Most prominent global warming skeptic changes his mind

[Ausm]

So I guess you believe that everyone is out to destroy the planet and only government can stop this? I, and maybe I'm alone here, think that most people are inherently good natured and when they can, will do the right thing. Of course, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but at least its not government subsidized.

How does everyone pertain to your original post?

 

[Ninjahedge]

The OP and liberal media even want to fit Muller in there, even though he has been a warmist for the past 30 years.

You really think the media is "Liberal"

"/facepalm"

It is really bad when a rather conservative, corporate sponsored series that concentrates more on attractive announcers and stories about Bernie Madoff on 60 minutes (YES YOU CBS!!!) can be compared to broadcasters like Walter Cronkite and be considered "Liberal".

Most of the popular news we have today is either plastic and irritatingly human-interest or local or it is deliberately obfuscating and pablum rousing.

We have used too big a brush to describe and assign both Liberal and Conservative. the ONLY difference being "willing to accept change" and "Not willing to accept change".

For better or for worse, THAT'S IT!

MOST people today are selectively liberal. Only willing to change what would benefit them directly. The "conservatives" we see now are all wanting to change things. That is not conservative!!!!! MANY of the "liberals" out there only want to change SOME things and are completely unwilling to accept others.

If we all were truly liberal, with a respect and appreciation for the past, we would be in much better shape. Instead we label each other, paint an invisible non-existant line, and throw crap at each other until the very ship we are sailing in is underwater.

Then we blame each other for not putting it out.

 

[xBiffx]

How does everyone pertain to your original post?

Okay so you think that most people are evil. Any difference? Oh right, most people being people you don't agree with. Now I'm starting to see, since most people think you are a complete idiot. Most people think I am too, maybe that's why I don't trust most people. Still doesn't change that I give them the benefit of the doubt until I see otherwise. You, on the other hand, prejudge people based on the R or the D.

 

[Munky]

Yawn.. not this again. In other news, Bernanke is considering QE3. That means QE1 and 2 worked so well that we need more of it!

 

[Phokus]

Ah yes, the anti-science rightwing nutjobs are out in full force again. The Koch brothers must be PISSED, "hey... that's not the result we were paying for!" 😀

 

[xBiffx]

Ah yes, the anti-science rightwing nutjobs are out in full force again. The Koch brothers must be PISSED, "hey... that's not the result we were paying for!" 😀

I think you mistake anti-science for anti-politicizing your science. Science is considered the search for the truth by most but the problem with this "science" is that its main goal is money, not truth.

 

[Ausm]

Okay so you think that most people are evil. Any difference? Oh right, most people being people you don't agree with. Now I'm starting to see, since most people think you are a complete idiot. Most people think I am too, maybe that's why I don't trust most people. Still doesn't change that I give them the benefit of the doubt until I see otherwise. You, on the other hand, prejudge people based on the R or the D.

Where did I say most people that's what you said in the post I was replying to.

 

[NeoV]

Jaskalas - you really didn't post that complete and utter bullshit '1000 scientists' link AGAIN, did you? Did the beatdown from that not register with you last time?

Let me first remind you of the author of that 'report' - none other than Senator Inhofe - yes, that Senator - perhaps the most pathetic example of American politics - that this guy keeps getting re-elected - other than Dennis Kuchinich - we've ever had.

He's actually listed as one of the '700' though - and yes, your awful link to the now 1000-strong is a continuation of this list of 700 - "scientists".

Let me give you all a sample of some of the 'gems' in this report:
"My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture" That's from "prominent scientist" Chris Allen - a weatherman with no college degree.

I can't make this stuff up, it's in Inhofe's report - no kidding.

In fact, it's near impossible to find any actual scientists, let alone people with published scientific papers.

Here's another - professor Edward Blick from the University of Oklahoma - he doesn't believe the earth is more than 10,000 years old - he also calls Evolution "the devil's science". And this guy is a 'prominent scientist'?

