Prominent climate change denier now says climate change real and man made

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Mustang, Aug 1, 2012.

  1. Mustang
    Offline

    Mustang Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    7,218
    Thanks Received:
    1,300
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    39° 44 mins 21 secs N, 104° 59 mins 5 secs W
    Ratings:
    +1,792
    It's time to put an end to these silly political games of denying what everyone knows to be true and instead get serious about combating climate change. Everybody is going to have to give up something, including environmentalists who have been blocking power generation from nuclear power. That means we should stop burning coal and start building nuclear power plants ASAP. Everyone on our planet (especially the national gov'ts of the major industrial economies) needs to start working together instead of at cross purposes.


    ------------------------------------


    Prominent climate change denier now admits he was wrong (+video)

    Richard Muller, who directed a Koch-funded climate change project, has undergone a 'total turnaround' on his stance on global warming, which he now admits is caused by human activity.


    Washington



    The verdict is in: Global warming is real and greenhouse-gas emissions from human activity are the main cause.


    This, according to Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkely, a MacArthur fellow and co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.


    The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of other climatologists around the world came to such conclusions years ago, but the difference now is the source: Muller is a long-standing, colorful critic of prevailing climate science, and the Berkeley project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G. Koch, has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change.


    RELATED: Are you scientifically literate? Take our quiz!



    In an opinion piece in Saturday’s New York Times titled “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic,” Muller writes:


    “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.”


    The Berkeley project’s research has shown, Muller says, “that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by 2½ degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of 1½ 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.”
    He calls his current stance “a total turnaround.”


    Tonya Mullins, a spokeswoman for the Koch Foundation, said the support her foundation provided, along with others, has no bearing on results of the research.


    “Our grants are designed to promote independent research; as such, recipients hold full control over their findings,” Mullins said in an email. “In this support, we strive to benefit society by promoting discovery and informing public policy.”


    Some leading climate scientists said Muller’s comments show that the science is so strong that even those inclined to reject it cannot once they examine it carefully.


    Elizabeth Muller, co-founder and executive director of the Berkeley project and Richard Muller’s daughter, said the papers had been peer-reviewed, but not yet published. But because of the long lead-up to publication, she said, the Berkeley team decided to place its papers online, in part to solicit comment from other scientists. The papers were posted on the BerkeleyEarth.org website on Sunday.


    “I believe the findings in our papers are too important to wait for the year or longer that it could take to complete the journal review process,” Elizabeth Muller wrote in an email. “We believe in traditional peer review; we welcome feedback [from] the public and any scientists who are interested in taking the time to make thoughtful comments. Our papers have received scrutiny by dozens of top scientists, not just the two or three that typically are called upon by journalists.”


    Prominent climate change denier now admits he was wrong (+video) - CSMonitor.com


    Home|Berkeley Earth
     
  2. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,693
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,759
    Muller has never been a skeptic.

    He went on to state "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions." Muller's statements were widely quoted on skeptical blogs, and his status as a believer in global warming made his criticism of the "hockey stick" particularly damaging.

    Richard A. Muller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  3. Mustang
    Offline

    Mustang Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    7,218
    Thanks Received:
    1,300
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    39° 44 mins 21 secs N, 104° 59 mins 5 secs W
    Ratings:
    +1,792
    Of course he was a skeptic. He criticized the earlier findings and the methodology.

    Virtually everyone has acknowledged that global warming (now more properly referred to as climate change) is real. The question was whether or not it was a result of human activity. When Muller stated that human-created carbon dioxide MAY CONTRIBUTE, he wasn't stating that he believed it was a primary contributing factor. He was merely acknowledging that it was a sound scientific principle that increasing greenhouses gases in the atmosphere could contribute to trapping heat on Earth. Now he's saying that humans are almost entirely the cause.

    BIG difference.

    After all, Muller's research wouldn't have been funded by Charles Koch if he was already supporting a human cause of climate change.
     
  4. TakeAStepBack
    Offline

    TakeAStepBack Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    13,935
    Thanks Received:
    1,723
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,012
    Muller was never a skeptic. We've already been over this nonsense. Try the search function next time.
     
  5. Mustang
    Offline

    Mustang Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    7,218
    Thanks Received:
    1,300
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    39° 44 mins 21 secs N, 104° 59 mins 5 secs W
    Ratings:
    +1,792
    Of course Muller was a skeptic. He previously wouldn't accept the methodology and the research (and hence, the conclusions) which produced the so-called hockey stick graph of global temperature of the last 1,000 years.

