Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Point? Muller doesn't believe they did anything nefarious.
Did you even watch the lecture? At 3:00 he says their justification of "hiding the decline" as the tree rings showed that temperatures were decreasing in the 20th century and not increasing (probably due to some sort of man made pollution), replacing the tree ring data after 1950 with thermometer readings. He specifically states in the video that it "would not have survived the peer review process". He goes on to say that he "now has a list of people who's papers he won't read anymore" and.... read the caption
So then why is it warmer? What effect does man have on climate change? Why does man have to be the root cause, it could simply be a major cause.
What does carbon trading have to do with anything? It's not the only solution to a global issue. I'm guessing you are just trying to get a jab in.
Nobody really knows why it is warmer right now. We know it has been much warmer in the past, and much cooler. Humans are a blip in the geologic time scale. Within the realm of humankind, it has been much warmer and much colder. Man's primary source of fuel has always been carbon-based. Likewise, before man began controlling the ecosystem there were natural events that emitted far more carbon than we do today. Estimates of CO2 emissions associated with the great fires that burned over North America dwarf soccer moms and SUV's.
Carbon trading is important when understanding the motivation for the Warmers. We have politicians on record stating that richer countries owe it to the poorer countries as a matter of "fairness". The motivation is political.
The US uses a lot of energy. We also still produce more than we consume. We are net exporters of energy and food. It makes sense that our per capita usage is higher than net importers. We should work towards conservation and not squander valuable resources for economic reasons, not politics.
Did you even watch the lecture? At 3:00 he says their justification of "hiding the decline" as the tree rings showed that temperatures were decreasing in the 20th century and not increasing (probably due to some sort of man made pollution), replacing the tree ring data after 1950 with thermometer readings. He specifically states in the video that it "would not have survived the peer review process". He goes on to say that he "now has a list of people who's papers he won't read anymore" and.... read the caption
I believe that co2 added to the atmosphere will in time change the biosphere. Whether the effects are bad or good depends on what region of the planet. Of course the biggest issue won't be the temperature change, but the sea level rise. The problem is that the climate models are full of ****.
Illinois, which according to numerous studies will either dry up and burn up, or turn into the subtropics in less than half a century.... Here is 90 years of "global warming" for my state thus far annual trend...
This is where the models have us in a number of decades: In 18 years, my summers will be more like Arkansas, and when my grand children are old, they will be living in a East Texas-like climate. According to the models that is. Give me a freaking break.:lol:
Here is reality: No change. Actually -0.1 degree per century for summer, and for the winter +0.7F per century. I think northern Missouri is a lot warmer than that during the winter.
So, global warming better hurry up! It has only 17 years to get it right!
I've watched it many times. Again he doesn't believe they did anything nefarious. Perhaps you need to look up what nefarious means.
Perhaps you need to stop sounding like a jackass No, Muller doesn't believe that a crime was committed here if that was your point... Just admit that Muller clearly believes that their methods in producing the Hockey Stick were substandard, and below the peer review process.
But if you have a biased towards Dr Spencer, what about a physicist on par with Einstein? Is his advice worth at least listening to? Or is he on the pay roll of the big oil "denial" machine that tries to deny that the "science is settled".
I wouldn't ask Einstein about climate science either if he were still alive. It's not his field of expertise.
Freeman Dyson is barely still alive and is a physicist, not a climate scientist.
I wouldn't ask Steven Hawking about climate science either, just like I wouldn't ask him about neuroscience or Earth sciences - not his field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
And the meteorological community is evenly divided too
Well no, they aren't. I guess you don't realize you have copied and pasted something that originated from the Heartland Institute misrepresenting the AMS?
And guess what? Whether you like it or not, mankind will have dominion over the earth until we either kill ourselves off, or some super bug does it. In the meantime, we will continue to use the earth's resources fossil fuels and all....
Rural Chinese and Indians are sick of living in huts without power.... Nations who stupidly abandoned nuclear power have little choice but to use reliable fossil fuels for energy. US switch to shale gas has dropped the global rate of emissions below the 10 year average.
Prof. Muller who is a global warming believer on the East Anglia "hide the decline" and Mann's hockey stick
Are you serious?
Muller was NOT a 'global warming believer' when he did that video years ago.
Richard Muller went around dissing Mann's methodology and results (without understanding them) - until he got his own group of scientists together (BEST), did his own studies and confirmed Mann's results.
Here is what Richard Muller said after he did his own studies:
"CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause" The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic- Richard Muller
Perhaps you need to stop sounding like a jackass No, Muller doesn't believe that a crime was committed here if that was your point... Just admit that Muller clearly believes that their methods in producing the Hockey Stick were substandard, and below the peer review process.
