Climate-change skeptic: ‘You should not be a skeptic.’
Richard Muller, a physics professor at Cal-Berkeley, has been a celebrated skeptic about the true extent of climate change.
Muller has questioned whether the data had been skewed by the “heat-island effect.” He has had his doubts about the so-called “hockey stick,” which shows global temperatures rising much faster since the early 19th century than at any point in the last thousand years. In the past, he has called the hockey stick “an incredible error” and “the artifact of poor mathematics.” And he has been quite harsh in his condemnation of fellow scientists involved in the s0-called ClimateGate scandal:
“I frankly as a scientist — I now have a list of people whose papers I’m won’t read anymore. You’re not allowed to do this in science. This is not up to our standards.”
So Muller, acting in the best traditions of science, decided to redo that work. He put together a top-notch team that included Saul Perlmutter, who just recently won the Nobel Prize in physics, and Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, another noted scientist who has been critical of some of the work of some of her peers. Their project — funded in part by a grant from the Charles M. Koch Foundation — just completed its two-year work.
Last week, Muller and the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature team released its findings (the results have yet to undergo peer review). As Muller described it:
Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK. This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did not seriously affect their conclusions.
As he wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
“When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.”
Here’s a chart produced by Muller’s team, documenting the findings of three other research teams as well as the BEST team. Note how closely the findings track each other.
This is how science works. It checks upon itself. And when the position that you had previously taken has been proved false, you do what Muller has done:
You change your position.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
399 comments Add your comment
md
October 24th, 2011
3:06 pm
“should we have not spent that money?”
Were we 14 trillion in the hole then??
Different times and different equation now…………..
mm
October 24th, 2011
3:06 pm
As usual, righties just want everything to stay the same.
md
October 24th, 2011
3:08 pm
“As usual, righties just want everything to stay the same.”
I’m guessing the millions of Americans that can’t afford a new car might feel that way too……
md
October 24th, 2011
3:09 pm
Mick……just throwing it out there in relation to the topic……….after all, a majority of scientists agree……….
So in this instance, it really means nothing………correct?
Hmmm………….
DawgDad
October 24th, 2011
3:09 pm
My point is the debate is POLITICAL, and the remedial actions proposed impose or extend tyranny in very costly and dangerous ways. I do not believe you or anyone promoting action on “climate change” are well-intended, politically. I believe your interests are selfish and mainly political.
My “secondary” point you are somewhat warping in translation is much of the science is funded by government and special interests with a profit or political motive. This is corrupting, and if you can’t see that you are blinded by your politics.
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
3:10 pm
Is a 1 degree rise in 1 century dramatic? Um. No. And if it were dramatic is the evidence absolutely conclusive that this 1 degree rise in temps is from man made activities? Um. Nope.
TD and Woodstock Mike–Good, factually based posts. I’ll hang around for a few minutes to see if we can get some reasonable rebuttals to the facts. So far I’m only seeing hyperbole.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:11 pm
At least 70-80% of the Earth’s warming effect comes from water vapor and clouds not CO2. CO2 traps about 10-20% of the world’s heat. Other contributors to warming include high altitude cirrus clouds and sunspots.”- Woodstock Mike
Woodstock Mike,
The solution is simple. We appoint a cloud czar to regulate clouds. As for the sun the Dems will make a law against too much solar sunspot activity and create a new govt agency to regulate both the sun and those pesky clouds.
Granny Godzilla
October 24th, 2011
3:11 pm
md
we have been unable to recreate certain techniques in mummification…
does that prove their is a god?
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
3:11 pm
Laugh off the one degree rise.
The rate of warming since the late 1970s has been about three times greater than the century-scale trend.
It is obviously accelerating. And quickly.
And more than a few of the stubborn fools deny this, as I’ve demonstrated that they have from the get go.
And somehow out of the blue, you naysayers expect it to level off or go back down?
Truly reckless in the face of overwhelming evidence…
Paul
October 24th, 2011
3:11 pm
Bruno
I saw it, thanks and thought Jay’s 2:31 (and those from others that followed) responded appropriately, so no need for me to repeat what they said.
Regarding your 2:49, I see your position as waaaay outside the mainstream of conservative Republican belief, but that’s just how I see it.
