Weekend Climate Drama: Climate Skeptic Says He‘s Been ’Converted‘ to Global Warming Camp as Study Finds NOAA ’Exaggerated’ Data
- Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:48am by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
Richard Muller, left, and his daughter, Elizabeth Muller, hold a globe as they talk about their study on climate at their home in 2011. (Photo: AP/Paul Sakuma)
Over the weekend, University of California-Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller, a once avid “climate skeptic,” came out in a New York Times op-ed saying that he was “converted.” But the climate science community that supports warming as man-made, instead of welcoming Muller with open arms, is criticizing him to an extent.
Muller admits himself that he had in the past been critical of some climate change studies, but instead of complaining about it, he and his daughter, Elizabeth, founded the Berekley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project. TheBlaze reported the first inklings that Muller was changing his position on the state of global warming last fall when draft studies of his analysis from this project was released. He now writes in the Times he believes “humans are almost entirely the cause”:
It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.
[...]
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. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.
Muller also claims in his op-ed that the data from the BEST is “stronger” than that used in the reports by the International Panel on Climate Change.
Andrew Revkin, who maintains the New York Times’ Dot Earth blog, draws attention to the fact that the papers submitted from the BEST program have not yet been peer reviewed and formally published. Revkin notes that at the time of Muller releasing some of these papers last fall, he drew criticism from climate scientists, like climate modeler William Connolley, for some of the findings being “rubbish.” Revkin also points out that some scientists who reviewed the papers and were invited as co-authors declined.
Judith Curry from the Georgia Institute of Technology was one of them. Revkin received this response from Curry:
I was invited to be a coauthor on the new paper. I declined. I gave them my review of the paper, which was highly critical. I don’t think this new paper adds anything to our understanding of attribution of the warming….
I really like the data set itself. It is when they do science with it that they get into trouble.
What does Revkin think is going on here, especially with the latest paper from BEST?
It appears that Muller has pushed to get the new findings submitted now because Tuesday is the deadline for journal submission for research to be considered in the next climate science report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Responding to Revkin‘s post and Curry’s criticism within the post Elizabeth Muller, who also works with the BEST program, defended the pre-peer review publication of the studies for various reasons:
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. We believe in traditional peer review; we welcome feedback the public and any scientists who are interested in taking the time to make thoughtful comments. Indeed, with the first 4 papers submitted, many of the best comments came from the broader scientific community. Our papers have received scrutiny by dozens of top scientists, not just the two or three that typically are called upon by journalists.
[...]
Regarding Judith Curry, there is broad general agreement that the results released today give a new and improved estimate of the global land temperature going back 250 years. Judith also agrees that the findings on volcanoes and changed to the diurnal temperature range (both discussed in the results paper) make useful contributions to the field. The disagreement comes only over Berkeley Earth’s use of a simple model fitting the temperature record for the past 250 years to human CO2 emissions and volcanoes to conclude that the best explanation for the observed warming is greenhouse gas emissions.
Read Revkin‘s full post for more details on Elizabeth Muller’s response and other details regarding climate scientists thoughts on papers from BEST here.
Just as Muller was making his announced conversion to believing global warming is human-caused, Anthony Watts, who runs the “Watts Up With That” blog, which is notoriously critical of mainstream climate data and many environmental studies, released a study of its own that announced “half of the global warming in the USA is artificial.”
Watts drew media attention early into the weekend when he posted on his blog that he would be suspending posting — as well as postponing his vacation — to make an important announcement. The announcement was the culmination of a five-year study by Watts and other contributors reanalyzing data from NOAA that found a doubling of temperatures previously reported was due to “NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.” According to Watts et al, 92 percent of this overestimation is based on problems with “adjustments of well-sited stations.”
James Delingpole for the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph blog clarifies this as meaning NOAA “has systematically exaggerated the extent of late 20th century global warming.”
(Image via Watts Up With That)
Others have reanalyzed this NOAA data before, including Muller who Watts cites in his announcement, but all were “inconclusive in finding effects on temperature trends used to gauge the temperature change in the United States over the last century.” Here‘s Watt’s response to that in light of the findings within his new study:
“I fully accept the previous findings of these papers, including that of the Muller et al 2012 paper. These investigators found exactly what would be expected given the siting metadata they had. However, the Leroy 1999 site rating method employed to create the early metadata, and employed in the Fall et al 2011 paper I co-authored was incomplete, and didn’t properly quantify the effects.
The new rating method employed finds that station siting does indeed have a significant effect on temperature trends.”
Watts explains that the conclusions of this most recent study were reached using a new methodology to review station siting.
Check out Watt‘s full announcement for more details on the study’s findings here.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 591 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 417 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 383 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 376 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 417 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 383 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know 100 Comments- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 417 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (338)
oregon scott
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:58amWow I am not a scientist and I solved this one. He founded a Berekley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project.Take a look and I am sure you will find a really large donation or grant that will pay the Dad and daughter for a very long time. Follow the MONEY !!!!! The global warming thing was created due to the fact they ran out of things to tax us on.
Report Post »jmcclena
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:03pmITS KOCH BROTHERS MONEY!!! God you beckbots are such idiots.
http://www.examiner.com/article/koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-and-humans-are-the-cause
Kenszen
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:13pm@jmcclena So your link proves oregon’s point. So what was yours? I’m unclear what you are trying to say (except find an excuse to insult somebody).
Report Post »mtcountrygrl
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:18pmThere is no money in studying natural weather patterns, but call it a man made event, especially one that can promote global socialism! Watch the grants roll in. Read a history book folks or a farmers alminac, these patterns happen about every 70 years. That is why the record high temperatures that get beat all were set in the 30′s. Because it was this hot in the 1930′s. 35 years of cooling (roughly) then 35 years of warming. In the 1970′s (look up the first earth day) these same idiots were saying that CO2 was causing the next ice age.
Report Post »NeoFan
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:53pmAmazing what people will say to put food on the table.
Report Post »heyjim55
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:05pmIt’s not just finding another way to tax us it is a way to establish totalitarian rule, these people are all Marxist Communists. They can no longer go around the world and shout workers of the world unite! it won’t work they have ran out of ideas so they chose environmentalism it is the one thing that affects everyone around the world. They get funding from Leftist business people like Al Gore and those who stand to make a huge profit and they get to control human activity, stop industry, and ultimately reduce the worlds population by any means necessary in the name of sustainability. Agenda 21 spells this out clearly, you and I and everyone else would have your property taken away and you would be forced to live in a designated area mainly large cities in stack em and pack em apartment like buildings. Where your food and water and other needs can be tightly controlled and rationed out. Only the ruling elite will be allowed property and have access to nature and outdoor recreation as we now enjoy.All the above is what is planned according to the UN , they plan on a soft kill solution to reduce the worlds population from 7 billion to 1 or 2 billion depending on who you talk to or read. Soft kill means from starvation, vaccines, disease, denial of medical care and just plain misery .
Report Post »DOra Glasberg
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:06pmWe can only hope some this heat melts the fat off Rush’s – head.
Report Post »Whatta tool for big biz, the planet be damned,
SanMoo
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:59pmYes, Ya think the daughter had something to do with this! More pressure than the guy could handle….and wanted to keep his job!! Have you seen the Olympics? They don’t want to talk about the “weather” —it has been cold…..last winter they had more snow through England and Europe than they have had in a long…long time. They even use the falling off of large amount of ice in to the Ocean as proof the their Global Warming. A Glacier must be cold and moving to do that!!! How stupid is that! Mother nature is shifting….as she always has.
Report Post »D-Fence
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 2:55pmOoooops, I just took a JMCCLENA. I feel better now.
Report Post »janedough1
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 2:59pmJMCCLENA Yet another MSNBC-bot who hasn’t yet done any research on the “1%” and doesn’t realize the reason its always “Koch Brothers money” is because if you took the Koch’s, Walton‘s and Mar’s fortunes off the Forbes 400, there wouldn’t be anything left but far left Democrats on the list. Wake up, stupid, they keep pinning everything on the Koch‘s because they don’t have anyone else to distract you with.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:13pmCan’t help, just have to post this video again.
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM
glennpatstu
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:14pm“NEOFAN
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:53pm
Amazing what people will say to put food on the table.”
yup. Here are a few that come to mind that you are likely familiar with:
“buy gold folks, I’m telling you, Obama is gonna steal your paycheck”
“never before seen- tonight, only on GBTV”
“buy tickets to my restoring [whatever Glenn decides to restore next] rally!)
“I found JESUS!”
“These liberty safes are great for protecting my guns n stuff!”
“Buy food insurance folks, Obama is coming for your brocolli!”
“Mark my word, our country will cease to exist if you don’t tune into my groundbreaking episode on [insert whatever Glenn's conspiracy of the week is here] tonight, only on GBTV.
And so on.
Report Post »lvamervet
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:15pm@JMCCLENA…… ALL of you obama A$$ Wipes need to be flushed in order to save the Planet.
The enviroment will take care of it self once all the trash is gone.
I think Dora is a man or a wantabee.
Report Post »Torey
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:38pm@ glennpatstu,
Im Pretty Sure you added some words into those quotes lol…
@ mtcountrygrl ,
There is Lots of money in Studying Natural Effects of Weather… you think these scientists just do it for free? Then if whomever is funding the Study wants a certain Outcome like in this case proving Man-Made Global warming is the main Problem they toss extra money to them so they get the results they want even if the Real Facts of the Study show the opposite they will cook the facts to show it their way.
Report Post »flfshrmn
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:45pmIt’s the Agenda 21 money shot. This guys BEST interpretations were bought and paid for and serves as a prime example for the green scam. Look at his ohhhh face in the picture…..he looks worried!
Report Post »Co2 is only .035% of the Earths atmosphere and the geenies want to shut the Earth down because at this point they say they can prove .003% inrease? That will not cause the globe to burn up.
As our favorite radical would say; “One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue”…. – Saul Alinsky
What a load!