    In an op-ed of his from late last year, he stated that "skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find."

    Now he wholeheartedly endorses the previous finding.

    Muller may not have been a denier akin to a non scientist like Senator Inhofe who, like many other hardcore deniers, embraces the notion of some kind of a global warming conspiracy, but Muller certainly did not embrace the methodology or conclusions of the overwhelming number of scientists who have been sounding the alarm on global warming for years.
     
  6. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,693
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,759
    Yes, he criticized the methodology, because it was crap. Do you know why he criticized it?

    From my link: "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions."

    He criticized it because he thought bad science would hurt AGW, which he always supported.

    He was never a skeptic. Period.
    Unsurprisingly, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

    Foundation statement on Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project | Charles Koch Foundation News

    Thursday, October 27th, 2011
    The Charles Koch Foundation today issued the following statement on the recent research conducted by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project:

    “The Charles Koch Foundation has long supported, and will continue to support, sound, nonpartisan scientific research intended to benefit society by informing public policy and advancing an understanding of the costs and benefits of proposed solutions. Among the research the foundation recently supported is a project by Professor Richard A. Muller in partnership with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and several other foundations. That research is undergoing peer review now but has already received significant media interest. The research examined recent global surface temperature trends. It did not examine ocean temperature data or the cause of warming on our climate, as some have claimed,” said Tonya Mullins, director of communications for the foundation.​

    BEST Physicist Interviewed on MSNBC about Charles Koch Foundation Support | Charles Koch Foundation News

    Tuesday, November 1st, 2011
    Richard Muller, with the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project, was recently interviewed by MSNBC’s Martin Bashir to discuss the study’s findings. Below is an excerpt of Dr. Muller discussing the Charles Koch Foundation’s support of his research:

    “MARTIN BASHIR: [The Charles Koch Foundation is] still supporting you, but were you asked to take a second look at the data and were they upset with it?

    RICHARD MULLER: Not at all. From the beginning, they said they would like to see the science be made more transparent and done at the highest quality. One of the things we have done is taken our data and analysis and made them available online. Anyone can verify us. If they disagree, it’s easy for them to check. Business was very high. My sense is they really didn’t know what the answer would be. They felt, I think properly, there had been questions raised and we would do it and we have. They never once indicated to us what they hoped we would find.”​

    I predict you will bitterly cling to your leftist lies about the Koch Foundation.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,110
    Thanks Received:
    4,668
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,384
    We did this one yesterday Mustang.. Same forum..

    Bottom line.. Muller says a lot of things. The facts are:

    1) If you believe what you quoted is true and trust Muller, he also vindicated VERY STRONGLY all of our (the denier's) complaints about PREVIOUS Surface Temp Studies being DEEPLY flawed and even tampered with.. That feels real good to this denier.

    2) In a recent WSJ OP-ED, Muller said that this new BEST Team DID NOT study the man-made connection to Global Warming and FORMED NO OPINION on that matter.

    3) The only reason he's been considered a skeptic is that he's honest enough to have been OUTRAGED (like you should have been) about the Fraudulent methodologies that built Al Gore's Hockey Stick. He named names -- torqued off the Grand Bishop of AGW and then went back to preaching how we need carbon taxes and immediate action to stop man from destroying the planet..

    So there's a summary of what you missed..

    You're Welcome..
     
  8. Mustang
    Offline

    Mustang Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    7,218
    Thanks Received:
    1,300
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    39° 44 mins 21 secs N, 104° 59 mins 5 secs W
    Ratings:
    +1,792
    Flawed and tampered with? Fraudulent methodologies?

    Muller, in his OWN words from last year: "We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections."
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2012
  9. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    30,110
    Thanks Received:
    4,668
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +13,384
    The guy is like Bill Clinton -- you can "HEAR" anything you want from him... But YES kiddo -- he VINDICATED a lot of what us critics have been saying..

    There's more at that OP ed. And I'm sure Dave, WestWall, and IanC can share snippets of what this loose cannon has spouted about recently..

    AND -- he actually used those words misrepresented and fraud (or extremely close to that) when describing how OUTRAGED HE WAS at the Mann Hockey Stick fraud. Another vindication for the deniers.. What's the score now???
     

Share This Page