The revelatory account of the biggest threats we face as a species–and what we can do to save ourselves.

In the history of planet earth, mass species extinctions have occurred five times, about once every 100 million years. A “sixth extinction” is known to be underway now, with over 200 species dying off every day. Not only that, but the cause of the sixth extinction is also the source of single biggest threat to human life: our own inventions.

What this bleak future will truly hold, though, is much in dispute. Will our immune systems be attacked by so-called super bugs, always evolving, and now more easily spread than ever? Will the disappearance of so many species cripple the biosphere? Will global warming transform itself into a runaway effect, destroying ecosystems across the planet? In this provocative book, Fred Guterl examines each of these scenarios, laying out the existing threats, and proffering the means to avoid them.

This book is more than a tour of an apocalyptic future; it is a political salvo, an antidote to well-intentioned but ultimately ineffectual thinking. Though it’s honorable enough to switch light bulbs and eat home-grown food, the scope of our problems, and the size of our population, is too great. And so, Guterl argues, we find ourselves in a trap: Technology got us into this mess, and it’s also the only thing that can help us survive it. Guterl vividly shows where our future is heading, and ultimately lights the route to safe harbor.

Note: This book is available from Amazon on May 22, 2012.

 

This book. Oh, this book. It was deliciously pessimistic, looking at worst case scenarios for the possible fate of the human race. Many of them are rather bleak, which doesn’t really bode well for us–since, you know, it means that most of us will be wiped out when one of these “extinction events” occurs.

One of the points the book makes is that every few hundred million years or so, a mass extinction event occurs that rearranges the species hierarchy on the planet. The last big one was 65 million years ago, when the KT asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. 65 million years ago. You know what that means, right?

Yep. We’re overdue for another one.

So how will it happen? Will it be a climate flip (the sudden–in geologic terms–flip of the climate, going from tropical to ice age or vice versa)? Will it be a bioengineered virus–maybe a designer bug that has the lethality of Ebola and the traveling ability of the flu? Will it be someone wiping out the power grid?

anonymous green
Capital1 wrote: Except his

Capital1 wrote:

Except his work WAS plagiarized from the early work of soviet geologist. Most people don't even dispute that. Except you of course.,

You must have read the book, and the Soviet science as well, and can point out where Gold, one of America's most brilliant minds, copied word for word his peers work?

Once again, you spout the Focks News nonsense that 'most people' don't dispute this.

I wouldn't attempt to reason with you, since you won't listen to reason, like your obstructionist ilk. It's pointless to argue with brainwashed Manchurian Americans.

Anyone with an open mind should actually read Gold's book.

You should stick to capitalizing numbers, and hoping King Edward Lear will somehow appear when you are typing your monkey language.

 

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
Book Signings

Book Signings

stwo
stwo's picture
douglaslee wrote:One of the

douglaslee wrote:
One of the points the book makes is that every few hundred million years or so, a mass extinction event occurs that rearranges the species hierarchy on the planet. The last big one was 65 million years ago, when the KT asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. 65 million years ago. You know what that means, right?

Yep. We’re overdue for another one.

Ok, so maybe my math isn't so good, but if they occur every few hundred million years, and the last one was less than a hundred million years ago, how does that make us overdue?

 

anonymous green
Damn the math, full

Damn the math, full fear-tactics ahead.

Be afraid, be very afraid, don't even go outside, especially to vote, and if you do vote, don't vote for anyone running, just write in someone's name, anyone.

Fear is what you should feel, all the time. Impending doom.

You tried to save the planet, it's OK... Give up, give in.

It's OK, give up, you can't understand the science, and it's a lie anyway.

Give up, leave the driving to us.

Stay home. Drink. Have some free pharmaceuticals, and watch it on TV, safe in your bubble.

It's OK to give up, surrender, and die 'happy'.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
anonymous green wrote: You

anonymous green wrote:

You must have read the book, and the Soviet science as well, and can point out where Gold, one of America's most brilliant minds, copied word for word his peers work?

