Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

and shows that it is man-made global climate change.
Richard Muller: I Was Wrong on Climate Change - Little Green Footballs

quote:

---

​

Richard Muller founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project after declaring himself skeptical about climate change. He was funded in part by the Koch Brothers.
He found out what other scientists have known for decades. The Earth is warming, and we’re doing it.

---

This is how you do science: if you disagree with another scientific conclusion you set out to show that it is wrong, you test the details and eliminate the possibilities and then whatever you are left with, no matter how much it goes against your initial beliefs, is what is valid -- and you report it.Enjoy.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hello Razd! Who is "we"?What is it that global warming believers want?

Haven't we been down this road before???Try Message 129 and Message 146 and Message 157HBD

To be cool.

The human race as an aggregate whole, in spite of the efforts of some to decrease it. When you drive a car or ride a bus you are contributing. There are no believers when the facts show warming -- belief is for people without evidence.What global warming scientists -- including this former denier -- want is for people to accept the science and the facts.Enjoy

We were here just a year ago. Message 29

Not concerning this particular video. Similar discussions yes, but I wasn't the one that started this thread. And a moderator promoted it. So you can only scientifically place 33 1/3% of the blame on me. My interest was slightly renewed just a week or so ago, when I saw a facebook share that made this statement;

quote:

---

To the 49 U.S. Senators that refuse to accept that human activity significantly causes climate change, SCIENCE DOESN'T GO AWAY JUST BECAUSE YOU VOTE AGAINST IT.

---

My friend who shared this is a reasonably intelligent person, but I suspect she may not be aware of the political activity that goes along with mandates to bring the earth's temperature back down to whatever reading that "science" finds acceptable. If public school children are being shown the above statement with no further explanation of the complications of how societies work, then the ignorance of the above statement could have consequences that many like myself find unacceptable.

quote:

---

The way of dealing with climate change has particular ethical issues and other issues related to the fairness of the problem.

---

Carbon emission trading - WikipediaThe way of dealing with climate change isn't automatically nuts-and-bolts science. To imply that it is is dishonest.

But the 'blame" isn't equally spread among the humans, is it? The efforts of some to decrease it seem to never be to look at themselves, but to point accusing fingers at others, and have THEM decrease it. I take it you don't drive a car or ride a bus much. What fuel is used to heat your home? Is there anything YOU can do personally to combat global warming? But the beliefs run rampant when the political left is contemplating successful ways to combat it, don't they? Then they have got a whole lot more work to do. Part way through your video above, Muller says this;

quote:

---

(About going back 260 years in time) "The uncertainties get large, but it's still usable data"

---

That's science? It is if you started with a conclusion and are trying to make it work! But that's not overly convincing to a general public that isn't yet ready to be stripped of liberty and money so the scientific community can make ethical decisions about who will produce carbon dioxide and who will not.More from the Wikipedia link;

quote:

---

Carbon emissions trading has been steadily increasing in recent years. According to the World Bank's Carbon Finance Unit, 374 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) were exchanged through projects in 2005, a 240% increase relative to 2004 (110 mtCO2e)[27] which was itself a 41% increase relative to 2003 (78 mtCO2e).[28]

---

and

quote:

---

With the creation of a market for mandatory trading of carbon dioxide emissions within the Kyoto Protocol, the London financial marketplace has established itself as the center of the carbon finance market, and is expected to have grown into a market valued at $60 billion in 2007.[33][not in citation given] The voluntary offset market, by comparison, is projected to grow to about $4bn by 2010.[34]

---

Carbon emission trading - WikipediaYou mentioned in the o/p that Muller was partially funded by the Koch Brothers. He never said that in the video, but he implied that this recent study was completely on his own and unbiased. Are we supposed to believe that without question? Maybe the Koch Brothers were outbid - Billionaire Democrat political buyers like Michael Bloomberg, Henry Paulson, and most notably Tom Steyer are starting to take a big interest in the global warming pie. Maybe they like the looks of that London Financial Marketplace, maybe Steyer thinks he could do better there than he did in the oil and coal financial business.Muller did the facepalm thing when he looked at carbon dioxide, something we all exhale. The population of the planet has more than doubled in the past 60 years. If you global warming believers want people to "accept the science and the facts", a new place to start would be to show, on graphs and charts, the warming and cooling trends that Muller claims have happened in the past 260 years, in a form that non scientists can easily understand. Then follow that up with ways to distinguish between where this carbon dioxide comes from, people exhaling, or from any number of human activities, like using fossil fuels, in certain areas during certain seasons. They need to be shown measurement methods, foolproof ones. A thing called accountability for those who claim to have all the answers to re-cool the planet.Most of all, they need to know that the Koch Brothers aren't the only ones who are big political donors. Many of us do, and that's one big reason for the frustration in Democrat political global warming advancements.