Shifty6
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:50pmone down, 5 billion to go
Report Post »MildManneredProfessor
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:02pmThis is the second time the press has touted that a global warming skeptic has come “out of their closet.” It always happens at Berkley or some other liberal educational cathedral. Meanwhile, scientists are abandoning the global warming plot as fast as democrats are abandoning the democratic convention. I see this all of the time at the colleges I teach at . . . fit the mold or be removed or badgered by the “tolerant” statists in the great religion of academia. You need more faith believing in global warming than you do in believing that God created the heavens and the earth in seven days. Liberal bafoons . . . go worship in your self-proclaimed “smart-guy” clubs and pat each other on the back while stealing from the public treasury to promote your sickening bassackward ideologies.
Report Post »DOra Glasberg
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:06pmThe planet has NEVER had to deal with issue of the burning of fossil fuels until the last 150 years.
Report Post »Get a grip. Of course it humans.
All of this pointing to past eras in time is just nonsense.
On another topic,
We have already depleted the oceans of 90% of their individual species.
Obama_Sham
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:38pmOh really Dora? The planet has “never” burned fossil fuels? And we have already depleted 90% of the species in the ocean?
OK kiddie… The Earth continually burns fossil fuels at depths we cannot reach economically. Those gases are continually released through open caverns, caves, fishers, etc… How can we have depleted 90% of the oceanic species when new species are still being DISCOVERED?
Dope…
Report Post »MildManneredProfessor
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:44pm@Dora
Dora, you did it again . . . the earth has never had to deal with fossil fuels? Where were you educated? Let me guess . . . Whatsamatta U? Fossil fuels (which is anything that can be used for energy – including wood), when burned, have the same degradation products as organic matter being consumed in the rock cycle (as is evident from the CO2 emissions from over 1,000 active volcanoes) , or the burning of forests, the production of gases in swamps, the overwhelming outcomes of gas coming from a liberals backend and their mouths when they discuss topics like this, and a million other organic pathways. I am sure there were no CO2 emissions when the Yellowstone supervolcano erupted and buried one fourth of the North American continent with ash, heat and smoldering rock. I am sure all that CO2 just sat there under the ash as the buried forests were consumed by the heat and biological activity that followed. I am also sure that the forest fires of the past that lasted years on end until they burned out never added as much CO2 as mankind has. I am also sure that the receding oceans and all of the ocean life that was buried under the soil over the past many milennia never once added CO2 to the atmosphere as do the emissions produced by mankind. Volcanoes have never affected the planet’s climate like humans . . . oh wait, there was that pesky one in the Phillipines in 1991 that changed the climate of the planet for two years, and Krakatoa, and . . . long live Dora!
Report Post »chalkdust
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:51pmJMC
Report Post »The “examiner” is not a good source. You might as well have put a link to wiki. Second, the evil Koch brothers is the lefts boogeyman under the bed. This is what you’ve been told to think and would take some time to deprogram you. Every year I take a look at the latest studies and the science is going in circles. As it turns out we actually cooled for the last ten years and C02 continued to rise completely blowing all the models out of the water.
Also, attributing local weather or heat waves as we’ve experienced this summer to long term climate trend is faulty considering how the global heat budget is distributed by the oceans. Also, solar storms have been raging this summer and could have influenced the hot summer in the northern hemisphere. Although, it would be pseudo science to attribute the heatwave to the solar storms because we don’t fully understand its effects on temperature. Same with a lot of so called climate science as the first paragraph states, “It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong”. Think for yourself before you start calling others idiots lest yee be called a dullard.
JohnGalt
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:02pmThing about about the BEST analysis is that it corresponds to the end of the ‘little ice age’ remarkable well. Does this mean if it wasn‘t for man’s use of fossil fuels we would be still in an ice age? or does it mean that after an ice age what happens? things may get a little warmer possibly?!
Report Post »muffythetuffy
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:13pmI hate Polar Bears with a passion. People who are the friends of Polar Bears are my enemy. A Polar Bear will track a human for 100 miles and then attack and eat him. Polar Bears are not our friends.
Report Post »nelbert
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:14pm@DORA GASBAG
You wrote: “We can only hope some this heat melts the fat off Rush’s – head. Whatta tool for big biz, the planet be damned,”
Is that as far as your deep insight goes?
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:23pmThis thread is full of non-scientists debating a position held by a vast majority of the scientific community on the topic of science.
I don’t make Pizzas – I have literally no idea how to make one – so, naturally, you don’t see me arguing that world renowned Pizza makers are wrong when they all agree the Pizza is better when cooked over a fire. That would be literally absurd.
But for some reason you Becksters think that your unbacked opinion on the subject and conspiracy theories somehow hold water – MORE WATER than the collective perspective of every leader in the field.
And for those of you that don’t understand @JMCCLENA’s post allow me explain.
@OREGON SCOTT suggested the studies were backed by people who have an agenda to prove Global Warming. Let me make note that this position was completely fabricated. How easy it is to “I bet ____” and make no effort to assert the accuracy of that bet. But I digress…
THEN @JMCCLENA had the foresight to say, “ya know, rather than just ASK question like a drooling moron, I will actually seek the answer”. And he then discovered that the Kosch Brothers were behind the money. People whose agenda is actually the exact OPPOSITE of the findings of the paper. So they funded research that ended up contradicting their position.
And you all are still screaming “conspiracy”… literally… just stop.
Report Post »NOT A CRAZY
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:54pmHate will get you nowhere JMCCLENA. God loves you. John 3:16. God created you and one day you will know. We all sin and we can all be forgiven. We will all kneel before Him sooner or later. I really do hope that you have your name in His Book of Life.
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:58pmI guess VoteInBush is a sociologist…
Report Post »NOT A CRAZY
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:02pmVotingBush…Actually I am a scientist. I am not going to waste my time discussing this issue with a close-minded propaganda brainwashed troll(s). I will say this: There are at least as many of us who do not buy into the man-caused global warming theory as there who do. This clown is from Berekley. That should be enough to tell anyone what they need to know. I smelled a rat the first time I heard of this guy.
Report Post »PAlibertybelle
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:09pmFollow the money!
Report Post »historyguy48
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 7:14pmComrades I think Oregon Scott is correct, they are looking for a new sugar daddy, and the left has far more money.
Report Post »Personally I think people that refer to consensus science are at best misguided fools that don’t know their history. Unless they are purposeful fools, or, as Stalin called them idiots or useful idiots.
The earth is flat and you will fall off the edge and die. Consensus science.
The planets, sun and stars all revolve around earth. More consensus science.
The earth is hollow. Even more consensus science.
There are canals on Mars. Guess what, more consensus science.
There are no other planets in the cosmos except those in our solar system. More consensus science.
I can go on and on but frankly this topic has become boring, like those that are unaware that Earth has had three major ice ages in the last 110,000 years +- a few.
Or that Eric the Red named Greenland, Greenland, because it was just that, Green Land!
There is very little that ticks me off more than some fool that is actually so stupid he (or she) thinks they are smart.
Except for some of Dear Leaders political commercials. Can that guy ever stop lying?
ConservativeWithABrain
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 7:45pm@mildmanneredprofessor I’m not sure what exactly you are a professor of, but wood is most certainly not a fossil fuel. Fossil fuels may be formed in part by wood, but only after millions of years. For something to be considered a fossil fuel, it has to have undergone a considerable amount of pressure and time to concentrate its carbon content. Natural gas, Methane, is the only fossil fuel I am aware of that is produced in anything approaching the human lifespan, by quite a bit.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:37pmCan you be a real scientist if climate is in the title? Didn’t we use to call them weather forecasters?
Report Post »dmerwin
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:44pmThank you ass clown! Now tell us EXACTLY how humans are responsible? I remember when science USED TO BE irrefutable. Please, Please, Please Fox call him on this. Bill, give him a call and invite him to support this. Sean, make this the Great Great Great American panel discussion every Tuesday until he appears on the show. Greta, send Griff to his house.
Report Post »IMAWAKENOW
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 9:12pmThe dude looks like a hoarder. If he didn’t have a house he would need two shopping carts to haul around his crap. The time to start worring is when the climate stops changing. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN CHANGING!
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 9:17pm@NOT A CRAZY
And I’m a Computer Scientist (co authored published research papers on the topic of Version Control). That doesn’t make me qualified to argue on Climate Change. May I ask what type of scientist you are? Are you a Climate Scientist? If so, I actually would love to hear your perspective (not being facetious, I actually would like to hear the other side of the coin from a reputable source for once). If not… well then you know what to do: Join me in sitting down and shutting up.
Report Post »dmerwin
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 9:26pmDon’t know about everywhere else but Alaska had the coldest July on record. Just sayin’. I can cherry pick stats as well as the next ass clown.
Report Post »dmerwin
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 9:36pmDOra Glasberg
Report Post »Please, oh please. Give us a run down on dinosaurs and redwood fossils within 400 miles of the North Pole and Vikings farming in Greenland circa 1000 and Vinland circa the same time. Tell us about all the climate variations plus or minus 10 degrees Fahrenheit over a century, over the life of the earth. How much greenhouse gases with each large volcanic eruption? How much climactic effect does a forest fire of 100 square miles produce? What happens to nature if those fires don’t occur? Can you grab your buttocks with both hands? Enjoy your koolaid and have a nice day.
NOT A CRAZY
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 9:50pm@VotinB…Actually I am a conservative libertarian Environmental Scientist and I work in the field. The college I graduated from tried to brainwash me with the typical environmentalist propaganda. I am sad to say that I am one of only a couple that protested and fought my way through those classes. It cost me too. I was given several grades that were less than what I deserved by the commie’s who called themselves faculty. I am not about to have a conversation with you. It would be moot and pointless. However, I will link you to a website that is dedicated to this purpose. It has all the data that anyone should need to start their own research. I just want to say again that I passionately disagree with the global warming theory, in particular the man-caused theory. I also despise and detest environmentalist and Leftist, in general. I believe in America the way it was founded and I will never bow to your gods. http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Report Post »Tucci78
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:51pmAt 12:03 PM on 30 July, JMCCLENA yelped:
“ITS KOCH BROTHERS MONEY!!! God you beckbots are such idiots.”
