• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Most prominent global warming skeptic changes his mind

He found that the temperature record (thermometer-based) was accurate. Where did it say anything about the "hockey stick", did he also analyze the tree ring data etc?
 
Last edited:
When you use science instead of the bullshit that conservatives pretend is science, you tend to come to the same conclusion as other people using science. It's remarkable what results you get when you apply legitamite logic. Well, it's remarkable to conservatives. The rest of us just call it normal.
 
thraashman said:
When you use science instead of the bullshit that conservatives pretend is science, you tend to come to the same conclusion as other people using science. It's remarkable what results you get when you apply legitamite logic. Well, it's remarkable to conservatives. The rest of us just call it normal.
Click to expand...

all this so called warming takes place after a super volcano erupted, most of the world's northern forests have been cut down and what is called the Little Ice Age ended. in fact the world was this warm before, as recently as the time around the crusades and towards the end of the roman empire
 
Temperatures rise and fall like the winter wheat. The only thing that these global warming alarmists are wrong on is the cause of this rise in temperature and not that it may be happening at all. They like to attribute it to man made evil corporations who just love spewing pollution into the air. Problem is, there was global warming long before the industrial revolution. How in the world are we still not in an ice age?...global warming.

As soon as these "scientists" come up with facts that show this is man made global warming, then you will have a case. Problem is, there is no hard data to indicate this, only hysterical cultists running around trying to make a buck off the thing. CO2 classified as a pollutant is laughable since it still accounts for only 0.03% of air by volume. Oh yeah, plants need this to survive so lets start cutting down on their "oxygen" supply. Brilliant.
 
McWatt said:
Undaunted by his Koch brother funding, Richard Muller, the most prominent global warming skeptic in the scientific community, has completed a study concluding that the "hockey stick graph" is correct.

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html
Click to expand...
FALSE. Mann's hockey stick graph was a joke. It grossly exaggerated recent warming and totally ignored the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/15/hockey-stick-graph-was-exaggerated-mcintyre-gets-props/

There is little doubt that we've warmed in recent history. I'm surprised that some still doubt this and felt an independent study was warranted.
 
Last edited:
xBiffx said:
Temperatures rise and fall like the winter wheat. The only thing that these global warming alarmists are wrong on is the cause of this rise in temperature and not that it may be happening at all. They like to attribute it to man made evil corporations who just love spewing pollution into the air. Problem is, there was global warming long before the industrial revolution. How in the world are we still not in an ice age?...global warming.

As soon as these "scientists" come up with facts that show this is man made global warming, then you will have a case. Problem is, there is no hard data to indicate this, only hysterical cultists running around trying to make a buck off the thing. CO2 classified as a pollutant is laughable since it still accounts for only 0.03% of air by volume. Oh yeah, plants need this to survive so lets start cutting down on their "oxygen" supply. Brilliant.
Click to expand...


Might want to go research the papers Ruddiman(think thats how its spelled, no time to look it up right now) has published detailing this rise back 8,000 years. Which conveniently began when humans began to settle and use agriculture. Since then co2 levels have been rising fairly steadily, until the rather recent and far more significant spike.
 
Demo24 said:
Might want to go research the papers Ruddiman(think thats how its spelled, no time to look it up right now) has published detailing this rise back 8,000 years. Which conveniently began when humans began to settle and use agriculture. Since then co2 levels have been rising fairly steadily, until the rather recent and far more significant spike.
Click to expand...

I have heard of this "paper" before. I have also seen explanations for this "data" as attributed to the natural "carbon cycle". That is CO2 is recycled by living creatures. The more flora, the more fauna that consume them and release CO2 in the air. Sure, the population has be going up for the last 8000 years but the population of everything else, i.e. plants, animals, insects has been increasing as well. This means that as things consume the plants, they are releasing the stored carbon from these plants into the air. But nature still manages to balance it out since the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air changes very little, by volume. The more flora, the more CO2 is consumed and thus the "carbon cycle" repeats.

This is just some of the explanations but I guess its just easier to assume that man caused the increase in CO2 and nothing else is to blame here. To put this all on humans is pretty vain. Then again, those attributing global warming to man are the vainest of all.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
There is little doubt that we've warmed in recent history. I'm surprised that some still doubt this and felt an independent study was warranted.
Click to expand...

I find it very interesting that you're making this statement. Excuse me for questioning your intellectual honesty, but you were one of the loudest voices on these forums arguing that "ClimateGate" proved that a large portion of the claimed warming was based on manipulated data. And when SIX independent committees all concluded that the scientists of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia had done nothing wrong, you were one of the voices continuing to question the data.

And now we find that Muller's numbers EXACTLY match the numbers climatologists have been citing for decades. If ClimateGate was all you and the rest of the deniers stated it was, then we'd expect to see a significant REDUCTION in the claimed warming. In other words, here's definitive evidence that there was no fudging of data.

Yet how do you respond" Do you admit that you were wrong? Do you acknowledge that climate change deniers have taken a huge hit?

Of course not. In fact, not one denier who piled on in the various ClimateGate threads has made a post in THIS thread admitting their error. That deafening silence is a pretty telling statement about deniers' commitment to truth.
 
xBiffx said:
I have heard of this "paper" before. I have also seen explanations for this "data" as attributed to the natural "carbon cycle". That is CO2 is recycled by living creatures. The more flora, the more fauna that consume them and release CO2 in the air. Sure, the population has be going up for the last 8000 years but the population of everything else, i.e. plants, animals, insects has been increasing as well. This means that as things consume the plants, they are releasing the stored carbon from these plants into the air. But nature still manages to balance it out since the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air changes very little, by volume. The more flora, the more CO2 is consumed and thus the "carbon cycle" repeats.

