Climategate Vindication

[BubberMiley]

Everyone knows the Koch Brothers as funders of the Tea Party and as global warming sceptics. After climategate, they funded Richard Muller, a fellow sceptic, to review the data regarding global warming. What did he find? It's real, it's happening alarmingly fast, and that further denial would be terribly irresponsible.

I figured this thread would be a good place for those who have been wrong all these years to share their mea culpas, admit their personal failings, and apologize profusely to Waldo.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/skeptics-own-study-finds-climate-change-real-but-says-scientists-should-be-more-critical-132880158.html

Edited October 31, 2011 by BubberMiley

[Smallc]

I used to pretend that global warming wasn't real too...but then I realized that I was being rather stubborn in the face PDF the scientific evidence and the scientific consensus. I know many people hate to hear that there is a consensus, but it's true. Global warming is real and we have to deal with it.

[Shady]

Actually, Richard Muller is the latest "expert" caught hiding the decline.

[Boges]

Actually, Richard Muller is the latest "expert" caught hiding the decline.

I thought it was Climate Change now.

[Shady]

I thought it was Climate Change now.

They keep changing the terms, the same way advertisers change their product slogans. And in alarmist bizarro world, being caught supressing data and results that contradicts your assumptions is vidication!

[Cameron]

What a goat show this has become.

[TimG]

to review the data regarding global warming. What did he find? It's real, it's happening alarmingly fast, and that further denial would be terribly irresponsible.

Alarmists are amazingly adept at creating strawmen to beat up and then pat themselves on their backs for their cleverness.

The fact is no thoughtful sceptic has ever suggested that the planet is not warmer than it was 100 years ago but that little factoid tells us NOTHING about why it has gotten warmer. Muller's results provide NO insight into that either.

The BEST project was supposed to be an exercise in good science but has turned into nothing but another alarmist propaganda exercise as non-peer reviewed results are spun desperately in the media to push the IPCC agenda.

Climate science is a farce.

[Wild Bill]

Alarmists are amazingly adept at creating strawmen to beat up and then pat themselves on their backs for their cleverness.

The fact is no thoughtful sceptic has ever suggested that the planet is not warmer than it was 100 years ago but that little factoid tells us NOTHING about why it has gotten warmer. Muller's results provide NO insight into that either.

The BEST project was supposed to be an exercise in good science but has turned into nothing but another alarmist propaganda exercise as non-peer reviewed results are spun desperately in the media to push the IPCC agenda.

Climate science is a farce.

Tim, the alarmists have taken this tact from the very beginning. The premise that any warming is man-made is taken as a given, yet any sort of evidence has been very sparse. You'd think that if they had good evidence they would have led with it from the start but it appears that just isn't the way it is.

It's another reason why so many of us have been uncomfortable with the alarmists' claims. Obviously, if it is just Mother Nature then they have no influence on their REAL agenda, which is acquire political power and exercise it in a leftwing manner. Kyoto is an obvious and blatant example to anyone who actually read the damn thing instead of just parroting the claims of their leaders.

If it's Nature it's likely so large an effect that we'll just have to adjust to it, which has always been the far cheaper solution anyway.

If it's caused by Man, then there's an opportunity to forcibly change the lifestyle of millions if not billions of fellow human beings away from "evil capitalism" with its industrialization and focus on providing all of us with "stuff" and also forcible wealth re-distribution, in order to help countries beginning NEW industrialization! This new industrialization is perfectly fine because only WESTERN industrialization is bad, because a century or two ago we should have known how to be "greener" in advance and we should have been far more "generous" politically!

There's also the concept that today we should totally forgive any emissions or outright pollution caused by new countries like China and India because they have started so late, having "missed their turn", as it were.

Again, if any warming is natural it pulls the "political" rug out from under them!

[Wild Bill]

I am very surprised after all the hot air expended on both sides for a couple of years now that no one is talking about the early snowfalls.

Never since records have been kept has NYC had over an inch of snow in October! The pictures on the news of such large and early snowfalls across the continent are unprecedented.

I thought we had all been taught by reliable authority that we were very soon all going to fry!

Hopefully Al Gore will just put on a sweater and not turn his furnace on so early...

Edited October 31, 2011 by Wild Bill

[Michael Hardner]

When Climategate happened, I started looking into climate change seriously.

As Tim points out, there's no thoughtful skeptic that doubts that the earth has got warmer but do you get this from the mainstream news media ? Is that point obvious ? I would say that it's not. They will publish anything controversial because this is what they do. They report on controversy, and amplify it ... even when it doesn't deserve serious attention.