Which offers a plausible explanation of why Dr. Muller had been misrepresenting himself as a “climate skeptic” when in fact he has never been anything but an AGW alarmist.
He was looking for money, and didn’t care about “stretching the truth” to get it.
Grants-in-aid for pure research are never sought or given except with assurances of the investigators’ independence from influence, and the Koch brothers apparently behaved ethically with regard to their relationship with the B.E.S.T. study.
Though, of course, they should’ve known better. As a dog returns to its vomit, Dr. Muller returned to his Watermelon duplicity.
Mr. Watts and his associate in the SurfaceStations.org project, on the other hand, “crowdsourced” their study over five years to complete a genuine research endeavor, assessing the quality of (and therefore the error factors impacting) the U.S. surface temperature measurement system’s stations, to confirm the long-held suspicion that the information used by Muller and other warmists to support their claims of accelerated global warming over the past several decades has been “cooked” to such an extent by instrumental inaccuracy as to be worthless to anyone but a cadre of charlatans intent upon treating the public as chumps.
Report Post »FormerLib
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 12:46amI am so tired of this issue being muddied by three separate components, all crammed into one gooey ball of muck. The three components are:
1) is the planet warming?
2) is it anthropogenic?
3) is it necessarily catastrophic or even bad?
Let’s assume the answer to the first question is yes.So what? The planet has been much warmer than now, and much cooler. There are tropical plant fossils north of the Arctic Circle, and we know that the Northern Hemisphere has been under ice to one degree or another as far south as Texas at least 30 times. Temperature flux is natural for the planet.
The answer to number two is the subject of much debate.Of course, we all know there were no human around to cause climate change every time it froze and then melted again. So,once again, even if we are causing it or hastening it, so what?
The answer to number three is clearly not- at least, not widespread. Yes, if sea levels rise, some areas will be lost. In that case, humans will do what they have always done-migrate to a better place to live. But how do we know that the “greenhouse effect” will not do exactly that- turn arid regions into arable land, and create a window for advancement that previous warming periods have done? Why is he assumption that warming is always catastrophic? Simple: fear sells, gets attention, garners funding and allows people with ulterior motives to exert control for their own benefit. Folks would do well to look up the Eocene Age.
Report Post »SituationalGravity
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 1:57amDidn’t one of the leading global warming advocates say it was too late to stop the damage done anyway? Start building the life rafts on the Titanic, although we‘ll be sunk before they’re finished.
Not until the politicians put away their petroleum products (especially the so-called Leftists) will I believe there is danger. Don’t hold your breath, Obama for one won’t stop acting the King.
The world will here when we’re gone. The activists should be happy about the demise of the humans; they hate humans.
Report Post »NoBS
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 2:56amMuller was never a skeptic. He’s always been a rabid warmer. He likes to ridicule his warming colleagues tho. It isn’t relevant that the Kochs contributed to this study. Muller pretended to be impartial but immediately went full metal warmmonger…. as he has always been.
The fact is this: CAGW is the scam of the century and everyone is finally figuring it out. The debate in the scientific community truly IS over, and CAGW warming Lost.
Report Post »nelbert
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 6:48am@VOTEBUSHIN12
You wrote: “This thread is full of non-scientists debating a position held by a vast majority of the scientific community on the topic of science.”
Are you familiar with Piltdown man? In the early part of the 20th century fossil hominid remains were found in England that suggested man’s brain had evolved first and then the rest of his physiology followed. This fit in with the popular notion that what separated man from the other animals was his brain. There was wide consensus among the scientific community, and for more than 40 years Piltdown man was a fact. Then a skeptic re-examined the fossil and found that it was a hoax, and a pretty bad one at that. The skull was that of a medieval age human that had been stained to look old and the jaw was that of a chimpanzee filed down to fit.
Report Post »But the vast majority of the scientific community had been fooled.
I‘ve not looked at Muller’s data, and I find his research to be of more interest than others because he has held a skeptical view. I’m not locked into any one position or the other, and I would love to find something that was more based on fact than politics. But consensus isn’t science.
Now go out there and learn how to make a pizza.
Thatsitivehadenough
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 7:04amThis is FANTASTIC news! You need to understand what is going to happen. They dissected the misinformation and got through to the truth. There were many scientists who knew global warming was a hoax, but couldn’t prove it because the data was corrupted. NOW this SCIENTIFIC study is OUT THERE for all the scientists to review and examine and THE HONEST ONES will go public with their comments.
GLOBAL WARMING/ AGENDA 21: DEAD ON ARRIVAL!!
Report Post »killroywashere
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 10:38amPoor old fellow. I hope I never see the day when I look like I’m that afraid of any of my children.
Report Post »Redwood Elf
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 12:00pmUm, Dmerwin, there’s no LAND within 400 miles of the north pole. It’s all seafloor and always has been. Now fossils near the SOUTH pole of land plants would be possible.
Report Post »smokeysmoke
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 5:54pmmtcountrygrl
ding ding ding ding…. this is the worst weather we have had since the 1930s and the DUST BOWL… during that decade we had the largest floods in the us until last year. and now we have heat temps that are hitting the same spots as in the 1930s…. its too bad that so many global warming scientists are only looking for warming in the past 30-40 years and are not studing the planetary cycles for the past 500 million years and how THE CLIMATE HAS CHANGED… OSCILATED WARMER AND COLDER and in some ways in EXTRIEM DIRECTIONS… ALL BEFORE HUMAN ACTIVITY…. i understand the arguement, “WHAT ROLE DO HUMANS HAVE IN AMPLIFYING THE EFFECTS”. but then we must ask HOW QUICKLY ARE THINGS CHANGING??? WE DONT KNOW… so why react and spend billiions of dollars to produce solar panels and give money to “GREEN ACTIVITEIS” to save the planet, when most information is INCONCLUSIVE…. look at the MALANKOVITICH CYCLES…. the earths ORBIT, TILT, AND WOBBLE, ALL CHANGE ON CYCLES, about 40k YEARS TO COMPLETE 1 CYCLE…. so the changes in distance from the sun, angle facing the sun, and change in wobble can alter seasons, the energy comming from the sun, ALL CAN AFFECT THE CLIMATE…. why spend billions becuase we “THINK” carbon could be increasing the temp on earth???
Report Post »smokeysmoke
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 5:57pmDOra Glasberg
Report Post »WOW YOUR DUMB… ok so dosent volcanic activity put alot of carbon sulfur, debris and other carbon based compounds into the atmosphere…. so humans are burning carbon… big woop the EARTH BURNS CARBON
dmerwin
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 9:09pmOkay maybe not 400 mile but…
Arctic Redwood Fossils Are Clues to Ancient Climates
Bijal P. Trivedi
National Geographic Today
March 26, 2002
Axel Heiberg Island, at 82 degrees north and just a stone’s throw from the North Pole, was once a great vacation spot—during the Eocene epoch, about 45 million years ago. Lush redwood forests, ferns, flowering plants, and a huge variety of animals, now extinct, once thrived here.
Report Post »dmerwin
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 9:16pmRedwood Elf
Report Post »How about Axel Heiberg island about 520 miles at 82 degrees latitude and well within the Arctic Circle?
Sorry, should have fact checked, but the question is relevant.
Ghandi was a Republican
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:54amBeside the rest of their drivel.. They stand in the way of what could be an ever lessening need for fuels they don’t like. They like to speak of progress, but in practice they haven’t a clue. They are intereferring with the natural ebb and flow of technological revolution with their stagnating policies. They seek to turn knobs and buttons for which they have no clue as to the result, other than cloward/piven destructive economic reaction for the sake of their Socialist mindset. They put the game in game theory.
Report Post »Beside the fact that PETROLEUM SAVED THE WHALES AND THE TREES, which was the true energy of the past. Lead fool obama has it backwards as usual.
VoteBushIn12
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:27pmPursuing sustainable energy is about as technologically advancing as you can get. Last I checked, using the same fuel source as over 100 years ago is as close to technological stagnation as you can get. The current pace of technology evolution in other fields has given my thermostat the same processing power as the Lunar Lander… and you still prefer to use dead, rotted Jurassic plants…
…wow. Tell me again how we lack technological ambitions. I find your perspective sooooo enlightening.
Report Post »NOT A CRAZY
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:08pmVotin…there is no such thing as your version of sustainable energy. Where is this mystery energy? Every single solitary form of energy consumption has an equal and opposite backlash. Isn’t it true that wind and solar panels are actually warming the earth?
Report Post »historyguy48
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 7:33pmComrade sustainable energy exists, haven’t you ever eaten beans, or chili, well what pops out later (the gas) is sustainable energy!
Report Post »The rest of it is proven nonsense!
By the way, oil coming from plants is dead wrong! Oil is a natural by product generated by Mother Gaia herself, probably after eating some of those beans. Coal comes from plants, oil doesn’t.
Oh yes, Mother Gaia leaks more “demon” oil into the worlds oceans in a day that mankind can pump. There are several varieties of bacteria that survive by disposing of the stuff.
Why do you think it just disappeared in the gulf? Perhaps Dear Leader waved his magic finger and it all went away?
VoteBushIn12
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 9:24pm@NOT A CRAZY
Actually solar panels would cool the earth since they are absorbing light energy (and converting it to electricity) rather than reflecting back into the atmosphere. But I can see that’s not the crux of your argument, so I digress.
Wind and Solar are energy sources are sustained by the sun coupled – at least in part – by rotations of the earth. So, as long as the earth is spinning and the sun shinning, we will have power. If either of those events stop we are going to have bigger issues to worry about than how to power our Television.
Fossil Fuels, however, are derived from the carbon of previously living matter that died literally millions of years ago. While the last drop may not be found for another hundred years or so, we are certainly consuming it orders of magnitude faster than it’s being produced meaning there is a finite amount of time until the reserves are tapped.
So when you want to compare which source of energy is “more sustainable” the choice is clear. Literally not even up for discussion.
