Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
But I see you're a diehard believer in the opinions. I'm holding out for scientific evidence.
Enjoy the opinions!
"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.
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.
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.
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?
Oh, it's not like they arbitrarily ban drilling.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.
No thanks to the left.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.
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.
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.
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!"
Or wait, it'll be:
"We obviously never said anything like that in the first place. You were obviously hallucinating."
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.
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!!!!
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.
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.