Climate Change Denier Changes His Mind

[Tool-Slinger]

I'm sure most of you saw this already, I thought it was pretty darn interesting and actually I think it's a good thing.

www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0730/Prominent-climate-change-denier-now-admits-he-was-wrong-video


If you've kept up with the debate on climate change, you probably know Richard Muller. He done a very good job pointing out some problems with previous studies that proved climate change was real and man made, especally in his analysis of the data sets from inaccurate weather stations. He recently completed an independent study and review of data, and he's man enough to stand up and say "I was wrong, climate change is real and made by man".

So maybe this will help get us off our butts and make some changes so my children will have a livable planet!

I've been more of a skeptic than a denier, always thinking that if man played a role in climate change it was certainly less than natural causes or earth's cycles. I'm still somewhat skeptical but it certainly seems like we're the cause, and so I suppose that means we're gonna have to be the solution!

Just as a general point, no details to agonize over:

Scientists should be biased to believe in favor of man-made global warming. There are many things to study: Co2 out put, deforestation, concrete coverage, agricultural dust, ozone depletion, automobile pollution, farm animal f@rts, and any number of a vast array of things that man may be4 doing to destroy the climate. Easy to say,"I have a theory, I need an immediate research grant, And immediately call and alert Senator Greenpants and the President of CNN for this breaking news!"

If you do not believe in man made global warming, your pretty much stuck with, "I don't know, nobody knows, could be affected somehow by man's activity or it could simply be cyclical natural forces. We do know that both conditions exist, but there is no conclusive evidence that man's activity is affecting the climate. On the other hand, we do know that cyclical events of nature affect the climate. I have therefore concluded that I am skeptical of man made global warming. I can study things if you like, but in truth I just don't know."

That is just a summary overview of my perspective of the bias involved in the situation from the scientist's position. But it gets worse. In the first case, there is a big news story and something that may require legislation to monitor or regulate. And nobody is going to be too enthused about granting money to finance "mr. i don't know, but...". So I can just see layer upon layer of bias.

That is primarily why I am a skeptic these days about man made global warming. Any past research for actual details in favor of man made global warming have ranged anywhere from inconclusive to ridiculously absurd for truth. I remain unconvinced.

[skip217]

Hi Tool Slinger-

I guess I look at things like the study that convinced Mr Muller and that eliminates your concerns for me -- because that study was funded by the Koch brothers. They've been pretty even-handed in terms of funding studies that (supposedly) are without the biases you point out, and while I don't think it's 100% true, some have even accused them of fudning the studies with a bias towards finding that global warming IS NOT real or at least not man-made (petrochemicals being their primary source of wealth).


And the past research has, imho, been like most research - -some good, some not so good. But it just seems to be pointing the same direction now, over and over again, and when i see a critic like Mr Muller (who I appluaded for pointing out the problems with innacurate weather stations in other forums where this topic has been discussed) take 3 years to look into the data and correct the errors he found, and the result is STILL that global warming is real and man made -- sheesh, that's tough to look at and not think there's somethnig real there...

[motoguy128]

Astronomers have been observing solar activity for 400 years. They have been using it to accurately predict climate change for the last 350 years. These predictions are much more accurate than any CO2 models.

Climate change occurs centuries before parallel changes in CO2 levels, not at the same time as changes in CO2 levels, and not after changes in CO2 levels. If anything, climate change is a leading indicator of changes in CO2 levels, not the other way around.

I haven't read this specifically before, but it's what I long suspected just ofrm what seems rational to me. I think climatologists are taking the "lazy approach" and linking the fact that thre is a correlation between CO2 levels and tmepratuire change and declaring that they have found "the smokig gun".

IT reminds more of the first things taught in a statistics class I took. Take most towns, and for every church, you'll have a tavern. The only correlation is with that of the population. Religion does not result in more drinking or the opposite.

[motoguy128]

The more I read, the more shocked I was to see how little clouds are understood (in terms of their formation and impact on cooling/heating).

That's good to know, but not at all suprising, that something so fundamental to the impact on surface temperatures has had little studies done on it.

[Space Racer]

Space-

I can't open the links on the computer I'm on right now (this thing is destined to be flung against a wall pretty darn soon!) but if I may, I'd like to address a couple things you point out.

First of all, regarding Antarctic and ice loss / gain -- most studies I've read conclude that there is a net loss of ice in Antarctica. There is substantial evidence that the interior of Antarctica has cooled, but the edges have warmed quite a bit. The circular winds in the region apparently prevent the warmer air from reaching the interior. These winds in turn appear to be strengthening due to the hole in the ozone layer, so it's interesting that one man-made effect is counter-acting another man-made effect!

