Even prominent skeptics now agree, the earth is warming, and the effect is man-made.

[tjvh]

Oh, I see... Add the word "prominent" to their title, and we'll just toss rational thinking out the door. Sorry, I'm not buying into the man made GW BS no matter what grandiose titles people toss around.

 

[Vast LWC]

But I see you're a diehard believer in the opinions. I'm holding out for scientific evidence.

Enjoy the opinions!

Ahh, yes, "scientific evidence"...

You mean like massive computer-generated models based on exhaustive historical data gathering?

Because no-one has done that at all, have they?

No, obviously there's no "scientific evidence" of global warming at all.

Oh wait, that was the old argument: That there's no global warming.

I forgot, you guys are using the new argument now: That there is global warming, but it's not man-made.

What's going to happen when that's proven beyond the shadow of a doubt? What will the argument be switched to then?

"Well it's too late now, no use crying over spilled milk. Now stop whining about your house being underwater!"

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Commit to the ultimate sacrifice for the planet and kill yourself.

 

[Vast LWC]

Or wait, it'll be:

"We obviously never said anything like that in the first place. You were obviously hallucinating."

 

[TakeAStepBack]

"You guys". Because everyone who does not by the shoddy "science" work conducted by the ICPP, which has been caught several times manipulating data, changing data, omitting data or massaging it, we're all the same on this?

You dogmatic believers in snake oil peddlers go ahead on with your bad selves.

I've followed this sicne its inception and I know for sure that IF we are playign a part in climate change, it is completely overblown by governments and their chosen "scientists" for funding purposes adn the ability to scare plebs into allowing idiotic measures like carbon tax.

Lastly, Muller was never a skeptic. It's all in there if you actually dot he homework instead of just regurgitating talking points fed to you because you're dying to believe it is true.

It's like a fucking religion.

Burn the heretics!


Seriously, save the planet, true believer. Kill yourself.

 

[Vast LWC]

"You guys". Because everyone who does not by the shoddy "science" work conducted by the ICPP, which has been caught several times manipulating data, changing data, omitting data or massaging it, we're all the same on this?

You dogmatic believers in snake oil peddlers go ahead on with your bad selves.

I've followed this sicne its inception and I know for sure that IF we are playign a part in climate change, it is completely overblown by governments and their chosen "scientists" for funding purposes adn the ability to scare plebs into allowing idiotic measures like carbon tax.

Lastly, Muller was never a skeptic. It's all in there if you actually dot he homework instead of just regurgitating talking points fed to you because you're dying to believe it is true.

It's like a fucking religion.

Burn the heretics!


Seriously, save the planet, true believer. Kill yourself.

OK,

1. You just told me to kill myself, which is specifically in violation of this portion of the board. Now, I would suggest you change your post immediately.

If you do, I will remove this reference and the reference in the quote.

And

2. Let me quote you:

I've followed this sicne its inception and I know for sure (sic)

That statement, in itself, proves for a fact that you, not I, are the one with an unchanging dogmatic opinion.

In the past, I have admitted that the man-made theory may be wrong, so I'm not the one with the "religious" attitude.

But this study, on top of all the others like it on the subject, implies that the probability that man-made climate change is happening is pretty damn likely.

 

[saveliberty]

Vast, the peer review board can pick and choose at will what type of study is reviewed. The ICPP has validated that position. A theory on the right track should have a verifiable model with accurate predictions and accurate testing. Global warming has had apple time to do so and has not been successful.

 

[saveliberty]

P.S. TakeAStepBack needs to retract his comment.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That statement, in itself, proves for a fact that you, not I, are the one with an unchanging dogmatic opinion.

You managed to cut off the IF part and keep it moving how you wished. The fact remains that no data is conclusive on this subject and worse, those who are peddling the dishonest info have been caught massaging the data. it's that simple.

I'm ready to take the scientific evidence if it is conclusive. Im not going to except opinion as scientific fact. That's crazy talk.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm not adjusting my comment as it is in gest. The point is that the doomsday AGW crowd is making this claim that we humans are pumping CO2 into the planet at a rate that is destroying our world. Some go so far as to say it is all too late! That we're fucked! Well, I dont have any other solution for those folks except the one offered up.

 

[Vast LWC]

I'm not adjusting my comment as it is in gest. The point is that the doomsday AGW crowd is making this claim that we humans are pumping CO2 into the planet at a rate that is destroying our world. Some go so far as to say it is all too late! That we're fucked! Well, I dont have any other solution for those folks except the one offered up.

DO as you will. Personally I have a thick skin, but I believe that some others were specifically looking to curb this type of discussion when they created this area.

Be that as it may, I did not say "it's too late" or "we're fucked" at any point.

Humans tend to have the ability to adapt to various hardships, and overcome.

That being said, it doesn't mean that we should destroy the fucking planet first, and then learn to live with it later.