Gold also published a book of the same title in 1999, which expanded on the arguments in his 1992 paper and included speculations on the origin of life.[52] He has been accused of stealing the abiogenic theory outright from Soviet geologists who first published it in the 1950s.[53] Although he later credited Soviet research, it is claimed that he first published a paper on the abiogenic theory in 1979 without citing any of the Soviet literature on the subject.[54] Gold's defenders maintain[citation needed] that these charges are unfounded: they say that, after first formulating his views on petroleum in 1979, he began finding the papers by Soviet geologists and had them translated. He was both disappointed (that his ideas were not original) and delighted (because such independent formulation of these ideas added weight to the hypothesis). They insist that he always credited the Soviet work once he knew about it

so Pointed....

miksilvr
Richard Muller was

Richard Muller was interviewed on Democracy Now today. The link contains video and a transcript. 

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/2/climate_skeptic_koch_funded_scientist_richard 

 

anonymous green
Capital1 wrote: anonymous

So, my little pointed head, you've read Gold's book?

Was Soviet science available to US scientists in the 1970's?

Did Gold prove his abiotic theory by drilling into rock, where no ancient sea or Shrimp Gumbo ever existed, and finding not only methane, but also the cells and excrement of the vast quantities of anaeorbic life that he proved existed under the surface, living off hydrocarbons in extreme heat?

Or, is wikipedia the extent of your 'research'?

 

Scappoose
Scappoose's picture
Go listen to the Democracy

Go listen to the Democracy Now show for today - Amy interviews the guy -

And he has turned around 'somewhat'.

He believes in GlobL warming but says it hasn't occurred in the last 10 years.

He does say Kudos to Obama for keeping the Exact Same Team as Bush for international climate change negotiations - a team that has destroyed all attempts at a global solution.

And speaking of Exact Same Team - why didn't Obama replace the fired Attorneys for the Justice dept? And why didn't he fight FOR siegalman who is now rotting in jail?

If in fact Obama is the republican opposition one would think he would have at least half heartedly attempted them - instead The obama justice dept asked for a Longer sentence for siegalman.

al3
al3's picture
polycarp2 wrote: Money and

polycarp2 wrote:

Money and power for a climate researcher? You've got to be joking

Outside of a few ot those who enter scientifc research fields for the big bucks they can offer...like economics..., most enter because of a passion for their chosen field. ...not the money and not the power.

This one will make cons heads explode.  To them, that's like saying, "Most folks don't live to breathe air, they live for other reasons."...Most can't fathom "passion for their chosen field," unless that field, of course involves...power and money.   I'm sure those climate scientists chose their field over Finance or Business with the ultimate plan of attaining money and  power. ROTFLOL!

Capital1
Capital1's picture
miksilvr wrote: Richard

miksilvr wrote:

Richard Muller was interviewed on Democracy Now today. The link contains video and a transcript. 

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/2/climate_skeptic_koch_funded_scientist_richard 

 

When the first line is Bullshit  "After years of denying global warming, physicist Richard Muller"

How is one to take the rest seriously

Capital1
Capital1's picture
IPCC Lead Author Misleads US

IPCC Lead Author Misleads US Congress

A person doesn't need to mislead when facts are on thier side. 

sciflyguy
sciflyguy's picture
Capital1 wrote: When the

Capital1 wrote:

When the first line is Bullshit  "After years of denying global warming, physicist Richard Muller"

How is one to take the rest seriously

What are your agruments against global climate change?  

Why are you so invested in denying this situation?

What harm would it cause to reduce our CO2 emissions?

What harm would it cause to develop other means of producing energy?

Capital1
Capital1's picture
sciflyguy wrote: What are

sciflyguy wrote:

What are your arguments against global climate change?

There is no argument against Global climate change. Global climate change is the generic term for everything that has happened to the Earth in 4 billion years. However there are plenty of arguments against AGW and CAGW.

Quote:
Why are you so invested in denying this situation?

Which position do you think I am actually denying? That Richard Muller was never a skeptic, that is easy... He never was.

Quote:
What harm would it cause to reduce our CO2 emissions?

That would greatly depend upon how you intended to do that. A passive program to increase fuel efficiency of cars and retire older cars is VASTLY different than creating a New world order via a global cap and trade system.  

Quote:
What harm would it cause to develop other means of producing energy?

Again greatly depends upon how you intend to do that.  Fostering competition for the best source is good,  Artificially  manipulating current energy needs to make other energy sources more appealing than they would be on their own…    Not Good.. 

 

sciflyguy
sciflyguy's picture
Capital1 Please define AGW

Capital1

Please define AGW and CAGW and state your arguments against them.