Report Post »NOT A CRAZY
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:02pm@VotinB…You said “Literally not even up for discussion.”
That was my whole point in not discussing anything with Leftist Zombies. You all have had a full frontal lobatomy.
Just for the record to anyone with a brain that may be watching, your premise is flawed and false. You are basing your beliefs in “fossil fuels” on the theory of evolution. There has been recent scientific evidence that has shown that “fossil fuels” are in fact created much much faster than Evolutionist choose to believe. We have not even begun to touch the true amounts of available “fossil fuels” that actually exist. Did you want to talk about how your beloved wind turbines are heating up the earth and how they are killing tons of birds, including many
Report Post »allegedly endangered species? Where did you get your info on solar panels not reflecting heat back into the atmosphere? Did you make it up or do you have scientific evidence? Never mind, I don’t want to argue with someone that believes that this is “Literally not even up for discussion.”
VoteBushIn12
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:58pm@NOT A CRAZY
“There has been recent scientific evidence that has shown that “fossil fuels” are in fact created much much faster than Evolutionist choose to believe.”
Citation please. That is definitely a claim that needs substantiating.
That aside, it would seem you are denouncing Evolution Theory now? Where will it end. I will read through your link above to try and understand your point, but after a comment like that I seriously doubt your scientific credentials.
Report Post »bccrane
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 9:44amVotin: Solar panels absorb light to create electricity and this process cools Earth? Solar panels absorb light that naturally would have been reflected back to space, the panels take this light and create heat right at the panel then send the electricity to other sights that at every point of usage as well as transmission heat is created again and all of this without the production of cooling water vapor. Windmills same problem, wind is the movement of heated air moving towards colder air the windmills slow this process down causing the atmosphere to retain more heat the generators create heat and the electricity is also used to create heat and again no cooling water vapor created.
Report Post »Oh and btw when the scientists say there is no connection to the Sun’s cycle to explain GW because “we are in a solar minimum and it’s warmer now when a solar minimum would mean it should be cooler” look up the colapse of the thermosphere due to the solar minimum which means more radiation from the Sun is filtering deeper into the Earth’s atmosphere during the current minimum, also note to keep their funding the scientists studying this had to add that maybe there was some reason that CO2 was causing this even though nothing points to CO2 as the culprit, but they will continue to search for ways to prove it does, pathetic.
Fatheroftwo
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 1:55pmVote: I feel sorry for you! You simply don’t understand technology do you?? For starters, the burning of fossil fuels is required to MAKE your sustainable energy solar and wind power devices! Solar and wind power will never be cost effective and here’s why…… Solar is a three stage power generation technology! Light from the sun is used to knock electrons loose from the photovoltaic substrate to create electricity (not heat; that is a by product). That electricity is not in the form of usable house hold current. It must be converted. Now you need batteries (stage two) and inverters (stage three) to make it usable in the home and you need a lot of them!!…..Wind power has it’s own problems, one of which is the fact that wind is not reliable and steady! You need a complicated gearing system just to get a reliable output that is steady. Most current wind systems can only be used at certain speeds and must be shut off at higher or lower speeds!!! Both of them require enormous amounts of oil just to create the parts to build them!!
For my money Hydroelectric is the most cost effective source of power! very few moving parts and very reliable!! But we all know that the Progressives don’t care about the people or how much it costs them to survive. So, by all means, go for your idiotic sustainable energy, I’ll be cutting down the trees to heat my house!!!!
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 2:19pm@BCCRANE
The argument is that solar panels are most often placed upon dark roof tops. Compared to the roof tops, the Solar Panels heat up far less. This reduces the heat island effect and is the basis of my claim. Citations ready if you need them
As for windmills, I haven’t heard much discussion on the subject. I can say that I don‘t see how any of what you said doesn’t apply to fossil plants. They create heat by burning fuels. They create heat by adding CO2 which is a greenhouse gas, and they create heat by creating electricity in the same way the windmills do. Are you suggesting windmills create more?
Lastly, I feel nothing loses your credibility more than the saying “look up ___”. If it‘s so obvious then why don’t you provide me with a link to get my search going. “Look it up” is a cop out. If you’re trying to sway my opinion then you need to persuade with me evidence, not with chores.
@FATHEROFTWO
Report Post »You find the same (or similar) power converters in Coal Plants. In case you didn’t know, the heat from burning the fuels is used to heat gas and spin a turbine to create electricity. If anything, Wind is a step removed sine it doesn’t have to burn anything to get a pressure differential, it uses natural ones.
Fatheroftwo
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 7:01pmVote: Still doesn’t change the fact that wind is incredibly unreliable and not subject to a steady state!! The best wind generator that I know of is at the Maui Ocean Center in Hawaii which does a fine job of providing most of the power for the center! It still requires an incredible amount of technology to do that and most of it is based on oil power! If you actually tried to make the necessary parts using wind or solar power I don’t think there is a person on the planet that could afford to buy them. Also, when I happen to drive by these incredibly wonderful wind farms I notice that more than halve of the turbines are not turning, which begs the question, Why?? Two answers come to mind; Broken or Wrong Wind!!! I‘m sorry but it’s the tried and true for me! The others are a LONG way from being largely usable!!
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 9:17pm@FATHEROFTWO
I agree, the technology is not nearly as good as conventional means, but remember – it’s a new technology.
When the Plane was first invented it flew for twelve seconds. It was expensive to build, an incredible amount of engineering went into it, it was unreliable, and it was down right dangerous. At that time, the car was obviously the superior mode of travel (even at the 15 MPG they were getting).
Flash forward 100 years and now tell me which is more efficient. Technology takes time to develop. That doesn’t mean such endeavors are not worthy. You invest a little upfront and you save a lot in the end.
It is possible to power the entire world on Solar and Wind alone. Once those farms are up, that is *basically* free energy. No mining needed. They basically run on their own and we humans simply need to sit back and reap the benefits. The term “energy crisis” would be effectively removed from our vocabulary.
How much better a world would we live in!
Report Post »Fatheroftwo
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 10:12pmVote: You are more simple minded than I thought! Those systems will NOT run on their own! The maintenance would cost a fortune! No mining needed??? Do you even know what it takes in raw material to make a Solar panel or a turbine blade??? AND you will never be able to get around the simple fact that wind is NOT always there and neither is the Sun so technology can make all the leaps and bounds it wants, those problems will still remain!! Oh! and another thing wind a solar technology is not new. Solar has been around for half a long as computers and wind technology has been around for half of human existence. Just check you history book, look under “windmill”!!!
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on August 1, 2012 at 5:35pm@FATHEROFTWO
Well I hope you don’t home school them.
You think wind and solar would require MORE maintenance than the constant mining, transportation, refining, more transportation, burning, and power harnessing currently required by Conventional Fossil Fuel plants?
Not… A… CHANCE.
That is my entire point. Compared to the status quo, they are positioned to become far and above the superior option. Forget the Environmental Benefits! Even those aside, there is no debating that Solar Power is far and above more efficient.
This report (notice how I am citing my sources):
http://www.environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/On-The-Rise.pdf
Explains that a 100×100 mile solar farm in Nevada could generate power to sustain the entire United States – forever – at the current rate of consumption. You coal mine a 100×100 mile area in the richest coal supply known to man and you will never, Ever, EVER get that sort of longevity. Even if you could squeeze it for 100 years (a generous timeline for a single coal site powering the entire US) that still pales in comparison to an ETERNITY.
Please tell me why you think conventional fossil fuels are superior given they haven’t changed much in 150 years, pollute the environment, and rely on an ever depleting source of fuel… This should be good.
Report Post »Fatheroftwo
Posted on August 1, 2012 at 7:15pmVote: Do you even know what it takes to make a Battery? NO! Or an Inverter to turn that oh so wonderful DC power that the Sun creates into usable house hold current?? NO! How about the materials required to make a Solar panel??? NO! Tell me bright boy….How long does the average car battery last??? 5, 8, maybe 10 years before it quits!! A solar panels efficiency will drop, if you’re lucky, only 30% in that same 10 year period and that‘s if your out there polishing the stupid thing every day and you’re talking forever??? Don’t make me laugh!! You should probably take some of your own advise now and sit down a be quiet because you have no idea what your speaking too and your only making a fool of yourself! Last for Eternity???? HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA!!!!!!!
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on August 1, 2012 at 8:17pmLook, I obviously did not provide you with plans to create your own Solar Panel farm. I gave you a 1000 character summary ok, clearly I didn’t discuss how to weather treat, the 30 year life cycle of the solar panel, or the issues with batteries. That isn’t the point of my posting.
I simply explained the site for the solar farm would need be selected ONCE and it – given necessary maintenance (which I thought was assumed) – would produce electricity forever. Unlike with Coal Mining sites where the site needs to be abandoned once the fuel is gone and a new location found and built.
In a simple yes or no, do you agree with the following sentence:
——————–
Getting energy from fossil fuels is a more sustainable and less burdensome endeavor than using Solar and/or Wind.
——————–
Yes – or – No.
Report Post »Fatheroftwo
Posted on August 1, 2012 at 9:08pmVote: YES it is more sustainable and less burdensome and I will add one other, MUCH more cheap!!! Don’t get me wrong! I love technology and the advancements it provides! If the Government would get the hell out of way the advancements would be even more dramatic!!! I am also practical and down to earth, there are physical limitation to wind and solar that cannot be over come and they shouldn’t be forced on us by the Government! The market should decide! If we are looking for a truly sustainable energy source we should be looking a Geo-thermal and Fusion. Lets not shoot ourselves in the foot in the mean time!!! And by the way, I’m not that concerned about the Climate either! We’ve got much bigger fish to fry!!!!
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on August 1, 2012 at 9:46pm@FATHEROFTWO
You are entitled to your opinions, but, to be frank, you are not very smart.
There is a reason we have energy concerns and it is because that status quo is not sustainable. Like a passenger in a runaway bus, you can close your eyes all you like, but that brick wall isn’t going to disappear.
All I can say is thank goodness you aren‘t the driver or we’d have no choice but to hit it.