 

[daveman]

here's my take...the truth of the matter is, we don't truly know 100% whether this is man made or not....but here's what we do know. fossil fuels cause pollution. we pump all kinds of crap into our atmosphere, we pollute the water that we drink, we pollute the land that we use.

Doesn't it make sense to eliminate as much of this stuff as possible? Also...politically, reducing dependence on foreign oil can only help.

I agree. So why won't the left allow us to exploit our own oil sources?

 

[Vast LWC]

I agree. So why won't the left allow us to exploit our own oil sources?

Hmm, I was unaware "the Left" had issued a ban on all domestic oil drilling.

Perhaps you have a link?

Perhaps you have a link that even indicates domestic oil production has slowed down at all?

'Cause, as far as I know, we're drilling more than ever.

 

[daveman]

I agree. So why won't the left allow us to exploit our own oil sources?

Hmm, I was unaware "the Left" had issued a ban on all domestic oil drilling.

Oh, it's not like they arbitrarily ban drilling.

They just make it more expensive.

In a letter to Congressional leaders Tuesday, Mr. Obama called for repealing some $4 billion a year in "subsidies" in the tax code, and even Speaker John Boehner chimed in that oil companies "ought to be paying their fair share." No doubt the reporting of first-quarter profits this week will be a demagogic moment, but really? The junk economic theory is that increasing the U.S. costs of investor-owned oil producers—which together hold a mere 6% of world reserves—is supposed to lower the price of a global commodity.

Oh, and Mr. Obama wants to devote the proceeds to even more spending on "clean energy." The problem here is that some renewables (ethanol) increase the cost of driving, while the others (wind, solar) are irrelevant in transportation. We trust anyone not recharging his federally subsidized $109,000 electric sportscar at his personal windmill is blinking in amazement.

One of the main so-called subsidies that Mr. Obama wants to eliminate is for the expensing of intangible drilling costs, which has been part of the tax code since its inception. This immediate deduction—rather than amortizing the costs of development over a longer period—provides the capital and cash flow necessary in an industry where the risks are huge and returns are realized over many years, if not decades.​

Or make the regulations governing its exploitation far more difficult to follow.

Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the Obama administration is poised to deal a major blow to U.S. oil and natural gas, a leading industry group charged Thursday.

Domestic production of both fuels could plummet if proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulations, designed to limit emissions from well sites, go into effect later this year, according to an extensive new study commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute.

The natural gas extraction technique known as “fracking” would be hardest hit, and fuel extracted via the popular process would drop by about 52 percent, according to a new study commissioned by API. Total gas production would decrease by about 11 percent, while domestic oil production could fall by as much as 37 percent, the report says.​

Perhaps you have a link?

Perhaps you have a link that even indicates domestic oil production has slowed down at all?

'Cause, as far as I know, we're drilling more than ever.

No thanks to the left.

From my second link:

The API study was released the same day a top House Republican released data from the Energy Department showing that fossil-fuel production on federal lands has fallen since Mr. Obama took office. The information compiled by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that total fossil-fuel production on federal lands has dropped 7 percent since 2009 and 13 percent since 2003. From 2010 to 2011, total oil production on federal lands is down 14 percent and gas production dropped 11 percent.

Leading Republicans say they see a disconnect between the administration’s words and its actions. House Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings, Washington Republican, said the new EIA data show that President Obama’s “anti-energy policies” are taking the country in the wrong direction.

“President Obama has been more than happy to take credit for his predecessors’ actions to advance energy production on federal lands, however, we know that while bringing federal oil and natural gas production online can take the better part of a decade, slowing production can happen relatively quickly,” Mr. Hastings said in a statement.​

Furthermore:

Likewise, the reason that oil production has risen under President Obama is due to events that happened years earlier. In this case, it wasn’t some grand initiative that President Bush passed, rather it was years of steadily increasing oil prices that caused oil companies to approve a number of new projects that had marginal economics at lower oil prices. But these projects take some years to build, and as in the case of the Alaska Pipeline, decisions that were made 4-6 years earlier benefited President Obama with increased domestic oil production.​

Now, do you want to continue with the fiction that the left supports drilling for our own oil?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm not adjusting my comment as it is in gest. The point is that the doomsday AGW crowd is making this claim that we humans are pumping CO2 into the planet at a rate that is destroying our world. Some go so far as to say it is all too late! That we're fucked! Well, I dont have any other solution for those folks except the one offered up.

DO as you will. Personally I have a thick skin, but I believe that some others were specifically looking to curb this type of discussion when they created this area.

Be that as it may, I did not say "it's too late" or "we're fucked" at any point.

Humans tend to have the ability to adapt to various hardships, and overcome.

That being said, it doesn't mean that we should destroy the fucking planet first, and then learn to live with it later.

I completely agree with and work (literally) toward sustainable living. But certainly not because government morons want to ruin more business. This shift you ask for will only come through a mass conscious awareness and action. Not some govt imposed tax on breathing.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Another relevant question: what kind of integrity do people have when they take a quibbler like Muller and dress him up as an opponent then celebrate his 'conversion'?