Are you being deliberately dishonest about Muller or are you just completely ignorant about him?
I've watched it many times. Again he doesn't believe they did anything nefarious. Perhaps you need to look up what nefarious means.
It's hilarious that the poster is dragging up that old Muller video and is completely unaware of Muller's change of view on Mann's study after he did his own study with the BEST project several years later and confirmed Mann's results. And he calls YOU a 'jackass'?
I wouldn't ask Einstein about climate science either if he were still alive. It's not his field of expertise.
Freeman Dyson is barely still alive and is a physicist, not a climate scientist.
I wouldn't ask Steven Hawking about climate science either, just like I wouldn't ask him about neuroscience or Earth sciences - not his field.
Ok, fair enough, lets say that Dyson has completely no understanding of the earth's physical processes.... So apparently you would only ask a climate scientists who believes in catastrophic man made global warming? What about the other climate scientists who accept that man has a role in current warming (very few do not), but an impeding catastrophe is not in the making? Are they ALL paid for by big oil?
Btw, Muller is a physicist as well....
Quote:
Well no, they aren't. I guess you don't realize you have copied and pasted something that originated from the Heartland Institute misrepresenting the AMS?
Research conducted to date with meteorologists and other atmospheric scientists has
91 shown that they are not unanimous in their views of climate change. In a survey of earth
92 scientists, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) found that while a majority of meteorologists surveyed
93 are convinced humans have contributed to global warming (64%), this was a substantially
94 smaller majority than that found among all earth scientists (82%).
Quote:
This moderation of views would entail AMS members on both ends of the spectrum of
192 views shifting closer toward the center. However, because we expected a larger number of
193 members to have begun with views favoring human-caused global warming (prior to perceiving
194 conflict at the AMS), we also expected any moderating influence to result in members revising
195 their views of global warming downward more often than upward
And what? So should I support a carbon tax which will do absolutely nothing?
Quote:
And how does this support your views?
I stated my views
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
I believe in the general premise that adding Co2 to the atmosphere will increase global temps over time. The question is by how much and how long would it take for the "catastrophic" and "dire" predictions to come true? 100 years? 500 years?
As for the IPCC, seems to me that their confidence is ever increasing while their models are performing ever so poorly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Are you serious?
Muller was NOT a 'global warming believer' when he did that video years ago.
When he did that video 3 years ago, he was a "luke warmer". Nowhere does he refute the hockey stick, just the methodology in producing it.
Quote:
Richard Muller went around dissing Mann's methodology and results (without understanding them) - until he got his own group of scientists together (BEST), did his own studies and confirmed Mann's results.
Here is what Richard Muller said after he did his own studies:
"CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause" The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic- Richard Muller
I know the BEST study, which is why I called him a man made global warming believer. What doesn't change is the fact that he criticized Mann's methodology in his hockey stick. Nowhere does he state he doesn't believe that temperatures have not increased, but here is what he had trouble with
Quote:
My analysis is different. Berkeley Earth, a team of scientists I helped establish, found that the average land temperature had risen 1.5 degrees Celsius over the past 250 years. Solar variability didn’t match the pattern; greenhouse gases did.
As for the recent plateau, I predicted it, back in 2004. Well, not exactly. In an essay published online then at MIT Technology Review, I worried that the famous “hockey stick” graph plotted by three American climatologists in the late 1990s portrayed the global warming curve with too much certainty and inappropriate simplicity. The graph shows a long, relatively unwavering line of temperatures across the last millennium (the stick), followed by a sharp, upward turn of warming over the last century (the blade). The upward turn implied that greenhouse gases had become so dominant that future temperatures would rise well above their variability and closely track carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
I knew that wasn’t the case. The planet warmed by 0.6 degrees over the prior 50 years, but occasional, unexplained temperature fluctuations of as much as 0.3 degrees countered the rise at times and resulted in apparent pauses.
So to state that there was "nothing" to those "climategate" emails is incorrect. Even the panel that cleared Mann of any impropriety, stated that his methodology was less then stellar (regardless if they agreed with the results or not).
I will find the PDF which states so. I remember reading it a couple yeas back. I know he was exonerated, by Penn State.
Last edited by chicagogeorge; 12-07-2013 at 07:20 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, Muller doesn't believe that a crime was committed here if that was your point... Just admit that Muller clearly believes that their methods in producing the Hockey Stick were substandard, and below the peer review process.