Report Post »Fatheroftwo
Posted on August 1, 2012 at 10:22pmVote: Nice analogy but it doesn’t fly or in your case roll!! So anyone who doesn’t agree with you is not very smart??? Oh and by the way…. the energy problems are due to policy and not to lack of resources!! Just thought you’d like to know!!! Enjoy crashing your Bus!!!
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on August 2, 2012 at 9:53am@FATHEROFTWO
I don’t question your intelligence because you disagree with me, I question it because of the arguments you put forth.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a highly respected scientist in a variety of fields. He has appeared on so many shows you’ve probably seen or heard him. He is incredibly intelligent. He had a tweet two days ago that went something like this:
———————–
I’m often asked whether I believe in Global Warming. I now just reply with the question: “Do you believe in Gravity?”
———————–
You can read an article on him discussing alternative energy (primarily solar in “all its forms”) here – most of which you would probably agree with.:
http://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/article/astrophysicist-neil-degrasse-tyson-nbsp-tackles-renewable
You can feel free not to agree, but in doing so I would expect some substantiating; that’s what good arguments are founded on.
There is no doubt you speak passionately and believe you are correct. I’m not debating your commitment to the cause, but you have not provided anything beyond your opinion. You don’t like alternative energy because liberals like it – I get it. But if you‘d put your ideology aside and think for a second you’d realize depending on million year old dead plants for energy – plants who get their potential energy from the sun they absorbed anyway – is kind of primitive. Why not go directly to the source?
Report Post »Redwood Elf
Posted on August 2, 2012 at 12:21pm@VoteBushIn12:
Note, however, that the “gravity” bit was about Global Warming in general, NOT about ANTHROPROGENIC Global Warming, which is not the same thing.
By the way, “Gravity”, as a force, actually doesn’t exist. The Feather-and-hammer experiment on the moon proved that. What we call the “force” of Gravity is actually a description of the effect of the bending of spacetime in the presence of matter. if it were a force, then the physics formula F=MA would apply, and a hammer would accelerate slower than a feather because it has more mass. But with Gravity, the constant is acceleration, regardless of mass, thus proving that Gravity is a property of space/time and NOT a force acting on matter.
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on August 2, 2012 at 1:00pm@REDWOOD ELF
The father hammer experiment was used to show Gravity in its truest form – in a vacuum without Wind Resistance. It proved the exact OPPOSITE of what you just said, showing that objects of similar mass are affected by Gravity the same amount.
Read more here:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_15_feather_drop.html
Also, F = MA has nothing to do with gravity. Force = Mass x Acceleration is TRUE and nowhere does it give any mention to G, the force of Gravity.
Which leads me to my last point: Gravity, as a force, does exist. What causes it is not the discussion (why the existence of gravity is even a discussion is beyond me), the fact is Gravity is the attraction of objects with mass and it exists. Sorry.
So stop, please. For my sake and yours, just stop talking.
Report Post »Redwood Elf
Posted on August 2, 2012 at 1:46pm@VoteBushIn12:
You really ARE determined to display your ignorance, aren’t you?
The formula F=MA is the general physics formula describing the relationship between force (F) and Accelleration (A) as they are affected by the inertia of the Mass (M) the force is affecting.
It is true for all TRUE forces. Since it is NOT true for gravity, Gravity is NOT a force. I know reading comprehension is difficult for those with IQs below 100, so you should try to read things CAREFULLY before replying to them. If you think a hammer and a feather have “similar” masses, I suggest you drop a bag of hammers on your head, and I’ll drop a bag of feathers on mine, and we’ll see who has to go to the hospital.
YOU were the one who quoted the “Do you believe in Gravity” thing, not me.
any REAL scientist could tell you that I’m correct. the “Force” of gravity is fictional. It is used to quantify the bending of spacetime near a given mass, NOT in any real sense as an actual force.
An object’s “weight” is actually a measure of it’s inertia. Because spacetime is bent “towards” the local center of mass, the object tries to stay in the same place relative to that spacetime curve in obedience to Newton’s laws of motion (Specifically “an object at rest remains at rest unless acted on by an outside force”) -however, spacetime ITSELF is moving, so to remain at rest, the mass needs to move with it, thus giving the APPEARANCE of a force.
Understand, or should I sign you
Report Post »Redwood Elf
Posted on August 2, 2012 at 1:52pm…Up for some physics courses? (Dang thing cut me off)
Given your obvious low intelligence quotient, here’s a book that might explain it simply enough for you to understand: http://www.amazon.com/Cartoon-Guide-Physics-Larry-Gonick/dp/0062731009
(Look for the bit where he explains about fictional forces (Like Centrifugal Force and Gravity)
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on August 2, 2012 at 2:52pm@REDWOOD ELF
You are right, my mistake. Gravity is not a conventional force, it’s a natural phenomenon, and your wording confused me as to which argument you were making.
To be entirely honest, your argument was misleading and nonsensical. My quote was of Tyson saying Gravity exists and your comment of “Gravity is not a force”, given the context of my post, was interpreted as “Gravity doesn’t exist” because – otherwise – why else would you write it?
I see now that you were being unnecessarily technical in describing Gravity on a thread that has literally NOTHING to do with Gravity except for the one reference I quoted where it was used by a scientific leader explaining the obviousness of Global Warming. Giving no mention to whether or not Gravity is a technical force by definition or simply a phenomenon.
Normally when people join a conversation they discuss the topic at hand, not toss out random facts aimed at confusing the point.
So you are right. Though, in the end, we are saying the same thing. I jumped to conclusions presuming you were denouncing the existence of Gravity for the sake of argument when in reality you were explaining it wasn’t force (a little obscure given I had never described it as a force prior, but that’s fine… I guess).
Anyway. The Tyson’s point remains – Global Warming is as real as Gravity – which we both agree is a real “thing”, if not a “force”.
Report Post »Redwood Elf
Posted on August 2, 2012 at 4:26pm“Global Warming” and “Global Cooling” are both real…ANTHROPROGENIC versions of either are not. Humans couldn’t warm (or cool) the planet significantly if they WANTED to, let alone by accident.
The Earth is currently cooler than it was during the Roman Empire, a mere 2000 years ago (insignificant in terms of geologic time) – Yet you and the other shamans of shame, who would like to be able to blame human activity for everything, ring the panic bells every time there’s a statistically insignificant heat wave.
Until you can grow grapes in northern England like the Romans could, we’re not even out of the medieval ice age.
Get Over it, dude. You Lose.
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on August 2, 2012 at 5:18pm@REDWOOD ELF
It’s not the temperature, it is the pace of heating “dude”.
And I’ll believe your argument when a reputable scientist says it. I trust peer reviewed material, not opinion laden nonsense posted on this partisan site.
Thanks
Report Post »Redwood Elf
Posted on August 3, 2012 at 12:05pmVoteBushIn12: Are you completely blind? Look down about 4 posts in the next thread…I posted a link to a list of HUNDREDS of reputable sources that debunk AGW, many of them by Peer Reviewed scientists.
I’m a thousand times more informed on this subject than you. You’re just displaying your ignorance (and apparent lack of reading skills…that list has been right there, only a few posts below the bottom of this thread, for more than a week)
Report Post »Redwood Elf
Posted on August 3, 2012 at 12:13pmVoteBushIn12, I‘m betting you’re one of the guys who signed this petition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw
Since you’ll obviously believe anything Envirowhackos tell you. The world has actually COOLED in the last 10 years…why do you think they AGW crowd has been trying to change the terminology from “Global warming” to “Climate Change?”
Report Post »OneTermPresident
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:52amScientist.. OK…OK…. I believe global warming is man caused.
NOAA… Alright, give the Heretic his funding back.
Report Post »Redwood Elf
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 11:41am“Half the Global Warming In America is artificial?”
This guy claims to be a scientist? “Global Warming” is GLOBAL, MORON. The temperatures in America are less than 10% of the LAND MASS of Earth. They are irrelevant to “Global Warming” – Temperatures in America could double, but if the rest of the Earth COOLED by 10%, there would be global COOLING.
These kinds of arguments are like the idiots who see every single heat wave as “proof” of Global Warming (Like there’s never been a heat wave at any time in history before.)
Report Post »Redwood Elf
Posted on August 2, 2012 at 1:02pmBy the way, Todd Schnitt has done a lot of legwork collecting links to scientific information debunking AGW, many from peer reviewed genuine scientists: http://www.schnittshow.com/pages/globalwarming.html
Report Post »mzk1
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:47amIt WAS peer-reviewed, and REJECTED. resumbitted (if I understood correctly), and now in limbo. One of the reviewers (rejected it TWICE) was so upset he broke the rules and released his rejection.
Take a look at PJMedia. Blaze, please look and update.
Report Post »MeteoricLimbo
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:46am“He’s got the Whole World in his Hands”…..
Long on brains, short on common sense.
Report Post »sawbuck
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:46amThe solar cycle peaking this year has nothing to do with the current warming trend ..?
How come the science community doesn’t rebut some of this voodoo science being spewed..?
Is it not always about the truth…?
When it come to predictions …The ‘science community ’ is no better than
some dizzy pregnant woman on the Weather Channel ..
They have lost all respect in my opinion.. We might as well shut them down like NASA. …
Nothing but agenda pushers..
They’re building their models on skewed figures and just like the faulty science
Report Post »that gave us evolution…Only people with the same agenda will follow them .
Unlike the rest of us that will never trust them again..
Kenszen
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:23pmExactly, @sawbuck. And here is the data and charts from the Petition Project for those who want to see real data: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:16pmSo funny to see how being religious suddenly makes you an expert on everything.
Report Post »flipper1073
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 2:51pmThere is way too much money to be made by Promoting
Man Made Global Warming.
For them to EVER give up the LIE.
I would use Al Gore as an example.
An Barack Obama an his Friends Selling
Energy Tax Credits (Cap & Trade) What a Scam.
Anyone want to buy some Tax Credits
I will print you up some for only $10 each
I only have 50 million left so get them
before they’re all gone.