Mick
October 24th, 2011
3:11 pm
md
Actually, I’m a fan of the shroud and would like nothing more than it to be authentic. We always assume that we know it all, especially many around here…
Jay
October 24th, 2011
3:12 pm
Bruno, you have conceded that:
A. Higher C02 concentrations correlate throughout the geological record with higher temperatures.
B. Atmospheric C02 levels today are higher than they have ever been. *
Yet even though you concede that higher CO2 concentrations correlate with higher temperatures, and even though you concede that CO2 concentrations are already well above the norm and are trending much much higher, you take the no-worries-mate attitude.
Do you have children? Do you have to have grandchildren?
You also ask: “So where’s the temperature increase?”
Here it is: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
We’ve established that the CO2 levels began increasing in 1800; what have temperatures done since that date? And again, those data are not in question, as Muller has once again established.
* You claim the CO2 concentration today is 10 to 20 percent above historic norms; in reality, the natural range of the past 650,000 years has been 180-300 parts per million; we are by latest count at well above 380 ppv. So we are at 26.6 percent above the HIGHEST levels ever recorded. All of that increase has occurred since the industrial revolution, and it is projected to roughly double or even triple again by the end of the century.
mm
October 24th, 2011
3:12 pm
“I’m guessing the millions of Americans that can’t afford a new car might feel that way too……”
This narrow minded reply proves my point. Who said a new car was the only way so solve the problem?
Granny Godzilla
October 24th, 2011
3:14 pm
md
the electrification of rural America happened largely during the depression….
telephone lines too….
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:15 pm
I loves that global warming. Longer growing seasons which means fewer people around the world going hungry and less harsh winter storms. I can’t wait to have some beachfront property in a warm summer day on the Hudson Bay. Its gonna be great!!!!
Aquagirl
October 24th, 2011
3:16 pm
we have been unable to recreate certain techniques in mummification…does that prove their is a god?
Hail Osiris!
Mick
October 24th, 2011
3:16 pm
Yes, granny the wpa and the ccc helped build back this country contrary to the revisionist fdr haters…
Granny Godzilla
October 24th, 2011
3:16 pm
“I’m guessing the millions of Americans that can’t afford a new car might feel that way too……”
and when those auto’s eventually give out….there will most likely be a good selection of more efficient used cars that need good homes
godless heathen
October 24th, 2011
3:17 pm
“This narrow minded reply proves my point. Who said a new car was the only way so solve the problem?”
Just one way proposed, along with putting all the coal companies out of business as proposed by our leader, B.H. Obama.
Paul
October 24th, 2011
3:17 pm
Bruno
Clarification: I see your position that there is any temp change at all as waaay outside the conservative Republican mainstream.
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
3:19 pm
My point is the debate is POLITICAL.
Absolutely, 100%, completely and utterly wrong. And it explains perfectly why you completely disregard the facts and the science.
YOU want it to be political. Desperately.
Because you have already lost the scientific debate. Hell, you were never even in it.
And your beliefs (???) are totally irrelevant.
This is corrupting, and if you can’t see that you are blinded by your politics.
I’ll tell you what I am not blind to, is that YOU and NONE of you cons who posit this claim, have EVER produced the very first scintilla of evidence to support it.
NOTHING. EVER.
And you will not now.
You just claim it to be so, with nothing at all to substantiate it, and think that intelligent people are just going to believe you?
No sale.
Facts and science, just ain’t your bad, Dad…
md
October 24th, 2011
3:20 pm
“This narrow minded reply proves my point. Who said a new car was the only way so solve the problem?”
We are talking about conversion off fossil fuels………..and those folks don’t want to hear it…….they have no choice. So who has the narrow mind?
jm
October 24th, 2011
3:21 pm
Of note, Jay. (and all the readers)
That Koch money didn’t seem to influence the outcome.
Any more than money can significantly influence elections…..
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
3:22 pm
A. Higher C02 concentrations correlate throughout the geological record with higher temperatures.
B. Atmospheric C02 levels today are higher than they have ever been.
You forgot Part C: The current spike in CO2 has NOT been matched with a corresponding spike in temperatures. Which merely points to the difference between correlation and causation. As WM’s earlier post mentioned, CO2 is only one part of the temp regulation cycle on earth.
So we are at 26.6 percent above the HIGHEST levels ever recorded. All of that increase has occurred since the industrial revolution, and it is projected to roughly double or even triple again by the end of the century.)
Comparing peak CO2 levels is valid because we currently are in “peak conditions”. Again, the CO2 levels are “out of balance” with prior experience. What does this mean?? Unfortunately, climatology is not able to accurately tell us. So, your guess is as good as mine right now. As for end-of-the century predictions, I’m sure they will be wrong as well since innovation usually comes like a lightning bolt, changing things radically in 10-20 years time.