I would say a bunch of liars who I wouldnt trust with my piggy bank, much less directing national taxes and expenditures across the whole globe via AGW carbon taxes and limits.

And for Gods Sake, BERKELY? Not a hotbed of rightwingers, no matter who pays for it.

I think the Koch brothers got conned, lol.

Ahh, and here's a classic strategy...

Deny that a converted person was ever on your side to begin with. Pretend that he was always "just a plant".

Classic.

In fact, it turns out that Dr Muller was the original disprover of the "Hockey Stick"...

In a 2004 Technology Review article, Muller supported the findings of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick in which they criticized the research, led by Michael E. Mann, which produced the so-called "hockey stick graph" of global temperatures over the past millennium, on the grounds that it did not do proper principal component analysis (PCA). In the article, Richard Muller stated:

"McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called "Monte Carlo" analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen?"

The reason he is the founder and the current chairperson of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature ("BEST") project, is due to the fact that he believed the original readings were faulty, and he was quite vocal about it.

But, I'm sure that whatever evidence is presented, and whoever is converted, some people will find a way to rationalize it away.

Dude, Muller was a *quibbler* and did not ever argue against AGW. Dadgum, I gave you several links, did you read even one of them?

No, of course not because you already know the truth, so why wast time looking at opposing opinions?

ROFLMAO

 

[JimBowie1958]

But I see you're a diehard believer in the opinions. I'm holding out for scientific evidence.

Enjoy the opinions!

Ahh, yes, "scientific evidence"...

You mean like massive computer-generated models based on exhaustive historical data gathering?

Because no-one has done that at all, have they?

No, obviously there's no "scientific evidence" of global warming at all.

Oh wait, that was the old argument: That there's no global warming.

I forgot, you guys are using the new argument now: That there is global warming, but it's not man-made.

What's going to happen when that's proven beyond the shadow of a doubt? What will the argument be switched to then?

"Well it's too late now, no use crying over spilled milk. Now stop whining about your house being underwater!"

Good greif, computer models dont *prove* a damned thing scientifically. They are only as good as the presumptions they are built on.

Your responses are text-book unscientific thought.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Or wait, it'll be:

"We obviously never said anything like that in the first place. You were obviously hallucinating."

You think there is only one group of reasons people mayhave for disagreeing with AGW theory?

Dude, your analytical skills are lacking.

There are many plausible reasons for doubting AGW, and most of the science grounded critics I have read agreed the Earth is warming since we are emerging from a 'min-ice-age'.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Vast, the peer review board can pick and choose at will what type of study is reviewed. The ICPP has validated that position. A theory on the right track should have a verifiable model with accurate predictions and accurate testing. Global warming has had apple time to do so and has not been successful.

Werent the Warmistas ranting that we only had seven years to fix things before it was too late back in the 90's?


Well, its too late, so we might as well say to hell with it and go have some beers.

 

[flacaltenn]

I am naturally sceptical of anything paid for by the Koch Brothers.

That being said, WOW! Muller has been a thorn in the yes its real side for a long time. That he would suddenly change sides is fairly dramatic. And if he indeed has evidence as he claims that is stronger than previous data, then it could spell the end of the debate.

That being said, its freaking HOT!!! And Im in Minnesota!!!!

So many misconceptions in this thread -- so little time..

Muller is no more a converted skeptic than I am a big Nancy Pelosi fan..

CLEARLY -- he got that reputation for biting the ankles of MANN about the Hockey Stick Fraud. But that was just an incident of plain occupational honesty.. Something I believe him to basically be -- honest.

If you doubt me -- look up his old lectures.. For instance -- "Global Warming -- The Current Status: The Science, the Scandal, the Prospects for a Treaty" where he dives right into SOLUTIONS for man-made Global Warming..

Second problem with this thread -- (not picking on you Vidi) -- his statements about the Best Study ACTUALLY VINDICATE many of the "Denier's" Complaints about missing, altered, inaccurate or downright fraudelent data. In a recent WSJournal article he says.

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.

And YET --- some of you same posters have ridiculed Anthony Watts, refuse to accept links from his site, and RIDICULED the USMB folks trying to tell you FACTS like that.

Can we get an apology now?? Didn't think so.. You're gonna go on calling us deniers and science molesters and all those other juvenile slurs. .

But the BIGGEST revelation in Muller's WSJ OPEd follows...

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.

Which is it? What he says to THIS SOURCE? Or what he stated in the WSJ Op Ed?? Is it PROVEN in the BEST study (funded miniscually by the Koch Bros)?? NO... It's projected opinion that he's ALWAYS really had and advocated..

And Finally --- where were all you folks when last month James LoveLock the so-called Father of Man-Made Global Warming came out as a skeptic? Did it matter a lot to us "deniers".. Not really.. We're focused on FACTS and SCIENCE -- not on personalities and press releases...