I’ll be richer than Mitt Romney by
Report Post »Tomorrow Night !
Torey
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:40pmThank God finally someone else saying what ive been saying… Sadly tho Money > Truth so thats why we get the stupid lies
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:46pm@Moderation
Unaltered science and religion are saying the same thing… But they are speaking in different languages… Learn each language first…
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:55pm@OBAMA_SHAM
I’m sure the same thing was being said when they were persecuting Galileo
Religion refutes science that they disagree with, until it becomes overwhelming and then they just incorporate it into their “belief” and say “well since God created everything, it fits with our religion.”
I’m also certain you are suggesting that religion was saying the same thing as science, when people believed that volcanoes, earthquakes and other natural disasters occurred. You still have religious people saying that those events are coming from God.
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:33pmAnd yet Moderation, you fail to see both sides and focus with your finite tunnel vision… Suggesting that MODERATION is not your goal…
The basic fundamental of both is to continually seek the truth… Each approach the truth in their own ways… Each, at times, persecute others that don’t agree with their perspective… Moderation is in the middle, where the truth lies… A moderate individual easily identifies this truth…
But please, keep bringing up the faults of the past with both factions, it really makes your point of view informative…
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 5:38pm@MODERATIONISBEST
I was thinking the same thing.
@[Everyone Else]
Scientists don’t have time to address every noun you care to throw at them. Maybe they aren’t looking into it because it has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Maybe the fact that you THINK it’s a relevant phenomenon to warrant investigation only serves to prove how little you actually know on the topic.
Now, I’m not an Scientist, but I am an engineer so I know a little something about technical domains and I can tell you this. I have clients approach me all the time suggesting reasons why they think their computer doesn’t work. Sometimes it’s humerus the things they believe could lead to issues and, while the computer is a very complicated device, some things don’t even need ruling out. This is ESPECIALLY true if there is already an elephant in the room that seems like the most likely culprit.
So my advice to you all is to please, please, PLEASE… stop guessing what it MIGHT BE and start listening to what every expert is tell you it IS.
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:06pmOh, watch out… The computer tech err engineer err pseudo sociologist is telling everyone not to question anything… But merely accept the OPINIONS of experts as fact… As a EE myself, the basic teaching of an engineer is to question…
Sorry vote, being a tech does not make you an engineer…
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:15pm@OBAMA_SHAM
False
Religion doesn’t seek the truth. It already claims to know the truth. It then actively fights to keep the truth(that disagrees with their view point) until that truth is overwhelming.
Religion isn’t constantly testing itself to see if their claims hold up to the counter evidence.
Religion or faith isn’t falsifiable, therefore it has no claim to wanting to know the actual truth behind a certain claim.
As I said before, it‘s amazing that being religious suddenly means you’re an expert on
Biology
Chemistry
Physics
Quantam Mechanics
Weather Patterns
Morality
Biologists primarily stick to Biology. Sure they may every now and again talk about astrophysics, but they are hesitant to get into a lengthy discussion about it and will almost always say there are people who are more qualified.
Nope, not religious people. They freely talk about biology, chemistry, and all of the other many things and claim divinity behind their opinions.
Take for instance me discussing something with a religious person.
I am free to look at any book possible to try to see what might be the truth. I can then weigh the evidence objectively and then come to my conclusion.
A religious person(on most occasions) must make sure that their conclusion conforms to how they view the Bible. If it doesn’t, their conclusion is then rejected no matter how true it is.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 7:28pmWow,
So Mod & Voteinbush agree with each other.
Whooda thunk it?
Do you two realize how stupid you make each other look?
Not that you need any help or anything.
Just sayin’
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 7:53pm@VOTEINBUSH
Humerus? really? I’ve got a bone to pick with you about that statement.
It seems to me that the intelligence of the clients you attract, would be be in direct correlation with the quality of the services you furnish.
You know, like how water always seeks it’s own level? But of course you know that already, being an engineer and all.
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:27pmWow Moderation… You show your ignorance once again… Religion, all of them, seek truth in their own way, just like science… Your hatred for a belief system only proves that your appetite is not moderation, yet a single ideology… You are no better than than those on the right or the left that will not accept any other possible explanation…
In short… Tell us how really feel and stop beating around the bush… You despise those that do not believe like you, yet you try to belittle them at every convenience… All the while preaching moderation… It is amazing how your screen name and thoughts are complete opposites and yet you don’t realize how foolish you appear to those on this site that practice critical thinking…
Report Post »I am done with you… You completely bore me with your moderate talking points… Please run outside and play now with Dora and VoteBushIn… They are looking for playmates…
ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:53pm@OBAMA_SHAM
I clearly showed you how religion doesn’t seek the truth.
You then said that I showed ignorance because they all try to “seek the truth in their own way.”
What would be true about a religion that says the sun revolves around the Earth?
If religion only concerned itself with the “truth” in the morality sense, then you might have a case(even then I would argue no). They don’t do that though, they try to make claims about the natural world, and will usually reject claims of the opposite no matter the evidence. It is only until that evidence becomes overwhelming against them, that they then choose to “believe” it.
I made a claim that religion doesn’t care about actual truth. I then gave evidence and reasoning why i think that claim is valid.
You then said that religion does care about truth, just in their “own way.” You then gave no evidence as to why you think that claim is valid.
As I have said before.
Religion(at least the main ones) already claims to know the truth about everything. What is worse is that they had this truth “revealed” to them through their holy books and not through scientific study and observation. Most people will reject anything their holy book says no matter how much sense it makes or how much truth there is behind it.
In order to care about truth, you have to accept the possibility that you’re wrong. Religious people know they’re right and nothing can change that.
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 9:22pmModeration… You have not shown me anything… You lump religion together as some blind ideology while stating science is the only correct answer… In the end, giving your opinion as to why all religion is blind… Stating your opinion is not fact, just merely conjecture… Your obvious hatred for religion has blinded you to the possibility that some religious people also seek truth and accept the opinions of others…
I am not religious, but agnostic… To me, both ideologies are correct in some areas and wrong in others… Where science stops, religion offers an explanation and vice versa… A true moderate accepts both possibilities…
I feel sorry for people, just like you, that view all things with blinders on… To me, you are of the same ilk as the extremist religious factions, just on the opposite side of the spectrum…
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:07pm@OBAMA_SHAM
You still haven’t provided any evidence for you claim?
Yes, you might be right. There might be a religion out there that somewhere that accepts the opinions of others.
There you happy?
It is by far the majority of religion? No, not at all.
How can you say I‘m blinded by ideology when I clearly say that my position is that while I don’t think a God exists, I can’t prove it and I could be wrong.
I then ask religious people to make the same claim but in reverse. I ask them if they’re willing to admit that while they believe in a God, that they can’t prove it and could be wrong? What do I get? I get a, “no, I know God exists and I’m not wrong.”
Nearly all of my friends are religious. And I don’t mean religious in the sense that they believe in a God. They are Evangelical, young earth creationists. Yet I love them dearly.
All that aside, I had a friend who said that his belief in a God was both fact base and faith based.
The majority of religion doesn’t care about actual truth, especially when it comes to the natural world. It is why you will undeniably find that the majority of people who deny evolution are also deeply religious people.
Again, you haven’t given any claim as to why my evidence is insufficient. You just say I‘m blinded by ideology which clearly isn’t evidence for your claim.
Please either provide evidence for you claim or counter evidence against my claim, don’t just make random accusations
Report Post »Obama_Sham
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:38pm@Mod… Last response
“Please either provide evidence for you claim or counter evidence against my claim, don’t just make random accusations”
Please follow your own advice…
All of your posts basically said “I am right and you are wrong”… All I was trying to say was, if you are truly a moderate, you will see the possibilities in both sides… Is that so hard to understand?!? Or are you going to continue to make a fool of yourself showing your blind hatred against religion while claiming to be a moderate?!? Furthermore, how can an athiest be a moderate?!? It, of itself, is a faith based ideology…
I am sorry that you cannot see the contradiction in what you profess… Like I said before, I feel sorry for individuals like you that go through life wearing blinders always professing to be right…
Report Post »NOT A CRAZY
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:55pmVotinB…I found your use of the word, humerus, very humorous. I am not going to diss on your misuse of the word. We all make mistakes and I know my use of the English language has deteriorated over the years. However, you are interjecting yourself into debates about Earth Science and you are obviously basing your opinions off of the MSM propaganda and your Leftist viewpoints.
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 12:02am@OBAMA_SHAM
When you’re taught to question as engineer, that means conducting your own studies to either support or refute the claim in question. Questioning does not mean denouncing peer reviewed facts on the basis of convenience or political party affiliations.
You know a scientist that questioned? Richard Muller. He didn’t believe the hype, conducted his own research, and – lo and behold – he’s been converted. He questioned, he researched, he evaluated, and he arrived at a conclusion; a conclusion which is on-par with the perspective of scientists today.
Don’t just sit there asking questions and not seeking answers.
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 12:05am@THERIGHTSOFBILLY
Good work finding my typo. You are correct, I used the wrong form of the phonetic “humorous”.
However, I strongly urge you to avoid using grammatical errors when critiquing the “correctness” of someone else’s text. You wouldn’t want those comma splices discrediting your hard-earned trolling.
“It seems to me that the intelligence of the clients you attract, would be be in direct correlation with the quality of the services you furnish.”
“attract [,] would” in case you were wondering.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 12:10am@OBAMA_SHAM
Okay now I‘m wondering if you’re just a troll.
How are you intellectually able to make the claim, “Like I said before, I feel sorry for individuals like you that go through life wearing blinders always professing to be right…”
DIRECTLY after I made a post that contains me saying, “How can you say I‘m blinded by ideology when I clearly say that my position is that while I don’t think a God exists, I can’t prove it and I could be wrong.”
Honestly, please tell me this. Are you even reading what I write? Are you then taking what I write and then using it to form your counter argument? I would truly like to know this.
None of my posts have said, “I am right, you are wrong.” I have said why I think I’m right, and provided examples as to why what I’m saying could be considered right.