Capital1
Capital1's picture
sciflyguy wrote: Please

sciflyguy wrote:

Please define AGW and CAGW and state your arguments against them.

AGW- Anthropogenic Global Warming. The theory that Man is the primary cause of this current Climate trend.

CAGW- Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming . Is the theory that Man being the primary cause if the current climate trend is have Catastrophic impacts.

It would be impossible to list all the arguments against the individual science that is used to forward those theory.

A couple key point of note:

Our decided lack of knowledge regarding the Earth's biosphere. Those that proclaim they know... Don't in fact know. The effects of Clouds are not considered in climate modeling because there is little to no understanding of clouds.

Climate understanding spans centuries and millenniums. Yet we have only had the satellite technology 1979.   The rest of our understanding comes in the form of proxies.  Every alarmist graph you see is the splicing of proxy measurements and direct instrument readings.  Problem is,  Proxies don’t tract the instrument, yet they pretend it does. 

The instrument record.   You have no idea just how screwed up that record truly is.  The issues regarding that are many.   For a tiny glimpse of modern day problems,  try surfacestation.org. 

 

sciflyguy
sciflyguy's picture
Capital1 wrote: sciflyguy

Capital1 wrote:

sciflyguy wrote:

Please define AGW and CAGW and state your arguments against them.

AGW- Anthropogenic Global Warming. The theory that Man is the primary cause of this current Climate trend.

CAGW- Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. Is the theory that Man being the primary cause if the current climate trend is have Catastrophic impacts.

It would be impossible to list all the arguments against the individual science that is used to forward those theory.

A couple key point of note:

Our decided lack of knowledge regarding the Earth's biosphere. Those that proclaim they know... Don't in fact know. The effects of Clouds are not considered in climate modeling because there is little to no understanding of clouds.

Climate understanding spans centuries and millenniums. Yet we have only had the satellite technology 1979.   The rest of our understanding comes in the form of proxies.  Every alarmist graph you see is the splicing of proxy measurements and direct instrument readings.  Problem is,  Proxies don’t tract the instrument, yet they pretend it does. 

The instrument record.   You have no idea just how screwed up that record truly is.  The issues regarding that are many.   For a tiny glimpse of modern day problems,  try surfacestation.org. 

 

Would you please list your sources of information on the phrases that are bold?

Can you explain the current stready rise in CO2 in the atmosphere?

Would it be prudent to reduce CO2 emissions?

Capital1
Capital1's picture
sciflyguy wrote: Can you

sciflyguy wrote:
Can you explain the current steady rise in CO2 in the atmosphere?
CO2 is rising.... Do you need something deeper than that?
Quote:
Would it be prudent to reduce CO2 emissions?
That would depend on whether or not you believe CO2 is the main driver of global warming. CO2 however is also the essential ingredient for life on earth...
Quote:
The effects of Clouds are not considered in climate modeling because there is little to no understanding of clouds.

The effects of clouds are a significant area of uncertainty in climate models. Clouds have competing effects on the climate. One of the roles that clouds play in climate is in cooling the surface by reflecting sunlight back into space; another is warming by increasing the amount of infrared radiation emitted from the atmosphere to the surface.[29] In the 2001 IPCC report on climate change, the possible changes in cloud cover were highlighted as one of the dominant uncertainties in predicting future climate change

Quote:
Proxies don’t tract the instrument, yet they pretend it does.

The divergence problem is an anomaly from the field of dendroclimatology, the study of past climate through observations of old trees, primarily the properties of their annual growth rings. It is the disagreement between the temperatures measured by the thermometers (instrumental temperatures) and the temperatures reconstructed from the latewood densities or, in some cases, widths of tree rings in the far northern forests.

Quote:
You have no idea just how screwed up that record truly is.
As I suggested, start with surfacestation.org for a peek at the state of our current network.

In addition to the extensive problem of sparseness, the network has also been historically constantly changing - the number of available temperature reporting stations changes with time. The so-called "global" measurements are not really global at all. The coverage by land surface thermometers slowly increased from less than 10% of the globe in the 1880s to about 40% in the 1960's, but has decreased rapidly in recent years

 

 

sciflyguy
sciflyguy's picture
Wow, guess you've brilliantly

Wow, guess you've brilliantly covered all the points.  

What's to worry?  There's NO global warming to be alarmed about!  YIPPEE!!!!!