This is just some of the explanations but I guess its just easier to assume that man caused the increase in CO2 and nothing else is to blame here. To put this all on humans is pretty vain. Then again, those attributing global warming to man are the vainest of all.
Click to expand...

Rate that we are converting sequestered carbon into CO2 (burning fossil fuels): known. Rate that plants are increasing on Earth, resequestering the carbon: less than the rate that we're releasing carbon. Thus, by your logic, and faced with the real facts, you are now in the position where you have to admit that either I'm wrong about the rates (I'm not; clear cutting of the rain forests is the simplest to comprehend; and there are many other examples), else admit that man is the cause. Congratulations on changing sides on this issue.
 
Fear No Evil said:
So is the solution to tax people more?
Click to expand...

The typical knee-jerk reaction from someone with a jerking knee for a brain.

If you didn't revel in your imbecility, your know-nothingness, I'd provide a serious answer to your unserious question. But you're not worth even the minute I've already wasted on this post, and I'm not willing to waste another minute on you.
 
shira said:
I find it very interesting that you're making this statement. Excuse me for questioning your intellectual honesty, but you were one of the loudest voices on these forums arguing that "ClimateGate" proved that a large portion of the claimed warming was based on manipulated data. And when SIX independent committees all concluded that the scientists of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia had done nothing wrong, you were one of the voices continuing to question the data.

And now we find that Muller's numbers EXACTLY match the numbers climatologists have been citing for decades. If ClimateGate was all you and the rest of the deniers stated it was, then we'd expect to see a significant REDUCTION in the claimed warming. In other words, here's definitive evidence that there was no fudging of data.

Yet how do you respond" Do you admit that you were wrong? Do you acknowledge that climate change deniers have taken a huge hit?

Of course not. In fact, not one denier who piled on in the various ClimateGate threads has made a post in THIS thread admitting their error. That deafening silence is a pretty telling statement about deniers' commitment to truth.
Click to expand...


Ding. That's right folks. "Climategate" was premised on the allegation that temperature data had been manipulated/falsified. It wasn't about what was the cause of the warming. Those pushing it were arguing that we either aren't experiencing warming, or are experiencing it at a significantly slower rate than the mainstream scientific community is claiming.
 
'The warming hasn't stopped' is a bald face lie as proven by his own data.

Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague

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.


article-2055191-0E974B4300000578-6_634x639.jpg



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.
Click to expand...
 
shira said:
I find it very interesting that you're making this statement.
Click to expand...
I've always believed this and find it very interesting that you think otherwise.

shira said:
Excuse me for questioning your intellectual honesty, but you were one of the loudest voices on these forums arguing that "ClimateGate" proved that a large portion of the claimed warming was based on manipulated data. And when SIX independent committees all concluded that the scientists of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia had done nothing wrong, you were one of the voices continuing to question the data.

And now we find that Muller's numbers EXACTLY match the numbers climatologists have been citing for decades. If ClimateGate was all you and the rest of the deniers stated it was, then we'd expect to see a significant REDUCTION in the claimed warming. In other words, here's definitive evidence that there was no fudging of data.
Click to expand...

I don't have an issue with the overall temperature data; however, the ClimateGate code clearly shows that tree ring proxy data was artifically manipulated as it markedly diverged from other temperature data post-1960. I'm not going to rehash this.

shira said:
Yet how do you respond" Do you admit that you were wrong?
Click to expand...
What exactly do you think I was wrong about?

shira said:
Do you acknowledge that climate change deniers have taken a huge hit?
Click to expand...
Climate change deniers who believe temperatures haven't been rising over the past century took a "huge hit" before this study was done. I'm actually surprised that someone felt the study was necessary.

shira said:
Of course not. In fact, not one denier who piled on in the various ClimateGate threads has made a post in THIS thread admitting their error. That deafening silence is a pretty telling statement about deniers' commitment to truth.
Click to expand...
I don't think you get it. This study has NOTHING to do with causation. Kapeesh?
 
Last edited:
DrPizza said:
Rate that we are converting sequestered carbon into CO2 (burning fossil fuels): known. Rate that plants are increasing on Earth, resequestering the carbon: less than the rate that we're releasing carbon.
Click to expand...

The fallacy in your own statements is so obvious and yet you choose to ignore it. How do we know we are producing more with the burning of fossil fuels than the rest of the earth's natural processes? Oh wait, you ignored this as known somehow. We don't know this at all.
 
McWatt said:
Most prominent global warming skeptic changes his mind
Click to expand...

Skeptic?

Here’s is Prof. Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist, toward the conclusion of his 2003 paper on global warming data:

“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.”
Click to expand...
If that's a skeptic I'm a f'ing progressive.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
I don't have an issue with the overall temperature data; however, the ClimateGate code clearly shows that tree ring proxy data was artifically manipulated as it markedly diverged from other temperature data post-1960. I'm not going to rehash this.
Click to expand...

That is flat out false, as has already been pointed out to you multiple times. The code you cited does nothing on the output side, if you deleted that code from the program there would be no changes from what you get out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top