I found that the main problem with this issue is that it suffers from that strange kind of democratization wherein people believe that every opinion is equal, just as every vote is. We have to have faith in institutions in our society, and recognize fake controversies where they exist.

So there is some measure of skepticism over AGW but not as much as the MSM would have you believe. Conspiracies do happen, but they're difficult to pull off in an environment where information is free and open to discussion. If you don't think that the environment isn't free and open to discussion, then explain why skeptical scientists such as Friis-Christensen and Richard Lindzen are allowed to publish freely and debate.

Also ... scientists that are skeptical are still coming over to the pro-AGW side...

Physicist Richard Muller is the latest.

[TimG]

We have to have faith in institutions in our society, and recognize fake controversies where they exist.

We have a bunch of people camped out in Wall Street because people are rejecting the notion that we must 'trust the elites'. Why should scientists be immune to this revolution?

Conspiracies do happen, but they're difficult to pull off in an environment where information is free and open to discussion.

By trying to frame it as a 'conspiracy' you are creating yet another strawman. Group think and peer pressure are powerful forces that operate even when those effected dont believe they are being affected. As well, the human mind has an incredible ability to change beliefs to conform to whatever suits the self interest of the believer. The net result is we have a lot of scientists who sincerely believe that AGW is threat who have never looked at the data and are simply making the claim because they have be told by their peers that they must believe that and risk ostracization if they dispute it.

As for Muller: if his little games with the land temperature set turned him into an 'alarmist' then he is clearly an idiot that does not understand the issues. I suspect he never was a sceptic and this is just another alarmist taking point.

Edited October 31, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

We have a bunch of people camped out in Wall Street because people are rejecting the notion that we must 'trust the elites'. Why should scientists be immune to this revolution?

That's a strange way to look at it. You're saying that if scientists aren't trusted, why should economists be ?

By trying to frame it as a 'conspiracy' you are creating yet another strawman. Group think and peer pressure are powerful forces that operate even when those effected dont believe they are being affected. As well, the human mind has an incredible ability to change beliefs to conform to whatever suits the self interest of the believer. The net result is we have a lot of scientists who sincerely believe that AGW is threat who have never looked at the data and are simply making the claim because they have be told by their peers that they must believe that and risk ostracization if they dispute it.

Yes, group think is a concern in these things. I learned about GT in university, and as I recall the example we studied was the Falkland Islands war - in which a closed group was basically competing to show who had the strongest pro-war opinion. There are factions and skepticism built in to the peer review process.

As for Muller: if his little games with the land temperature set turned him into an 'alarmist' then he is clearly an idiot that does not understand the issues. I suspect he never was a sceptic and this is just another alarmist taking point.

He published an article supporting McIntyre and McKitrick in 2004.

[bush_cheney2004]

The current stalemate is the best state for this topic. Continued rope-a-dope without any meaningful action just continues the status quo, while outright rejection could potentially galvanized a larger/stronger following and political support.

[Topaz]

The climate is affecting the Earth and its people by starvation. We have 7 Billion people to feed around the world and they say its too many people. In North America , we have too much food and waste too much, and in Third World countries they have too little to eat and in some countries,its either too wet or too dry to grow food. So which is easier, to kill off many people with virus or wars or start to share food and help educate the countries about birth control and feeding their people?

[Wild Bill]

So which is easier, to kill off many people with virus or wars or start to share food and help educate the countries about birth control and feeding their people?

Well, the problem is usually that it's hard to feed and educate them when their governments and war lords are shooting off AK-47s at our doctors and teachers, while firing Stinger missiles at our planes and helicopters.

Just how do you suggest we do this, Topaz?

[TimG]

That's a strange way to look at it. You're saying that if scientists aren't trusted, why should economists be ?

No I am saying the reverse. Scientists are simply part of the social machine which is under siege. They can't presume that their words will be treated as gospel. They must provide arguments and address critics even if they don't come from inside their 'club'.

There are factions and skepticism built in to the peer review process.

This is an illusion that you cling to despite the fact that your have zero evidence to support the view. In fact, the peer review process is designed to protect any 'consensus' that emerges because people with a vested interest in the 'consensus' are given the power to keep alternative POVs out. We have seen this story play out over and over again where mavericks had to fight for years - sometimes decades - in order to be proven right. These mavericks succeeded not because of the system - but in spite of it.

He published an article supporting McIntyre and McKitrick in 2004.