It's also important to remember that the studies that try and predict how global warming will progress do make allowances for uneven warming and even some regions warming while others cool (while the "total" temperature continues to rise).

As for how much CO2 is produced by man versus nature, I believe the issue at hand is not "how much" but "how balanced". That is, the science shows that for the past 500,000 years, the amount of CO2 levels remained pretty constant, while in recent centuries it has risen. The idea is not that man is producing more CO2 than nature but that nature isn't absorbing the extra CO2 man produces quickly enough to offset the warming.

The cosmic rays theory was very interesting to me when I first read about it, but there have been many other studies that disprove it. The more I read, the more shocked I was to see how little clouds are understood (in terms of their formation and impact on cooling/heating). At any rate, as I understand it, the cosmic ray / cloud theory is based on the idea that the rays would give an electric charge to aerosols, which in turn would group together and make particles large enough to form droplets. But the atmosphere already has better / larger cloud condensation particles already.

Thanks again for the response and the links. I'll read them once I get home tonight!

Well, the cosmic ray thing is just anecdotal, at this point. It doesn't really prove anything one way or the other. I put it in mostly as a point of interest.

Cloud formations don't provide any extra insulation. It's the water vapor itself that does it, regardless of its posture.

Your other info sounds interesting at first glance, but I think it smacks of defensive rationalization, not scientific evidence.

A big part of the problem with the AGW concept is that the information in charts published by the IPCC scientists conflict with other long well established info, and it's only substantially advocated by those who have political reasons or economic reasons via political channels to propagate the scenario. The evidence published by the IPCC is in such direct contradiction to previous widely substantiated data that it's viewed by scientists outside the political realm as a mockery. It's so ridiculous that most scientists don't even bother to discuss it. It's a total waste of time.

And if the wrong person overhears them, there is always the chance of getting quoted and/or getting fired. So it's best to keep their mouths shut.

On the other hand, there are many scientists who continue to spout AGW concepts as though they were speaking the gospel. But look who pays these scientists. For example, a friend of mine spoke to a well-known astronomer at a big US observatory about the effects of the sun on the earth's climate, and the astronomer quickly ended the discussion with a categorical statement that the sun has absolutely nothing to do with the earth's climate! And my friend repeated his statement to me in an effort to convince me that I was mistaken. But it was obvious to me that the astronomer had no desire to discuss the facts about AGW, so he made a statement that was so blatantly ridiculous that it could only be construed as a wink to those who have an understanding of science and critical thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking). My friend was oblivious to the absurdity of such a statement. He accepted it at face value, without so much as a passing thought about the meaning or the validity.

I think this face-value acceptance of ridiculous statements from government-paid or politically motivated scientists is one of the main causes of this never-ending debate. Too many people these days make judgments based on what the "experts" say, without evaluating the merits of the information. Many of them couldn't evaluate the info if they wanted to; they were never given the training or the tools; such is the state of our educational system in America. It's a disgrace.

Another facet of this problem is a thing called the Dunning–Kruger effect, where some people with inadequate training of their critical-thinking skills think they are just as smart as intelligent people several steps up the ladder from them, and some intelligent people have a tendency to second-guess themselves:

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" (Charles Darwin)

"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision." (Bertrand Russell)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect)

As a result, such debates can go on seemingly forever.

(I'm not suggesting that you are such a person. I don't have enough information to make such a judgment.)

[Space Racer]

And the past research has, imho, been like most research - -some good, some not so good. But it just seems to be pointing the same direction now, over and over again, and when i see a critic like Mr Muller (who I appluaded for pointing out the problems with innacurate weather stations in other forums where this topic has been discussed) take 3 years to look into the data and correct the errors he found, and the result is STILL that global warming is real and man made -- sheesh, that's tough to look at and not think there's somethnig real there...

There is a tool used by political propagandists who are dead-set on changing public opinion: the simple big lie.

If you tell a small lie, it won't have much of an effect.

If you tell the truth, it's usually pretty complicated. You can't just say "Thus and such is so," and leave it at that. You have to explain yourself. And the more you explain, the less likely it is that people will follow what you mean and believe your explanation.

If you repeat the truth over and over again, it will take a lot more explaining, and some of the explanations will appear to conflict with each other, especially if straw-man arguments are used against you.

But if you repeat a lie over and over again, people will begin to take your statement as fact. And you can support it with manufactured data, so you can keep it relatively simple. All you need are some charts and someone to back you up.

So if you are going to lie, you might as well tell a big one. The bigger it is, the more effective it is. Just tell a big, simple lie, and tell it over and over again. Before you know it, it will be the "truth."