Are you capable of doing simple math? Why don't you compare the increase in technological carbon with contribution from biological carbon and tell us the result? Also tell us where carbon from respiration actually comes from?Is there any argument too stupid for you to use?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Reality accepters want to outlive the Apocalypse.

I am not a global warming advocate. I would expect YOU and your allies here to do comparisons and tell ME the result. Let's run through it again; If you still don't understand, just don't worry about it. I suspect Razd is working on some lengthy comparisons for me, and you should just try reading what we both say for comprehension for a change. Is there any condition of your drunkenness that you won't attempt to post on forums?

Yes. Using usable data is science. If usable data were ignored, you'd be right to complain and might very well claim conspiracy or cover-up. Muller started with a bias against anthropogenic global warming! And some of his funding came from folks with a similar bias. In this interview he says the Koch brothers funded 1/4 or 1/6 of it:
Video: http://youtu.be/QqPuKxXUCPY
Transcript: Climate Skeptic, Koch-Funded Scientist Richard Muller Admits Global Warming Real & Humans the Cause | Democracy Now! I didn't see the facepalm thing. Neither did I sense that he thought the CO2 in our exhalations
was an issue. The carbon we ingest and the CO2 (and methane) we expel are part of the natural carbon cycle. No one eats fossil fuels (purposely).Estimates of man's contribution to greenhouse gases BESIDES fossil fuel emissions range from about 15-30% of our total output. This includes land use and biomass burning, byproducts of agriculture (including cow farts), waste processing, etc.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html
Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia Here you are: Amid criticism, Berkeley Earth extends record, upholds findings : News blog
(That darn hockey stick again!)
There are numerous other summaries, reviews, and excerpts of his work available on the web as well.If it was dumbed-down enough that anyone could understand it despite their degree of scientific literacy, deniers would certainly label it as non-scientific propaganda (which they do in any case). We have reasonable estimates (above). They're certainly sufficient to give good evidence for anthropogenic global warming. In certain areas? Do you insist on knowing precisely how much CO2 our horses, dogs, cats, and hamsters exhale too? Will you require that fart-o-meters are installed on all people and domesticated animals? I don't believe any degree of accountability would satisfy you. It's like the creationists who demand to see the link between the link before they'll accept evolution, and when shown that link, demand to see the littler links on either side of it. It just goes on forever. It's a stalling tactic to keep their denial alive.The scientific community at large, like Muller, has only suggested ways to slow the warming: use less fossil fuels. They notion of "re-cooling" the planet is a denier meme, not a serious scientific proposal.You'll notice that I've avoided addressing any of the political and economic (or personal) issues you've raised. I don't really see any point in discussing the pros and cons of various solutions to the problem with someone who seems to deny there actually IS any problem. Any actions we might take have to be weighed against the consequences of inaction. If you believe there are no consequences due to inaction, then any action would seem inappropriate.

Let me lay out your idiocy. The net result of human respiration over a lifetime is to remove carbon from the atmosphere. All of the carbon breathed out comes from food consumed. Food comes from atmospheric carbon. But since most of us die with more carbon in our bodies than we are born with, our burial represents a net removal of carbon. You are a blooming idiot.ABE: It may not be possible to explain the science in a way that you can understand it. Your comments (here and previous) suggests that the the physical science taught in junior high school, if not earlier, did not really stick. If you are still asking, "How can there be global warming when it is cold outside" type questions, perhaps more effort should be spent on your children and grand children than on educating you.Edited by NoNukes, : Make it more elementary for marc9000.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

And here they are! But WAIT, Razd lost interest in this thread at exactly the same time as someone else with very identical views and posting style jumped right in, supporting Razd's links perfectly! It's a scientific miracle! But if it's uncertain usable data, then its testability and falsifiability fade quickly. The applications of uncertainty are obviously quite subjective in science, not surprisingly, considering most of its members very one-sided political views. And in this video, he doesn't demonize the Koch brothers like so many in the scientific community do. He also said, at about the 17:30 mark, that "science has hurt itself by exaggerating" concerning global warming. Not many numbers in this vid, but he did say that global temperatures have risen about 1 degree in the past 50 years. He himself (in the previous vid the interviewer showed him of himself) said that there were no increases in temperature in the past 10 years. 12 years, according to this column, written in 2014, a few years newer than these vids we're seeing here of Muller.5 Scientific Reasons That Global Warming Isn't Happening

quote:

---

There hasn't been any global warming since 1997: If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?"