Welcome to the occupation (Trotsky)
October 24th, 2011
3:22 pm
The conservative position in a nutshell:
Ok, maybe there is something to global warming. But because it cannot be definitively proven that taking action in the proposed ways will not harm capitalism and/or be a win for the critics of capitalism, we must refuse to act.
Better to face ecological catastrophe than to ever let down our guard against capitalism’s critics even for one minute.
Paul
October 24th, 2011
3:22 pm
jm
“Any more than money can significantly influence elections…..”
If money doesn’t significantly influence elections, then why do candidates, corporations and PACs spend billions?
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
3:23 pm
That last should have ended with *bag, Dad.*
But not Baghdad…
md
October 24th, 2011
3:26 pm
“and when those auto’s eventually give out….there will most likely be a good selection of more efficient used cars that need good homes”
And that cycle takes how long?
As for mummification……….I think that actually helps with my overall argument………….
josef
October 24th, 2011
3:27 pm
Peer review, it’s what scholarly inquiry is all about…and challenging one’s own precepts, then acknowledging error when error is found…no embarassment and no deflating of ego or professional standing…too bad the bloggers, politicians and media can’t do the same…
Jay
October 24th, 2011
3:27 pm
You forgot Part C: The current spike in CO2 has NOT been matched with a corresponding spike in temperatures.
No, I did not forget Part C. Read my 3:12 again. The post-1800 spike in temperature — correlating with the post-1800 spike in CO2 has already been observed and is clearly underway. That was the whole point of Muller’s study.
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
3:28 pm
We’ve established that the CO2 levels began increasing in 1800; what have temperatures done since that date? And again, those data are not in question, as Muller has once again established.
Clarification: I see your position that there is any temp change at all as waaay outside the conservative Republican mainstream.
Jay and Paul–Conservatives have referred to long-term climate change from the beginning of this debate, which the link I provided confirms. You guys keep trying to restrict the debate to a much narrower time frame in which both average temperature and CO2 levels have risen in order to “prove” causation in the short run. I’m looking at the bigger picture.
you take the no-worries-mate attitude. Do you have children? Do you have to have grandchildren?
Inaccurate portrayal, Jay. No kids, but my concern for good stewardship of the planet is no less.
Matti's Southern Drawl
October 24th, 2011
3:29 pm
DawgDad: “I do not believe you or anyone promoting action on “climate change” are well-intended, politically. I believe your interests are selfish and mainly political.”
Wait… what? Are you saying it’s SELFISH and POLITICAL for us to want our children to breathe cleaner AIR? For us to promote action on climate change that leads to development of energy sources that give us CLEANER AIR and pose less risk to water and life forms on our planet than, say…. I dunno, explodinig oil rigs in the Gulf? That’s what you call SELFISH?
Geeeeebus H Cricketstix, man!
Granny Godzilla
October 24th, 2011
3:29 pm
md
that cycle takes how long?
wouldn’t you think it varies. are you in a big hurry?
As far as mummification helping your argument unless you are suggesting that Jesus or God made mummies – can’t see how it does.
Obozonomics
October 24th, 2011
3:29 pm
I so glad that we have millions of years of temperature data to back global warming , oh wait we have about 100 years, well any way Owl Gore knows and he is a climatologist, oh wait he is a lawyer, OK but he said it, it must be true. I would like one of you “global warming” enthusiast to explain why it was 20 degrees hotter when the dinosaurs where around? Please? Who was driving around in Hummers back then? By the way are these the same “scientist” that said we had an ice age coming in the 1960’s?
md
October 24th, 2011
3:30 pm
“the electrification of rural America happened largely during the depression….”
Understand………but we are now talking trillion……..with a T.
What happens if we continue to spend and the economy doesn’t bounce back?
Folks don’t want to compare the US with Greece, but that is basically what we are talking about………..the USSR didn’t think they would overspend either…………
Paul
October 24th, 2011
3:30 pm
Bruno 3:22
I’ve linked to this presentation many times here. It was a mind changer for me. I’ve not had anyone refute the data or the conclusions. You may want to jump to the part regarding changes since the Industrial Revolution, which seems germane to your post.
