Bombshell: Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘E

[RollingThunder]

UC climate-change skeptic changes views - SFGate

The hot issue of global warming got hotter Monday when a UC Berkeley physicist, once a loud skeptic of human-caused climate change, agreed not only that the Earth is heating up, but also that people are the cause of it all.

Richard Muller converted only a year ago to the idea that the world has been warming for decades. Before then he had argued that global warming data - even figures compiled by U.N. experts - were badly flawed.

Now Muller is going further, blaming the warming almost entirely on human emission of greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide - a conclusion that almost all climate scientists reached long ago.

Muller argued that the evidence from more than 36,000 temperature stations worldwide shows that the global thermometer has risen by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years. The warm-up began with the onset of the Industrial Revolution, Muller said, and has accelerated in recent years.

He was never a skeptic.

there is zero evidence that Muller was ever a climate skeptic.

There's the new mantra of the deniers, as they desperately try to deny the reality of the BEST studies that once again debunk their favorite myths, as many other climate scientists have repeatedly done in the past. I debunked this nonsense on another thread so let's finish off this BS here too with some straight talk about the denier cultists' confusion over the meaning of the term 'skeptic'.

Yeah, the big problem of course is Muller was never a sceptic.

And there's the idiotic denier cult response to Dr. Muller's climate studies. LOLOLOL. Jeez, you twits are pathetic.

In fact, Dr. Muller was a skeptic in the proper scientific sense of withholding judgment until he felt persuaded by the evidence. The dingbat denier cultists have been bamboozled into thinking that 'skeptic' means a close-minded, anti-scientific, brainwashed dupe like themselves, picking and choosing their data to shore up an ideological position. There is actually an enormous difference between being a true 'skeptic' and being a brainwashed 'denier'.

When a reporter asked him recently if it's really accurate to say he was ever a sceptic, Muller replied: "I have considered myself only to be a properly sceptical scientist. Some people have called me a denier - no, that's completely wrong. If anything, I was agnostic. I just hope that some people like you will read my books and papers, and read what I say - not what people say I say.""

'There's plenty of room for scepticism' – climate study author Richard Muller
The BEST project's Prof Richard Muller on global warming, the meaning of 'scepticism', and the importance of transparency
Friday 3 August 2012

Skeptics, Contrarians, or Deniers?

Why real skeptics detest global warming Deniers

Climate Change Deniers: More Fraud Artists than Skeptics

Stern: Climate change deniers are 'flat-earthers'

 

[flacaltenn]

<<P.Junky et al>>

Uh... THe BEST STUDY itself Said NOTHING about manmade CO2. In Muller's own words it did nothing to address Anthropogenic Causes.

And -- The BEST study does not ridicule the skeptics --- it VALIDATES most of the critiques of the Surface Temp data. Muller himself CREDITS leading climate skeptics with IDENTIFYING FAULTS in the previous handling of this data.

Pay attention to what has ACTUALLY HAPPENED.. Not what the MSM and the AGW choir is TELLING you has happened here.

 

[RollingThunder]

Uh... THe BEST STUDY itself Said NOTHING about manmade CO2. In Muller's own words it did nothing to address Anthropogenic Causes.

And -- The BEST study does not ridicule the skeptics --- it VALIDATES most of the critiques of the Surface Temp data. Muller himself CREDITS leading climate skeptics with IDENTIFYING FAULTS in the previous handling of this data.

Pay attention to what has ACTUALLY HAPPENED.. Not what the MSM and the AGW choir is TELLING you has happened here.

LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE....you are quite the little liar, aren't you, fecalhead? In the actual words of Dr. Muller:

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER
The New York Times
Published: July 28, 2012
(excerpts)

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.

What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice. How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. 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. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase. The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used.

© 2012 The New York Times Company

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes)

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm not lying.. Muller is all over the place.. In a Op Ed just 9 months ago ----

Richard A. Muller: The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism - WSJ.com

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.

Go figure which orifice he pulled this "new paper" out of so quickly... I'd put on the gloves before handling it.

Funny how he can become the great arbitrator of all things AGW in such short of a time isn't it? A year or two of fiddling with boring temp readings and VOILA --- you are the leading guru of the commune..

 

[RollingThunder]

I'm not lying..

...claims the liar.

What fecalhead said:
"Uh... THe BEST STUDY itself Said NOTHING about manmade CO2. In Muller's own words it did nothing to address Anthropogenic Causes. "

What Dr. Muller actually said:
Humans are almost entirely the cause. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.


What fecalhead said:
"And -- The BEST study does not ridicule the skeptics --- it VALIDATES most of the critiques of the Surface Temp data. "

What Dr. Muller actually said:
"We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions."


So I say once again to ol' fecalhead - LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE....for all to see....

 

[flacaltenn]

Muller speaking OPINION -- and Muller commenting on the actual work he's done are separate and SHOULD be separate. The Original BEST study did NO science to comment on man-made contributions.

Where he's pulled these further opinions out of -- has yet to be revealed.. But I suspect it's a dirty and dark place..

Richard A. Muller: The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism - WSJ.com

The temperature-station quality is largely awful. The most important stations in the U.S. are included in the Department of Energy's Historical Climatology Network. A careful survey of these stations by a team led by meteorologist Anthony Watts showed that 70% of these stations have such poor siting that, by the U.S. government's own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse are the stations in the developing world.

Using data from all these poor stations, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates an average global 0.64ºC temperature rise in the past 50 years, "most" of which the IPCC says is due to humans. Yet the margin of error for the stations is at least three times larger than the estimated warming.

THAT's certainly vindication.. And as BEST/Muller open themselves up to criticism for asserting there IS NO Urban Heat Island effect --- this thing will unfold as it has for years. That UAHuntsville has the most artifact-fact realistic temp record that AGREES with satellite data -- while these other clowns fuss with 12,000 thermometers all with bias and siting problems..

WHICH is more likely to pass scientific rigor?

Go continue to attempt to blow yourself fool...

 

[RollingThunder]

What the liar fecalhead says:

The Original BEST study did NO science to comment on man-made contributions.

What Dr. Muller actually said:

By RICHARD A. MULLER
The New York Times
Published: July 28, 2012
(excerpts)

Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used.

Too bad you're too retarded to understand what you read, fecalhead.