Things like, “Religion isn’t constantly testing itself to see if their claims hold up to the counter evidence.”
“Religion or faith isn’t falsifiable, therefore it has no claim to wanting to know the actual truth behind a certain claim.”
Your posts then contain sentences like, ” You show your ignorance once again… Religion, all of them, seek truth in their own way, just like science” and ,”The basic fundamental of both is to continually seek the truth… Each approach the truth in their own ways”
You then don’t provide any possible evidence or reasoning for you to make such a claim, you just assert that they’re the same.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 12:20am@OBAMA_SHAM
“Furthermore, how can an athiest be a moderate”
Easily, I take the weak stance of Atheism. There are strong atheists who will claim, “There is no God and I know that there is no God.“ I view that as an intellectually dishonest position and take the ”weak” stance of Atheism in that while I don’t think there is a God, and haven’t been swayed by the evidence, I can‘t prove that a God doesn’t exist.
“It, of itself, is a faith based ideology…” If you can make that statement then you don’t know what Atheism is. Atheism is a rejection of a claim. I look at the evidence provided and say that it’s not sufficient. There is nothing in my stance that is based on anything like faith or belief.
“I am sorry that you cannot see the contradiction in what you profess”
There is no contradiction in what I profess. I have made my case numerous times and have given both evidence and reasoned arguments as to the difference between science and religion in seeking the truth.
You claim that they are the same in both seeking the truth, yet haven’t given any reasoned arguments as to how you can make that claim and then expected to be taken seriously.
This is a grown up conversation here. If you’re going to make a claim, at least try to make an argument that supports your claim. In all of my posts I have given reasoned arguments as to why religion doesn’t seek the same kind of truth as science.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 12:31amHere are some things that I could use(and did use) in defense of my claim.
““I’m sure the same thing was being said when they were persecuting Galileo”
“I’m also certain you aren’t suggesting that religion was saying the same thing as science, when people believed that volcanoes, earthquakes and other natural disasters occurred. You still have religious people saying that those events are coming from God.”
“Religion isn’t constantly testing itself to see if their claims hold up to the counter evidence.”
Religion or faith isn’t falsifiable, therefore it has no claim to wanting to know the actual truth behind a certain claim.”
“What would be true about a religion that says the sun revolves around the Earth?” I will add onto this here. Would you say that a religion that believes the sun revolves around the Earth is still seeking truth?
“Religion(at least the main ones) already claims to know the truth about everything. What is worse is that they had this truth “revealed” to them through their holy books and not through scientific study and observation. Most people will reject anything their holy book says no matter how much sense it makes or how much truth there is behind it.”
“In order to care about truth, you have to accept the possibility that you’re wrong. Religious people know they’re right and nothing can change that.”
If you’re going to argue against my stance, refute these arguments and then make more
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 1:04amVotebushy
My, you really take this stuff seriously don’t you?
Did you copy and paste my whole post in to the grammar checker to find a comma error?
Even a child could have seen that my critique of your “humerus” reference was an opening for a joke about having a “bone” to pick with you.
But then, nobody ever said that liberals had a sense of humerus.
Now why don’t you wow us with some really impressive “engineer” talk to make everyone think you have status.
Here, I’ll start you off…………
Report Post »chug-a-chug-a-chug-a-chug-a-chug-a………….whooooooooooooooooooo
Therightsofbilly
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 1:07amGood work Mod,
Remember what I told you?
Pretty soon, no one will respond to you at all.
Report Post »NOT A CRAZY
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 2:43amVoteBush said:
“Good work finding my typo. You are correct, I used the wrong form of the phonetic “humorous”.”
You used the wrong word. The humerus is the long bone in the arm between the shoulder and the elbow (where the humorous -funny- bone is). That is stuff you learn in basic biology classes. Evolution is a lie and a joke and I don’t need to cite anything. Why don’t you start setting the example in the citation category. Cite something for me. I previously offered you a link that has citations galore. I know it was a waste of time. Captain’s log, stardate 9529. This is the final comment of the starship Enterprise.
Report Post »Matt
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:45amI stopped realizing and realized that the whole situation was retarded when I read the words “University of California-Berkeley”. Of course he believes in global warming, he teaches at cal berkeley. I don’t believe he ever was a skeptic, hes just trying to be controversial and make headlines in the name of forwarding their psychotic cause.
Report Post »Kenszen
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:23pmLOL, got that right, Matt.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:40pmIf liberals were smart they would say that the only reason the Koch brothers did this study is because they finally invested in green energy and see how much money can be made in it.
Report Post »watersRpeople
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:43amThe earth was created for Man inasmuch as a parent creates decorating a bedroom in blues and greens for their baby boys. A woman showed me that!
Report Post »mzk1
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:48amActually, yes. They are restful colors for the eyes.
Report Post »Torey
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:44pmIf the Earth was created for Man why were the Dinosaurs here first? now dont get me wrong i believe in god n all but seriously think about that….
Report Post »williaml
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:48pmwas the earth created for man?
Report Post »Woman was made for man and not man for the woman.
Now you can get yourself in trouble.
RebelPatriot
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:06pmTory,
Report Post »So we would have oil to fuel our automobiles.
OneTermPresident
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:40amYup.. and sometimes they slip up and the truth comes out. Wealth redistribution…
OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL: ” First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007
Report Post »watersRpeople
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:40amThe earth was created for Man, and without Man – there is no need for the earth.
Report Post »SovereignSoul
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:06pmFor whom were the other planets created?
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:55pmthis kind of scary thinking could only stem from Religion. the Earth will be here long after humans are extinct or have moved on to a more usable planet.
Report Post »swamp_donkey
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:37pmwhat?
Report Post »MildManneredProfessor
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:03pm@phillyanaltheist
What more livable planet? Yuranus?
Report Post »DOra Glasberg
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:14pmSo animals have no rights, fish, birds,?
Report Post »TruthIsBlinding
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:19pmHe said man was created for the earth. The earth does not include the other planets.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 9:08pmThe other things were created for us to wonder about and seek the Truth. Understanding the definition of Truth will lead you to the only source that could be Truth. We used to know this. Our Founding Fathers knew this. Our Founding dcouments proclaim it.
Report Post »ndmOB
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 1:38amThe next bird or fish I kill will be done in honor of Dora!
Report Post »Ghandi was a Republican
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:37amThe scientific computer model is being fed data that cannot possibly predict the actions of the sun, Tsunamis of Million megaton proportion. the shift of the Earth’s axis and gravitational gravitational compensation of the lunar cycle. To “compute” a cause with insufficient data is to respond to the wrong problem, thus ignoring and bypassing the true problem, whatever it may be. The cutting away of the rain Forests seems to be entirely ignored as of late.
Report Post »The rain Forests are immensely important to the Earth’s climate. Academics are inherently lacking in subjective thinking, heavily reliant on what is laid on the plate before them. They are repeaters of what they have learned and are told, hypothesizing for the sake of acceptance more than anything.
MCGIRV
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 2:08pmI wholeheartedly agree with what you say about the importance of all rain forests and all forests as well!
Report Post »INTHEBROTHERHOOD
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 5:29amplease……..the rain forests have nothing to do with our climate….the oceans control our climate..and the oceans are heating up…not the climate. and that is from within….the temp rise in the water has absolutely nothing to do with fossil fuel consumption or anything humans have done. the conveyer belt is slowing down and its reaking havoc everywhere. theres a fire under the pot and eventually its gonna do its job….nothing we can do to stop it….unless theres a big zipper to go around the ring, nuff said
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:34amI admit it I am the one responsible for Man Made Climate Change. It was back in 1975 I was having friends over for a Bar b Que and used to much starter. It started with me and quickly spread around the World. I’m Sorry
Report Post »Cabo King
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 2:58pmnice setter!!!!!
Report Post »bharris0
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:32amI suspect if these over educated liberals would do a study against all planets in our solar system they would find the climate changing on each and every one of them and none of the others have humans on them.
Report Post »The sun is going to enlarge to the point that it fries everything on earth so it stands to reason that it takes time for that to happen. It doesn’t require humans at all as it is the way of the universe.
phillyatheist
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:57pmyes, but what you’re talking about is billions of years away. the sun is not expanding now.
Report Post »Canada_Goose
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:29amFunny how Ms. Klimas neglects to mention that the Berkley Surface Temperature Project was funded by the Koch brothers in an effort to invalidate NOAA/NASA/ UK Met Office climate change data.
Ah the irony of all ironies, not only was the NOAA data validated, but the lead researchers have now become climate change advocates.
I can’t imagine Ms. Klimas omitting Mr. Soros’ name if he was in any way linked to this study.
Report Post »sawbuck
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:59amHey Canadian Duck …Here in the U.S.. we are sick of all corruption..
Report Post »People are sick of it and really don’t care what letter is beside their name..
We will be kicking this commie n chief to the curb along with all the corrupt
progressives D’S AND R’S …
We will be flushing very soon and take our country back..
Maybe all them turds will float north.
Therightsofbilly
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 7:55pmHey Goose,
Did you ever find any links to refute the last one I gave you about the piss poor quality of your Canadian health care system?
When our system sucks as bad as yours, who is your country going to pay to care for your citizens that it can’t handle now?
Report Post »barber2
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:29amThe sky is falling ! The sky is falling ( nice distraction but shhhhh: don’t mention that there is a Marxist/ anti-capitalist in the White House or that our economic house is in ruins ! )
Report Post »QuincySmith
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:25amAnyone claiming anthropomorphic global climate change research leads them to believe, has to be looking for it, and ignoring glaring contradictory evidence; so much so that ‘believers’ destroyed raw, unreproducible data. Professor, I challenge your conclusions and your ethics.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:34am“Anyone claiming anthropomorphic global climate change research leads them to believe, has to be looking for it, and ignoring glaring contradictory evidence”
Odds are you meant anthropogenic (influenced by humans) rather than anthropomorphic (a non-human entity taking on human-like characteristics or form). Unless you think clouds look like people due to climate change :-)
Report Post »mzk1
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:45am“A non-human entity…”
You mean Al Gore?