Some who don’t have the attention span or desire for new information can’t sit thru it all. I trust you will.
http://www.byutv.byu.edu/watch/a83c1385-eaf6-4f20-9c5a-b7460700a0da
Adam
October 24th, 2011
3:32 pm
Heck, at least Romney and Christie and Huntsman know Climate Change is real. One of them should be the nominee. I vote Huntsman, frankly.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:32 pm
Do you have children? Do you have to have grandchildren?- Jay
Jay,
I would like to ask the same question of you. Because if you do have children and grandchildren perhaps you yourself will be far more conscious of the very real and very proveable danger of our country being systematically bankrupted by this president. And unlike the global warming debate in which the causes of this 1 degree rise in temps over the last century are debateable the level of debt we are accumulating is not. It is right there staring at our children and grandchildren’s futures. Do you not care about runaway debt that is far more crushing in the immediate 50 years then global warming? From all of your blogs I don’t believe I have seen one single blog critical of Obama’s runaway spending.
Even if global warming were true in the sense that temps will rise dramatically- which they haven’t to date, then please tell me what damage specifically can be done if temps rise 10 degrees? And please don’t bring up rising oceans levels. The same scientists who did the ice core studies have also said that if temps rise 10 degrees or more that due to the lag time involved in freezing and refreezing that it would take numerous centuries if not thousands of years for ocean levels to rise to the levels they were hundreds of thousands of years ago when temps were substantially higher. Which leads me to ask why were temps so much higher than?
Granny Godzilla
October 24th, 2011
3:32 pm
md
what was the value of the debt during the depression talking current dollars?
Adam
October 24th, 2011
3:33 pm
md: The difference between US and Greece is that Greece very clearly overspent on social programs, and our clear overspenders are defense, medical, and tax cuts. Yet, for some reason, we decide to apply cuts to NONE of those.
md
October 24th, 2011
3:34 pm
“As far as mummification helping your argument unless you are suggesting that Jesus or God made mummies – can’t see how it does.”
Might be because the Shroud example was just that…..an example…….in relation to today’s topic.
Has more to do with scientist’s agreeing to understand a given point in time……..vs the whole subject.
jm
October 24th, 2011
3:34 pm
Paul 3:22 cause they’re not bright. They’re buying votes once people are already in congress (influence peddling), not trying to influence the election outcomes which is insanely difficult
They don’t care who’s in office (D or R), as long as they get what they want
Paul
October 24th, 2011
3:35 pm
Bruno
“You guys keep trying to restrict the debate to a much narrower time frame in which both average temperature and CO2 levels have risen in order to “prove” causation in the short run. I’m looking at the bigger picture.”
We have? I do? The only time I’ve mentioned time frames was in my prior post. I took issue (which is why I asked for clarification) that conservative mainstream Republican thought accepts climate change.
I believe Jay referenced the studies, which does indeed involve a shorter time frame, because this is when man’s actions had a significant, measurable impact on climate.
jm
October 24th, 2011
3:36 pm
Jay – of note. The volcanoes that created the isthmus of panama did more to change the climate than anything else in recent history. Prior to that, there wasn’t ice in the arctic.
Just a fascinating tidbit.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:36 pm
All I want to know is this. If we have been burning fossil fuels relentlessly since the dawn of the Industrial Age then how come temps have only risen 1 stinking degree in the past century? Good grief our temps here in ATL vary between near 100 degrees at the height of summer to temps in the teens in the worst of winter. A variation of 80 degrees in a mere 6 months. So how is it that 1 degree over a century or even 4 or 5 degrees over a century is so damn bad if we have 6 month fluctuations of 80 degrees? Have you people completely lost your minds?
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
3:36 pm
Bruno, two points.
I have demonstrated, with numerous links, that your assertion about Republicans generally acknowledging global warming is bogus.
Even in October 2011, there is still a majority of them who do not even admit the earth’s temperatures are rising.
And only 14% who do, say that mankind is involved anyway.
My point is that they are FAR outside of all other demographics, as well as the scientific community on this matter.
Also, you seem to avoid the point I’ve made about the chart that you have linked.
Once again, I implore you to look at that vertical line at the end of the chart.
There is NOTHING else on that graph that even comes close to it…
md
October 24th, 2011
3:37 pm
Adam……overspending is overspending………matters not what was bought.
The point is, to continue to spend banking on a rebound is not necessarily a good idea…….there are plenty of instances where the rebound never comes………and do we want to contemplate those consequences………….want to or not, it would be wise to do so………….
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
3:41 pm
All I want to know is this. If we have been burning fossil fuels relentlessly since the dawn of the Industrial Age then how come temps have only risen 1 stinking degree in the past century?
I’m going to guess that at the dawn of the Industrial revolution, this nation, in and of itself, was pumping 6,000,000,000 TONS of pollutants into the atmosphere every single year.