Then he is an idiot if believes his work addresses any of the issues of sceptics have. That said, it appears that the media deserves the blame for spinning this:

First, Muller’s title for the WSJ op-ed was “Cooling the Warming Debate,” he intended it to be a conciliatory article regarding how this data set could be used to settle some of the debates surrounding the land temperature record. The “End of Skepticism” title was provided by the WSJ editors. Muller was not happy about this change of title.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/discussion-with-rich-muller/#more-5540 Edited October 31, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

No I am saying the reverse. Scientists are simply part of the social machine which is under siege. They can't presume that their words will be treated as gospel. They must provide arguments and address critics even if they don't come from inside their 'club'.

Ok.

This is an illusion that you cling to despite the fact that your have zero evidence to support the view. In fact, the peer review process is designed to protect any 'consensus' that emerges because people with a vested interest in the 'consensus' are given the power to keep alternative POVs out. We have seen this story play out over and over again where mavericks had to fight for years - sometimes decades - in order to be proven right. These mavericks succeeded not because of the system - but in spite of it.

We're been over this and I'm not convinced that the system is designed as such.

[eyeball]

I am very surprised after all the hot air expended on both sides for a couple of years now that no one is talking about the early snowfalls.

Which is yet again another example of one of the first things I recall about climate change and predictions of what to expect which was/is...more of what we're used to.

Should make sense even for an engineer type, put more energy/heat into a system and it will drive it faster and harder resulting in...more of what you're used to.

Why is this so hard Bill?

[Keepitsimple]

Did anyone notice that "Muller's" papers are not yet published or peer-reviewed? Care to speculate if a Sceptic would get as much favourable and supportive publicity for a non-published article?

On Monday, Muller was taking his results — four separate papers that are not yet published or peer-reviewed, but will be, he says — to a conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico, expected to include many prominent skeptics as well as mainstream scientists.

.....or that one of the Co-Authors, Professor Judith Curry, vehemently disagrees with the conclusions that Muller is trying to draw from the data.

Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming.

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

However, Prof Muller denied warming was at a standstill.

‘We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. There was, he added, ‘no levelling off’.

A graph issued by the BEST project also suggests a continuing steep increase.

But once again, Hide the Decline seems to be in play......

But a report to be published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past ten years, drawn from the BEST project’s data and revealed on its website.

This graph shows that the trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.

‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’

Link to article and graphs: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

Edited October 31, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Hardner]

All true, but the MSM always does this. They did much worse with the CERN results recently, but that was potentially an anti-AGW result.

[TimG]

Should make sense even for an engineer type, put more energy/heat into a system and it will drive it faster and harder resulting in...more of what you're used to.

Actually that logic makes no sense because the "system" we are talking about is dominated by these massive heat sinks called 'the oceans'. It is mathematically possible for minor shifts in the oceans heat transports to swamp any human CO2 related effect. In fact, that is what some alarmists scientists are using to explain the last 10 years of non-warming. Of course, the scientists proposing the 'cooling ocean' theory seem to forget that the oceans can give back what it takes away. e.g. if the excess heat is being absorbed by the deep ocean now then it follows that the rise in temps in the 90s could have be the result of heat being released by the deep ocean - not CO2 as is simply assumed. Edited October 31, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

All true, but the MSM always does this. They did much worse with the CERN results recently, but that was potentially an anti-AGW result.

I agree that CERN was blown our of proportion like the BEST results are.

[cybercoma]

The fact is no thoughtful sceptic has ever suggested that the planet is not warmer than it was 100 years ago but that little factoid tells us NOTHING about why it has gotten warmer.

You need to read this part over and over again until you get it. Recruit someone to help you, if you're still having trouble after reading it several times. This is an important point that you just seem to be glossing over, so I want to make sure that you truly understand what is being discussed here. I'll even bold the really important part for you.

What did he find? It's real, it's happening alarmingly fast

[cybercoma]

Again, if any warming is natural it pulls the "political" rug out from under them!

You should read the post I made before this too.

[eyeball]

Actually that logic makes no sense because the "system" we are talking about is dominated by these massive heat sinks called 'the oceans'. It is mathematically possible for minor shifts in the oceans heat transports to swamp any human CO2 related effect. In fact, that is what some alarmists scientists are using to explain the last 10 years of non-warming. Of course, the scientists proposing the 'cooling ocean' theory seem to forget that the oceans can give back what it takes away. e.g. if the excess heat is being absorbed by the deep ocean now then it follows that the rise in temps in the 90s could have be the result of heat being released by the deep ocean - not CO2 as is simply assumed.

Okay, if you say so. In the meantime it looks like some 98% or more of scientists maintain that out climate is changing in ways that are detrimental to us and the planet's biosphere and we're causing it.

That's more than enough for me to conclude and accept that action, probably drastic at this point, is required immediately.