This is how propaganda is turned into a tool for politics and warfare.

Keep it simple. Tell a whopper. Tell it over and over and over. Show them the chart. Piece o' cake.

And what does that mean for truth-tellers? Your best option is to keep your mouth shut until you arrive at the point where you only have to explain yourself once. Otherwise, you'll get picked apart with straw-man arguments and called a liar!

There's always an exception to this rule. Take Ronald Reagan, for example. He knew how to tell the truth and keep it simple.

[printer2]

So how is your corn crop this year?

[Tool-Slinger]

So how is your corn crop this year?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/images/laird.gif

Prolly better than 1200 and before. Great plains lake there, material from NOAA.

[printer2]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/images/laird.gif

Prolly better than 1200 and before. Great plains lake there, material from NOAA.

Not the point. The thing is if there is something to the man made GW then it could have a drastic effect on us. I would hate to see it being proven correct, that would be rather unfortunate.

[Tool-Slinger]

Not the point. The thing is if there is something to the man made GW then it could have a drastic effect on us. I would hate to see it being proven correct, that would be rather unfortunate.

If proven correct.


I agree with that. If. And it has not. It is very worthy of study and concern, but not legislation or policy or bold claims. I would even accept majority evidence, but I do not see it.

Side note: Years ago I heard the GW claims and became concerned. It freaked me out a little, so I put on my tin-foil hat and started researching the issue with my fancy new computer running on windows '98. About that time, I don't remember exactly. I found Claims, counter-arguments, conflicting scientific data, and biased opinions. More recent investigation peeks have produced nothing better. Man made global warming does not frighten me.

The natural stuff though that I learned about during the process, that scares me.

[printer2]

If proven correct.


I agree with that. If. And it has not. It is very worthy of study and concern, but not legislation or policy or bold claims. I would even accept majority evidence, but I do not see it.

Side note: Years ago I heard the GW claims and became concerned. It freaked me out a little, so I put on my tin-foil hat and started researching the issue with my fancy new computer running on windows '98. About that time, I don't remember exactly. I found Claims, counter-arguments, conflicting scientific data, and biased opinions. More recent investigation peeks have produced nothing better. Man made global warming does not frighten me.

The natural stuff though that I learned about during the process, that scares me.

Yeah, what we could have is scary. Maybe we are just a bit lucky right now and things are relatively comfy. I did a lot of reading to answer my questions and it did open my eyes. I am concerned but not convinced though but I see no reason we can not be a little cautious.

I just wonder where is the tipping point, our society is built on greater consumption and growth. It can not go on forever the world is a finite. May not be an issue for the next 10 or 20 years but looking to the next 50 or 100 or 200 years I do not know how we can go on always using more.

[ga-hvac-tech]

There is one argument about global temps I seem to never hear the pro man-made folks address... so I will ask them to address it here:

Seems from what I read MARS temps go up and down similar to our Earth's... And IMO it does not take a rocket scientist... or for that matter even an education beyond public school... to realize what happens on Mars is TOTALLY beyond the control of mankind.

So simple logic would dictate:
1) If temps on Mars and on Earth go up and down in similar forms, and
2) If man absolutely CANNOT affect temps on Mars, then
3) It seems whatever is causing temps on both Mars AND Earth to go up and down... well it is beyond anything man could do to either damage or control temps on Earth.
Simple logic if one is willing to get off their politically driven guilt trip and think for themselves... rather than buy the lines (lies) forced on them.

Anyone in the PRO camp willing to address this?

[fxb80]

A common theme for the climate change deniers is that the earth is so vast that we can't have that much effect on it. And yeah, it certainly looks that way in the state where I live or in places like Montana.

And there's the story about how everybody on Earth could live in Texas, which sounds good until you do the math of how closely packed they would be.

But...

The surface area of Earth is 196,935,000 square miles. The current estimate of global population is 7,030,000,000. That's 0.028 square miles per person, or 17.92 acres. Of that, 70% is water, which leaves 5.4 acres of land area per person, with a small portion of that being arable land.

For perspective I consider that what I personally have and personally use or consume and all the waste I create must come from and remain in my 17.92 acres, or more accurately my 5.376 acres of land. I think of how I live and how all those folks in Africa and India and China want to live like me, at least like me and mine. And let's say they live in families of 4 to a house. So on every 20 acres of land on the entire planet there would be a house and outbuildings, a septic system, three vehicles, a big garden, and a trash dump at the least.

That doesn't sound vast to me. That sounds more like Spaceship Earth. If you think I can't make an impact on the environment or add in some measure to the average temperature or affect the atmospheric conditions in my 17.92 acres I think you don't know me very well.