As we do now…
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:41 pm
Jm,
I don’t remember the exact stats but similarly the Mt. St. Helens eruption put more CO2 gasses into the air. Perhaps the Dems can regulate volcanos or at least make a law against them spewing so much CO2 gas. And we need to regulate cow flatulence too since cows fart so much emitting untold amounts of methane gas into the atmosphere.
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
3:41 pm
Oops. NOT pumping…
md
October 24th, 2011
3:41 pm
“Once again, I implore you to look at that vertical line at the end of the chart.
There is NOTHING else on that graph that even comes close to it…”
Am…….you fail to see the blue line on that same graph…….look again.
Is the ratio the same as prior periods??
If not (it isn’t)…….why not?
Adam
October 24th, 2011
3:44 pm
md: Adam……overspending is overspending………matters not what was bought.
Well that’s not true. Take the household analogy. If all you did was spend money on the laser security system, and you let your kids have just enough food to live (or maybe one of them dies, oh well, he was a freeloader anyway), you take a pay cut at your job that was supposed to be temporary for ten years, and you spent a lot more money on those pills for yourself than you could have…. well, what’s wrong with this picture?
That analogy there is more apt than the simple dollar figures. There’s more than just dollars and cents involved here.
Stevie Ray
October 24th, 2011
3:45 pm
Jay,
You seem to get a bit more emotional about this issue…hats’ off.
I remain skeptical of two things: no disputing the data post 1800 is credible. The data for the 3 million-plus years prior has very limited credibility as the long term efficacy of ice plugs and tree ring data is actuarially discounted. We simply don’t know with any high confidence that the cycles are longer or shorter that the last 200 years data may suggest.
The other problem is that we can’t make India, China or any others to accept any data findings. We also don’t know if anything we can do that is in fashion (technologically) will make one iota difference.
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
3:45 pm
BTW, just to put this denial in perspective, 6,000,000,000 tons = 12,000,000,000,000 pounds of gases!
12 trillion pounds every year.
And that is not even factoring in the unknown trillions more by the rest of the industrialized world.
So nope, nothing there to look at, is there?
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
3:45 pm
Some who don’t have the attention span or desire for new information can’t sit thru it all. I trust you will.
Paul–I’ve watched this presentation before. While well-presented, it doesn’t land a knockout blow, and doesn’t change my position.
Also, you seem to avoid the point I’ve made about the chart that you have linked.
I answered you at 2:36.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/10/24/climate-change-skeptic-you-should-not-be-a-skeptic/?cp=4#comment-762536
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:45 pm
AmVet,
Obviously we use and emit more energy and greenhouse gasses than ever before but at the same time we also have vastly cleaner emissions than we did a century or even 50 years ago. If we look at some pics of Pittsburgh, ATL, and Birmingham from the 50s and 60s compared to today the difference in the big black clouds of smog that used to hang over those cities vs today is like night and day. Personally I would still like to see it much cleaner though but that’s just me. BTW your comments today blasting us cons have been blistering but at least they’ve been quite humorous at the same time. That I can readily deal with. The tea party ostrich reference had me rolling.
Adam
October 24th, 2011
3:46 pm
Thulsa Doom: Volcanoes have more correlation with mining than other ways we pump gas into the air.
mm
October 24th, 2011
3:46 pm
“We are talking about conversion off fossil fuels………..and those folks don’t want to hear it…….they have no choice. So who has the narrow mind?”
Nobody is talking about eliminating the need for fossil fuels. The goal is to reduce dependance on it up to the point we can live off of the oil we produce. Why are you so in love with the oil companies?
TaxPayer
October 24th, 2011
3:48 pm
What topics are covered in a Republican’s faith-based science text.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:49 pm
AmVet,
The bad part is that if we completely stopped or even reduced our emissions which are probably the cleanest in the world it really doesn’t matter. China, India, and other developing nations are not going to do so. So we are all arguing a moot point. Personally I would love to see us go to the electric car powered by nuclear power and get rid of as much fossil fuel burning as possible. Not because I believe in the alarmist theory of global warming but because I love being outdoors and I frigging hate smog. The day of the electric car can’t come fast enough for me.
jm
October 24th, 2011
3:50 pm
Thulsa 3:49 – I agree with much of what you’re saying. But we don’t have a leg to stand on to try to tell them to cut their emissions if we’re not doing much to cut ours.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:51 pm
Adam,
Not sure what you mean or what your point is when you say volcanoes have more correlation with mining? Volcanic eruptions spew gasses into the air just like our own fossil fuel burning. Mining to my knowledge does not. When you mine the last thing you want is gas in the air and hence the potential for explosions.