---

So Muller, and this author, agree that there has been no global warming since the mid 1990's. It was at the 1:55 mark. Sorry you missed it. I didn't see that either, the other vid especially, shows that he targets the usual things, large cars, coal etc. but he never said anything about Gore's and Steyer's private jets. "Natural carbon cycle" v technological carbon cycles, I'm not yet seeing how the carbon dioxide measurements of each are distinguished from each other. I'm hearing that humans are causing it, but not ONLY their technology. Before NoNukes screams that I need to look around and find it myself, I have to say again that I'd expect to see it presented from global warming advocates on threads like these.I'm seeing that the claims about global warming seem to focus on only the past few centuries, not millions or billions of years that I would expect to see from evolutionists. In looking back over some past "ice age" speculation, I found this on Wikipedia

quote:

---

A 2012 investigation finds that dinosaurs released methane through digestion in a similar amount to humanity's current methane release, which "could have been a key factor" to the very warm climate 150 million years ago.[43]

---

(bolded mine) When we combine ALL this methane release, with ANY type of fuel used to keep 7 billion people warm in winter, I'm wondering just what global warming advocates want to ban to slow all this man made global warming. If all this farting and keeping ourselves warm in winter is okay with them, they're only after technology, like coal, or the wicked Koch brothers, they should make that clear, in threads like this one. The graph on that link showed carbon dioxide emissions continuing to shoot up through the mid 1990's past 2000 and beyond. Yet Muller (and other sources) say that there has been no temperature increase in that period. Must be some of that exaggeration Muller was talking about. A pretty fuzzy little chart, it would be nice to just see temperatures for the past 260 years in....25 year increments or so. That chart shows the temperature moving right on up through 2000, even though Muller and others say the increase has thus far, stopped since about 1997. From part of that link;

quote:

---

concluding that the globe has warmed around 2.5 degrees Celsius over the past 250 years (see graph at right; PDF available here). Discussing the unpublished work with typical flair in an op-ed for the New York Times, physicist and self-proclaimed skeptic-turned-believer Richard Muller said essentially all of the increase is due to humans.

---

"Due to humans" - again, no distinction between biological and technological. No distinction in measurement methods. It's not a case of "dumbing down", it's a case of showing basic numbers. If political "action" must be taken to address global warming, then targets, goals should be set, to measure the successes of the political action, and make accountable any political action taken to address global warming. Where above? Those are long links, a lot of rabbit trails. Can't you just tell me the most commonly believed percentages of biological carbon dioxide v technological carbon dioxide, and tell me how it's measured? For 2.5 degrees C over 250 years when the human population went from under 1 billion to over 7 billion, including the corresponding increase in the animal population, I don't need to know precisely, I just need to know basically how it's all measured before I surrender any of my liberties and money to claims from a special interest group. Maybe it wouldn't, but if it satisfied enough others (like the 49 Senators that I mentioned above) my opinion wouldn't matter much. The statement that I referred to above;

quote:

---

To the 49 U.S. Senators that refuse to accept that human activity significantly causes climate change, SCIENCE DOESN'T GO AWAY JUST BECAUSE YOU VOTE AGAINST IT.

---

I know is heartily agreed to by most evolutionists. They really should learn the difference between actual science and ethics. Between science and political decisions. What other purpose does addressing global warming have? (Other than the power and the money and the carbon credit trading and all of that, not a real smart idea to try to sell THOSE ideas to the general public.) If something is warm, and it's a problem, then COOLING is the only thing that could solve the problem, right? I noticed. You're using a computer, and it rode on a diesel truck at one time. You probably ate something today, and it rode on a diesel truck at one time. How guilty do you think YOU are about global warming? Some would say you are slightly guilty, others would say you're not guilty at all, the trucking company has to shoulder all the blame. There are countless other variables about who to ~licence, regulate, restrict, prohibit~ to combat global warming. They're ethics, they're political, and the scientific community can butt the hell out, unless they can show some accountability and be much more transparent about how they get their measurements. I can agree with you there, 2.5 degrees in 250 years, NOTHING since 1997. I'm not alone in deciding there is no problem.