Boy, am I so lucky to have run into such an intelligent well informed guy to explain it all away for me.  

Thanks Doc!

Capital1
Capital1's picture
sciflyguy wrote: Wow, guess

sciflyguy wrote:

Wow, guess you've brilliantly covered all the points.  

What's to worry?  There's NO global warming to be alarmed about!  YIPPEE!!!!!

Boy, am I so lucky to have run into such an intelligent well informed guy to explain it all away for me.  

Thanks Doc!

Either that was sarcasm, or that was way too easy.  Either way,  Your welcome

anonymous green
Capital1 wrote: CO2 is

Capital1 wrote:

CO2 is rising.... Do you need something deeper than that?

The effects of Clouds are not considered in climate modeling because there is little to no understanding of clouds.

Capital is right, if it looks like a wolf, it has to be a wolf.

The effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in the-Moon Marigolds, however, is common knowledge, yet you seem to ignore this calculation entirely.

Not only is CO2 rising, but it's rising up in the atmosphere, despite being heavier than air,

Eveyone knows however, that if you put pebbles in water, they sink, but then disperse themselves through the solution, with some pebbles floating, and some in the middle, and some at the bottom.

The same way that lies disperse themselves in the solution you are looking for.

 

Capital1
Capital1's picture
anonymous green

anonymous green wrote:

Eveyone knows however, that if you put pebbles in water, they sink, but then disperse themselves through the solution, with some pebbles floating, and some in the middle, and some at the bottom.

The same way that lies disperse themselves in the solution you are looking for.

 

,

O yes,  the Pebble floating on water argument with the added bonus of pebble suspending in the middle.   With the trifecta "Everyone knows" 

Most excellent...

 

drc2
I don't call myself a

I don't call myself a scientist, but I respect science and those who are able to make sense out of it to me and the public.  I have no personal stake in the theory of global warming (climate change) and human causation other than to exercise the cautionary principle of avoiding disaster or betting the ranch down at the saloon.  Scientists come in a lot of human diverse models, and they can be stubborn/show me the nail wounds doubters or seducable to corrupt.  They can have personal reasons to oppose the ideas of a rival, and they can also revel in the role of skeptic.

My lay acceptance of global warming and climate imbalance comes from a wide range of wise people who have helped me appreciate what their scientific vocation allows them to understand.  I think there are many other issues of environmental design and paradigm change beyond the focus of this scientific issue.  What is being done to the indigenous human beings whose bad fate has them living above the oil that belongs to the Great Petro Empire, Inc. is good reason to stop this carnage.  

The margin for human life on earth is already fine.  Making it hotter in the middle is not going to play well in the lowlands and will melt the mountain waters.  It does not even improve life for the Inuit to have temperatures rise in the Arctic.  Futures for vineyards in Greenland, once called Vineland, but the American Sahara makes dust bowls look tame.

Maybe we can survive the cancers and other devastations of oil.  Maybe we can even "frack" our way to enough time to find something that has a real future.  Maybe the damage we do in the process will not be fatal, just degrading.  Why should I be less committed to making the changes needed?

The credibility of Muller is that of the convert.  I would agree that he has been a grump or worse to have been a skeptic.  But, he had not been treated badly by his fellows until he defected.  Now he was always a hack.  I did not come to my opinions through his work.  I find many far more persuasive people of science than he has been or that Cap cites.  There are people of rank in many fields with whom I disagree.  I am not "an economist."  I have some education and knowledge of economics within a broader intellectual range.  It is an important subject, but not the focus of theology or philosophy on human life.

I will grant you the readiness we all have to dismiss the significance of the credentials and authority of any defector.  Born Again Conservatives who paint the horrors of their Liberal lost lives are not the fairest judges of the differences.  I consider our new converts too.  What Wendell Potter could do is describe how health insurance behaved.  He had been there, and he could not continue to do that work.  I believe him.  In the case of Muller, I believe he could not make the evidence fool him any longer so he gave in.  Maybe only you few, El Capitan, have the truth.  We all hope so, except for the bragging we will expect.  

anonymous green
Excellent, eh? If you like

Excellent, eh?

If you like that, you should really love the part about how lies have dispersed themselves in our solution, muddying any attempt at true science, discourse or reason, on every level of what used to be a democracy.

Go destroy your little Oregon hamlet with your snide versions of reality.