Bruno
October 24th, 2011
3:52 pm
I’m going to guess that at the dawn of the Industrial revolution, this nation, in and of itself, was pumping 6,000,000,000 TONS of pollutants into the atmosphere every single year.
As we do now…
Last word, then gotta run. We all benefit from technology, liberals and conservatives alike, so we all share culpability equally for the resulting harm to our environment. To claim that one group is fundamentally different from the other is silly. Though we all look forward to the day when we have clean energy available, it isn’t going to happen overnight. As painful as it is for you Libs to hear, economics is going to be a consideration at each step of the way. The good news is that we’re headed in the right direction as we speak.
md
October 24th, 2011
3:54 pm
“Why are you so in love with the oil companies?”
Interesting assumption……..not close, but interesting none the less.
Merely reponding to the reality……even Van Jones, the green czar himself, will tell one the math is just not there……….
I have no problem moving into alternatives……..but not at any rate that would be counter-productive with the economy……..I can’t see how a nose-diving economy, and the millions that will suffer because of it, is a good idea……….suffer now or maybe suffer later? I choose the not now scenario…..but that’s just me.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:55 pm
Jm,
True enough. But our emission standards are already much cleaner than most nations. And if we did cut overall emissions I seriously doubt nations like China and India would follow suit. I could be mistaken but I believe they have already said so.
mm
October 24th, 2011
3:56 pm
“China, India, and other developing nations are not going to do so. So we are all arguing a moot point.”
Do we want to lead or follow?
md
October 24th, 2011
3:56 pm
Adam……do you see an agreement on the table on what will get cut??
I haven’t……..so no, spending is spending………..it’s the bottom line that currently matters……
Adam
October 24th, 2011
3:57 pm
Bruno: Economics is a consideration, yes, but not to be used as a bludgeon for any attempt to change anything. If we admit that we need to make some changes, then the question is WHAT changes, not how much they cost.
Second, one group IS fundamentally different from the other – not in culpability but in how they approach the issue. One side says we are helping to cause the problem and we should make efforts to stop that or slow it down as much as possible. The other side is saying the problem just doesn’t exist, or if it exists we can’t do anything about it and/or are not contributing.
Which side of those two do you think is taking more responsibility? The side that admits there is a problem and we should take steps to fix it, or the side that says there ISN’T any problem at all?
josef
October 24th, 2011
3:57 pm
It’s a slow news day when we have global warming as the topic…
So, early returns from Tunisia show two things…the moderate Islamacists look like a 50% share of the 80% who went to the polls. On the other hand, the secularists look like they tooj a 50% share of the 80% who went to the polls…quo vadis, Tunisia? Any thoughts…?
jm
October 24th, 2011
3:57 pm
Thulsa 3:55 – agreed. But we could tax their imports to adjust for carbon and give our producers credit for exports since they wouldn’t be paying the tax abroad. The general view is this wouldn’t violate WTO rules.
In short, we can reduce our emissions and not hurt our trade position.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:58 pm
TaxPayer
October 24th, 2011
3:48 pm
What topics are covered in a Republican’s faith-based science text.
Nice one I even laughed but its just hyperbole.
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
3:58 pm
Rock on, Doom.
My bark, as has often been noted, is worse than my bite!
And yes, thanks to the relentless efforts of primarily arch-conservatives (laughing and eye roll here), our environment has been cleaned up a great deal since the 1970s.
I cannot possibly know, with any real certainty, if the overwhelming majority of the earth’s climate-related scientists are correct about this matter or not.
But the much less than countervailing arguments are to date, so desperately weak, fragmented and discredited as to give them little, if any credence at all.
And as is always the case, the scientific method will get closer and closer to the truth…
Let’s be smart about this.
Let’s quit raping this planet all for the mighty dollar.
Most of the earth’s rainforests are already gone. Thousands and thousands of animal and plant species have suffered mass extinctions in the past century. Because of mankind.
Time to stop doing the Jethro Tull…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eoy91sYdQPE
jm
October 24th, 2011
3:59 pm
“Do we want to lead or follow?”
Hollow and pointless words coming from the unemployed 1%er…..
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
3:59 pm
But we could tax their imports to adjust for carbon and give our producers credit for exports since they wouldn’t be paying the tax abroad
Jm,
Only problem is our pols don’t have the balls for that and the blame America first crowd wouldn’t be on board with it.