Report Post »QuincySmith
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:50amThank you, Locked. I’m still half asleep.
Report Post »DOra Glasberg
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:08pmWell I do have a ‘tater that looks like Haley Barbour.
Report Post »DIR
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 2:34pm@ DORA: Good one! Now back to the rubber room!
Please don’t tell us this Dora, that you have to be taken back to your rubber room. Please don’t let the door hit you in the @ss on your way back. Poor Dora! We want to help. Maybe we can send some of your liberal SEIU Union friends to the Sunny Brook Funny Farms, where you’re being held incongnito, to beat some sense into your head, much like when they tried beating sense into that back guy selling buttons and flags in St Louis. Also, maybe we can send you industrial strength gas ex tablets to help you keep all your nasty gas from fouling the invironment which is proven a direct cause of global warming, not to mention global stinking. We here just want to help because we care!
Report Post »dadadadio
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:24am‘Humans’ the cause? Guess if we get rid of humans, problem solved, planet saved. Who woulda thunk ol’ Adolph H. was ‘green’? Will Prof Muller volunteer to be the first in line to go?
Report Post »mzk1
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:50amAdolph H made abig point of his love of animals. Animal rights was even used to murder Jews (see the book “To Vanquish the Dragon”).
Report Post »DSTSS2010
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 6:04pmMao Tse Tung, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot….etc. just trying to solve that pesky human caused climate change.
Report Post »ginger100
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:22amI believe in global warming. The planet is over populated with middle class, dumb class, stingy rich people, tea partiers and old people. I’m probably leaving out a few like brain dead vegetables on life support and children born with disabilities. We must enact death panels. We must embrace communism. We must teach young people to embrace elite wealthy global warming comrades like Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, George Clooney, also uber billionaires like George Soros, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to level the playing field for themselves and reduce the planet from 7 billion down to 500 million so that the planet will begin to heal. When the project is complete the correct outcome will look similar the experiment conducted on the Titanic and endorsed by GOD .
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 2:59pmYou’ve got AGENDA 21 down pat.. ginger.. Romney will fix everything..Ever wonder why he is so successful in everything he does and how he was able to do what he did to RP delegates and how he is trying to take over the.. I believe.. Paul won Louisiana? He and the Mormons have secret powers..They really do.
Report Post »He also supported the Global Warming Fiasco..had too mo money and his name is Ro money. Here’s the secret..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DVUIolP-9s
Banter
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:22amGlobal warming is just one of the many nefarious UN projects designed to steal the wealth and sovereignty of the US. Looks like Muller has been paid with some of that stolen wealth.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 12:02pmYes .. they are using WEATHER to create a scam … WEATHER has changed since the beginning of time and NOTHING man can do will change that!
Report Post »DOra Glasberg
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:09pmGood one! Now back to the rubber room!
Report Post »flipper1073
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:52pmThe Earth’s Climate has NEVER been Stagnate.
Report Post »It goes from Ice Age to Global Warming an Back
to Ice Age.
Man has Nothing to do with it or at least very very Little.
It’s about Money an Power.
Back in the 60‘s the Russian’s/Communist’s
Said that they would take over the United States without
firing a shot using the Environmental Movement
an taking control of Education. Only took them 50 yrs.
but they’re right on Track.
phillyatheist
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:17pm“The Earth’s Climate has NEVER been Stagnate.”
speaking of the Education system…the word you’re looking for is “stagnant”. you also have a curious use of capital letters and somehow can’t seem to complete the word “and”. finally, you seem to think that stating that the Earth’s climate has always changed is some sort of revelation. go get your GED and then feel free to post some actual information.
Report Post »MildManneredProfessor
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:52pm@phillyatheist
Amazing . . . go after the writing skills of Banter when you can’t even comprehend the use of capitals in your sentences. Public education sure paid off for you philly analtheist.
Report Post »flipper1073
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:52pmPhilly
You’re right I did use the wrong tense
(water left to Stagnate will become Stagnant)
An I Use Capital Letters in the Wrong Places
(It’s My Style) An is a word it doesn’t Have to be AND.
What I Find interesting is that You take Apart My
Spelling AN Grammar.
But don’t dispute the Fact That Environmentalism
is the New Home of Communism and (happy ?)
Public Education is the Tool used to achieve that Goal.
(not something I made up David Horowitz stated it 40 yrs. ago)
I‘m Not a Scientist an I don’t Pretend to be One.
But I don‘t think the Scientist’s have ALL the Answers Either.
We Have No Idea How Much We Don’t Know !
But if You Question You just Might Learn.
If you only Parrot what You’ve been Told
You’re a Talking Bird.
Education does not always Equate to Intelligence
Report Post »Sometimes it’s just Indoctrination.
“Question with Boldness even the very existence of GOD.”
flipper1073
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 9:12pmPS PHILLY
Report Post »I Like Intelligent Discussion
What I Don’t like is Name Calling.
Individualism
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:07ami do realize it has been a very hot summer this year and folks have been getting sun burns instead of tans but it hasn’t gone on enough years in a row to say global warming.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:13amIndeed.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:35pmI don’t remember the exact stats but I think there were a lot of records that were broken this year nation wide.
Those records that were broken, were records that were set last summer.
Report Post »Torey
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 3:47pmActually moderation no, alot of the records broken this year are from the 1800s or 1900s
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:39pm@TOREY
Where do you see that at?
There were numerous posts in 2011 about record breaking heat.
http://www.livescience.com/15335-50-states-set-july-hot-weather-records.html
I think a lot of those records were broken again in this year.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/03/what-behind-record-heat/
These things are difficult to track sometimes because as it said in the Fox News poll, only 47 heat records were tied/broken in June of last year. It then goes onto say that July and August are usually the warmest months. I would have like to have seen them say how many heat records were tied/broken in July and August of last year, but they left that part out.
Here is one article that goes into detail a little more for July-August
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/2011-heat-superlatives_2011-07-15
At the bottom of the article they give a set of records broken and you would be correct that many of those records were from the 1800-1900 hundreds, but I specifically said that a lot of the 2011 records were broken again in 2012.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:52pm@TOREY
Where do you see that at?
There were numerous posts in 2011 about record breaking heat.
http://www.livescience.com/15335-50-states-set-july-hot-weather-records.html
I think a lot of those records were broken again in this year.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/03/what-behind-record-heat/
These things are difficult to track sometimes because as it said in the Fox News poll, only 47 heat records were tied/broken in June of last year. It then goes onto say that July and August are usually the warmest months. I would have like to have seen them say how many heat records were tied/broken in July and August of last year, but they left that part out.
Here is one article that goes into detail a little more for July-August
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/2011-heat-superlatives_2011-07-15
At the bottom of the article they give a set of records broken and you would be correct that many of those records were from the 1800-1900 hundreds, but I specifically said that a lot of the 2011 records were broken again in 2012
Report Post »FormerLib
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 12:47amWeather and climate are two different things.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:05am{Over the weekend, University of California-Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller, a once avid “climate skeptic,” came out in a New York Times op-ed saying that he was “converted.” But the climate science community that supports warming as man-made, instead of welcoming Muller with open arms, is criticizing him to an extent.}
Report Post »Sounds to me as though somebody held out long enough for a better financial pay off in the form of a major government grant.
ginger100
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:24amor maybe a life preserver rather than a seat in a life boat.
Report Post »Tregonsee
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:04amMulller was never a skeptic, except by the most peculiar distortions.
Report Post »Smokey_Bojangles
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:01amWhere is his financing coming from?
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:09amExactly! Methinks a certain Prof had an epiphany that there is more money in towing the “Global Warming” line.
Report Post »jmcclena
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:20amlolwut? It was from the Koch brothers. Just about as right wing as they come.
http://www.examiner.com/article/koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-and-humans-are-the-cause
You Beckbots are idiots.
Report Post »DOra Glasberg
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 1:11pmLesson #1
Report Post »The Koch Brother’s greed is destroying OUR crops and food supply.
Will some you you EVER get it?
MildManneredProfessor
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:15pm@dora
I know . . . the depletion of fertile soil, innadequate rainfall, pests, government subsidies, floods, conversion of food products to “green” fuel, etc. has nothing to do with failing agriculture! Long live Dora, Dora, Dora . . . Dora the uber-educated. The college text I use for Soil Science has a whole section on how the Koch Brothers are destroying agriculture success and causing the starvation of millions of children worldwide . . . oh wait, that is my liberal Political science book discussing the conversion of food products to green fuels in order to save the planet, while at the same time decreasing the human population on the planet.
I am sorry, I have trouble remembering which books are more accurate . . . science books or poli sci books. Dora, you are really neat. Your logic is hard to combat . . . when I grow up I want to be just like you and have a tater that looks like Hailey Barbour. I will add the tater to my collection of tootsie rolls that look like liberal trolls.
Report Post »skippy6
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 8:07pmSorry clena and dora I did my own research before Beck was even around,,,,,We have not been on this planet long enough to determine that we are the cause of weather patterns….Soros may have enough money to slip one past an Idiot though!!!!
Report Post »Rickfromillinois
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 11:01amWhy just the last 250 years? As far as climate goes that is a blink of an eye. Could it be that about 250 years ago the Earth went into a mini-ice age so once it was over naturally the average temperatures would rise? How about going back another 250 years when there were olive groves in Germany and England was a strong competitor with France for wine production. For those who don’t know, there are no olive groves in Germany today nor does England produce much if any wine because it is too cold.
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 10:59amSorry, Prof, but I don’t trust anyone from UC – Berkeley.
Oh, and please explain definitively what caused the “climate change” from when the dinosaurs were on the planet as well as what caused the Ice Age.
Report Post »woodyl1011fl
Posted on July 30, 2012 at 4:58pmUC Berkley; no truth telling ever comes out of UC Berkley. This guy is just another NYT Troll another government taxpayer supported alleged scientist living off the public. The ability of liberals to believe in their own mythological fantasies is nothing short of astounding. What a group of know-nothings is Pelosi from that school ?
Report Post »