It's funny, Inhofe's list keeps growing - it was 400, then 700, and now 1000. Of the first 400 - 44 were TV weathermen - you know, cause that's climate science, right? 20 were economists - qualified, right? 84 took money or were directly employed by fossil fuel companies - unbiased, right?

I'm sure though, that the credentials of the now 1000 strong are better...right?

And Doc - you are saying you've never said in any of the last 12 months of discussion on this topic that the temperature trends were not accurate and it has not been warming? You didn't (and still are) jump all over the 'selective' data in the climate-gate scandal?

Here's a thought - try posting something that wasn't brought up first on your homepage - I mean wattsupwiththat - I'd say 95% of your 'brilliant ideas' about this come from that site - nearly verbatim in many cases, the whole 'code' discussion being a great example.

 

[monovillage]

Yawn.. not this again. In other news, Bernanke is considering QE3. That means QE1 and 2 worked so well that we need more of it!

Yeah, this is the 3rd time this story was posted. Muller keeps getting more "prominent" with each one.

 

[umbrella39]

Always fun to watch the modern day flat earthers beat their chests and fling poop...

 

[monovillage]

I quoted Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate

Here we have an ethics investigation that finds evidence of highly unethical and illegal behavior and then asks no one at CRU about it. What a joke.

This is something shira won't talk about, the fact that Jones broke the law and also e-mailed other scientists to break the law, some of who also deleted e-mails to elude a Freedom of Information request. Of all the "six independent committees" not one, not a single one ever asked Jones about his breaking the law, how many e-mails he deleted and how many other people deleted e-mails by his request. Oh, but according to shira they've been cleared.

 

[Timorous]

To me this seems rather straight forward. Is the Earth temperature trending up, yes. This seems to be due to increased co2 levels so what is the cause? It seems logical that as we are simultaniously putting more co2 into the atmosphere while also reducing the amount of co2 sequsters in the environment that we are at the very least a contrbuting factor.

It is my view though that rather than arguing about the semantics we should be discussing solutions. What is the best way to deal with it because even if we are not a contributing factor to climate change, reducing polution to improve air quality in cities seems a good enough reason to think about it. In think we should be looking at high temperature nuclear reactors such as pebble based design. Clean power means electric vehicles can be used as an interim solution until the hydrogen fuel cell economy can really get going and the benefit of high temperature nukes is that hydrogen fuel can be created as a by product. This reduces demand for fossil fuels in the transport and power generation industries. It also creates jobs to get these projects built.

I do not think that a co2 tax is the way to go as that is strong arming companies and they will just move onto the next cheapest thing. Instead we should decide what the best overall implementable solution is and then go for that. It will probably cost more in the short term but it would have long term benefits.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Until they get fusion power going, Nuclear is just a temporary solution that will prove to be a problem further down the line.

Just like "clean coal" it is a fallacy and other means, like, say, Solar power (AZ) should be pursued more aggressively.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Clearly that's the only correct answer. Now hand over your money so the dimlibs can progressively redistribute it, that will certainly fix the problem.

And feed the money into failing green energy companies owned by dem financial backers.

And make sure that the taxpayer is the last person paid back when the company folds.

 

[Ninjahedge]

And feed the money into failing green energy companies owned by dem financial backers.

And make sure that the taxpayer is the last person paid back when the company folds.

The main problem is not the initiation of the program, but the means and methods of distribution.

We do not run our government like a successful company. We run it by group mandate of a bunch of people who do not know the difference between a tractor and a stepladder.

So regardless of what happens, the money for green does not just fall into the hands of Dem supporters, it is leeched with impunity by both parties once it is a federal program.

Improving interstate roadways should not include a bridge to nowhere in Alaska, but that is what we (almost) got with our current system. For a country that squaks about Universal Health Care, at least with that, $XXM would be felt by a few more people than one logging company.....