TaxPayer
October 24th, 2011
3:59 pm
We might stand a chance if we start educating the Republican’s children. They’ll need lots of science and math and they’ll need someone capable of teaching them. Hmmm. Home schooling is out of the question if they need help with their studies.
Adam
October 24th, 2011
4:00 pm
md: You mean you already forgot the spending cuts only “deal”?
Come on man, a little intellectual honesty. The only cuts that have been proposed have been small potatoes and they have gone after programs that don’t even come close to being part of the big problem. People talk about “across the board” cuts, but will NOT accept cuts to things they like, such as defense and a reversal of tax cuts.
I guess the people who are against changing anything are going to have a real hard time dealing with reality if they also let the Bush tax cuts expire in their entirety.
Adam
October 24th, 2011
4:01 pm
josef: so in Tunisia, 80% went to the polls and none of them were radicals? Only half moderate, half secularists? Did I read that right?
TaxPayer
October 24th, 2011
4:01 pm
Nice one I even laughed but its just hyperbole.
If only you and other Republicans could provide verifiable evidence to support that hypothesis.
md
October 24th, 2011
4:02 pm
“Do we want to lead or follow?”
Depends on where we are going………..I prefer to follow on the road to recession…………
Paul
October 24th, 2011
4:02 pm
Bruno
I seem to recall you’ve watched parts of it?
The data presented regarding conditions 400,000 years back contrasted with time since the Industrial Revolution seemed to me pretty convincing. What about it does not persuade you?
Just go to the 24 minute 25 second point in the presentation.
For the rest of you, he has charts. And one with a line that goes way, way UP on the far right.
http://www.byutv.byu.edu/watch/a83c1385-eaf6-4f20-9c5a-b7460700a0da
josef
October 24th, 2011
4:04 pm
Adam
Pretty much so…none of the parties on the ballot with any significant showing could be classified as radicals…either of the religous or the secularists…
getalife
October 24th, 2011
4:04 pm
rove called that a huge mistake St Simons.
I agree with rove.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
4:04 pm
AmVet,
I’m actually with you on not raping the planet and like I said I have my own selfish reasons for wanting reduced emissions and a cleaner planet. I just think that economic realities clash with tha in the short termt. And to be honest the only thing that really makes my blood boil is that I would ideally like to go nuclear which is safe, clean, and used to be cheap. Go nuclear and power millions of electric cars with that power. But the liberals and the greens won’t let us have it. To be honest its as if they don’t want us to have any power other than wind and solar and that is simply not economically feasible.
Paul
October 24th, 2011
4:06 pm
Bruno
I see you’ve left the building.
When you get back, if you do a search on your name and see the 4:02, you’ll have a specific answer indicating you’ve watched the whole thing? Or at least the chart part, yes?
Something other than ‘it didn’t persuade me.” Like, perhaps, the reasons why? And what countervailing evidence does persuade you? And why Dr. Long’s data and conclusions are incorrect and the sources you accept are correct?
josef
October 24th, 2011
4:06 pm
ADAM
And, note, I said that it looks like the moderate Islamacists and secularists took a 50% share of those who went to the polls…
md
October 24th, 2011
4:07 pm
“If we admit that we need to make some changes, then the question is WHAT changes, not how much they cost.”
Wrong…….there is a balance needed for both………..
As for your last response……not sure what that means……..the point was/is, there is no agreement on how to go forward………….but while we contemplate, Rome burns…………….
Which means the bottom line hasn’t changed…….we are in deep doo doo and going no-where fast, and the misfits are stuck in the mud wrestling pit.
Stevie Ray
October 24th, 2011
4:11 pm
The sulfur injections into the sky posed my Nathan Myhrvold who among other things, studied under Stephen Hawkings and co-founded Microsoft.
…”. running a hose up to the stratosphere with balloons and using that hose to pump out enough sulfur particles to dim the sun’s heat just enough to counteract the effects of global warming. The estimated cost would be about two hundred and fifty million dollars.”
“Nathan Myhrvold suggests that volcanoes and other natural processes already pump out sulfur into the stratosphere and that his scheme, if adopted, would increase that amount by only one percent. Nathan Myhrvold therefore thinks that there would not be any unintended consequences (like starting a new ice age.)”
Problem is twofold, first the left wingers don’t want man messing with the stratosphere. Second, we are actually experiencing a cooling period since 1998 so the results may be skewed.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric
AmVet
October 24th, 2011
4:11 pm
Doom, in some ways, I’ve always been a bad liberal!
My thinking is, how the hell are we ever gonna get to Star Trek, unless we can master nuclear energy without catastrophes?!
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
4:12 pm
Pretty much so…none of the parties on the ballot with any significant showing could be classified as radicals…either of the religous or the secularists…
josef,
Hope springs eternal!
AmVet,
I’m out for a little bit but one last thing. I believe you and I talked one evening about that great national geographic special when they were doing the ice core drilling. The consensus among the scientists was that the earth is warming but they stated that in the worst case scenario that if temps rose 10 degrees by the end of the century that it would take several hundred years minimally to several thousands of years in lag time before ocean levels would rise substantially and threaten civilization. And I hate to say it but it will hard to see us not blowing ourselves to hell and back within a 1000 years. Anyway I’m out for a little while. Yall have fun.
md
October 24th, 2011
4:13 pm
“For the rest of you, he has charts. And one with a line that goes way, way UP on the far right.”
Which is essentially the same chart Bruno posted earlier absent the correlating temp info. And when put together, the ratios do not correspond with the amount of CO2……..
Big Brother
October 24th, 2011
4:13 pm
The Ten Best Things about Global Warming
1. Why pay for tattoos when melanoma’s free?
2. No more pesky weeds. In fact, no more pesky plants.
3. Nile Encephalitis: not just for Egyptians anymore.
4. Furnaces convert easily into tornado shelters.
5. Helsinki: the new Riviera.
6. Middle East oil producers feel right at home— everywhere.
7. Golfers only need a putter and a sand wedge.
8. For those who can’t get enough of global warming. One word: Venus.
9. Steaks, medium rare, on the hoof.
10. Three thongs and you’re dressed!
If you meet a women, start talking about global warming. It’s a real icebreaker.
Thulsa Doom
October 24th, 2011
4:15 pm
AmVet,
I figure if a very green country like France can get 80% of its power from nuke then why not us? Plus Chernobyl has been the world’s only serious accident. The Japan leak was negligible and that plant design was faulty from the point of conception back in the 70s. 2 U.S engineers quit over it back then. Its amazingly safe despite public anxiety that it is not. Anyway, Rock on. I’m out.
Paul
October 24th, 2011
4:15 pm
md
You didn’t even look at it, did you -
St Simons - we're on Island time
October 24th, 2011
4:16 pm
the two philosophies at war in our nation now – are We
“All in This Together” or is it
“Every Man for Himself”
This issue will give you the answer to that, and you won’t have to lie, or spin, or play verbal chess, or try to mindbleep your followers with loud talking points or cirque de soliel contortionist logic.
Stevie Ray
October 24th, 2011
4:16 pm
As for your last response……not sure what that means……..the point was/is, there is no agreement on how to go forward………….but while we contemplate, Rome burns…………….
MD:
A little dramatic don’t you think? Considering many of us can see flames…certainly from Asia. How much money and at who’s expense would you spare none of?
I’m confused
josef
October 24th, 2011
4:17 pm
Thulsa…
I’m keeping an eye on it…there is a reason for hope here, imo. It’s sort of the Turkey of the Arab world…
ZamVet
Speaking of the nuclear, did you happen to catch the one on the one of the learning channels on the “Nuclear Wolves?” Seems Mother Nature is making a point around Chernobyl…
josef
October 24th, 2011
4:21 pm
ZamVet
ooops…make that RADIOACTIVE Wolves…PBS Nature…
TaxPayer
October 24th, 2011
4:23 pm
Anthony Watts published a post today titled “The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project puts PR before peer review” and complained that BEST didn’t peer review the four papers they pre-released today. This is the same Anthony Watts who published a paper with Joe D’Aleo titled “Is The US Surface Temperature Record Reliable?” two full years before he published the associated peer reviewed paper. Oh, and the peer-reviewed paper came to the opposite conclusion of the Heartland paper.
Oops! Y’all followers of all “Watts Up” trash talk might want to lend your cohort a hand so he can try to dislodge that foot in mouth problem he’s got going over there.
TruthBe
October 24th, 2011
4:24 pm
Hocus-Pocus = Man made Climate Change. Al Gore and Co. are snake oil salesmen.
md
October 24th, 2011
4:25 pm
“You didn’t even look at it, did you -”
I looked at your chart Paul……and it is basically the same chart Bruno posted earlier…..but there was also temp data on Bruno’s chart which was absent from yours………if one looks at the Bruno chart, the ratios are not consistent with the rise of CO2…………….
Wonder why??