skeptic now says global warming real

[TXgolfer]

What's a globel? And it is still noncomittal. But keep trying.

Wow, getting petty over a typo....especially after I overlooked your continued misspelling of fallacious in post 703 of the open carry thread....I might note that if you are going to post criticism of a typo you should check the spelling in your post.

Now back on topic. The globe IS getting warmer

 

[jillio]

Wow, getting petty over a typo....especially after I overlooked your continued misspelling of fallacious in post 703 of the open carry thread....I might note that if you are going to post criticism of a typo you should check the spelling in your post.

Now back on topic. The globe IS getting warmer

Thank you Mr. Spellcheck.:roll: If your globe is getting warmer you should probably move it away from the heat vent.

Now, how about committing to a postion on the cause of global warming?

 

[TXgolfer]

Thank you Mr. Spellcheck.:roll:

*shrug* Those who live in glass houses......

BTW Mr. Spellcheck caught another one

Now, how about committing to a postion on the cause of global warming?

Could be CO2 emmissions.... But I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[jillio]

*shrug* Those who live in glass houses......

BTW Mr. Spellcheck caught another one





Could be CO2 emmissions.... But I wouldn't hold my breath.

As I thought. Afraid to take a stand one way or the other.

 

[deafskeptic]

Evidence like this shouldn't be ignored or denied even if you're uncomfortable with it.

 

[deafskeptic]

I will give our skeptic in the OP's post credit for being honest enough to reverse his position which is more than I can say for most skeptics.

 

[darkdog]

I will give our skeptic in the OP's post credit for being honest enough to reverse his position which is more than I can say for most skeptics.

He wasn't a skeptic. The article got it wrong. See post #10: http://www.alldeaf.com/war-politica...now-says-global-warming-real.html#post1952856

 

[TXgolfer]

As I thought. Afraid to take a stand one way or the other.

Meh, I would rather do my part to take care of the earth and let the cards fall where they may.

 

[jillio]

Meh, I would rather do my part to take care of the earth and let the cards fall where they may.

:roll: Quite the self absorbed response.

 

[TWA]

He wasn't a skeptic. The article got it wrong. See post #10: http://www.alldeaf.com/war-politica...now-says-global-warming-real.html#post1952856

If your idea of a skeptic is someone who blatantly ignores science and the position of all his peers while trying to push fringe ideas of what might be causing temperature readings to go up all across the board, you're not going to find any professionally trained or respected scientist who holds that idea.

Muller was bankrolled by the Koch brothers. They vetted him and found him to be sympathetic to their cause. He has gone from being skeptical, or let's say "unconvinced," (okay?) to being a supporter of global warming. That IS big news.

 

[jillio]

If your idea of a skeptic is someone who blatantly ignores science and the position of all his peers while trying to push fringe ideas of what might be causing temperature readings to go up all across the board, you're not going to find any professionally trained or respected scientist who holds that idea.

Muller was bankrolled by the Koch brothers. They vetted him and found him to be sympathetic to their cause. He has gone from being skeptical, or let's say "unconvinced," (okay?) to being a supporter of global warming. That IS big news.

Doesn't the very fact of being skeptical mean being unsure of the evidence available? That would imply no definitive position either way.

Then, there are those that don't even understand the scientific evidence, but are afraid to take a position for fear of looking stupid by being unable to intelligently discuss either side, but that's another category.

 

[TWA]

It's inaccurate to say the guy used to be a skeptic. He said this in 2008:

Author and physicist Richard A. Muller chats with Grist about getting science back in the White Hous | Grist

Not exactly the words of a skeptic.

After reading that full interview, I now have to agree with you. You could have used much more convincing quotes from it though, like this one:

What we really need are policies around the world that address the problem, not feel-good measures. If [Al Gore] reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion -- which he does, but he's very effective at it -- then let him fly any plane he wants.

It's obvious that Muller believes in man-made global warming and is a proponent of reducing CO2 emissions and has been for a long time. (At this point, you're pretty much a loon in the scientific world if you believe otherwise). It appears, however, that he has a much more pragmatic stance on how to tackle the problems. Perhaps this is why he was branded as a skeptic and why the Koch brothers went to him to carry out their study? I have a feeling it's the best they could do. And that is the most important aspect of this report. It's not who carried it out; it's who funded it. The fact that Muller is not a real skeptic doesn't really change the overall importance of this report.

 

[deafskeptic]

After reading that full interview, I now have to agree with you. You could have used much more convincing quotes from it though, like this one:




It's obvious that Muller believes in man-made global warming and is a proponent of reducing CO2 emissions and has been for a long time. (At this point, you're pretty much a loon in the scientific world if you believe otherwise). It appears, however, that he has a much more pragmatic stance on how to tackle the problems. Perhaps this is why he was branded as a skeptic and why the Koch brothers went to him to carry out their study? I have a feeling it's the best they could do. And that is the most important aspect of this report. It's not who carried it out; it's who funded it. The fact that Muller is not a real skeptic doesn't really change the overall importance of this report.

I have the feeling I should have read the report.

 

[deafskeptic]

Doesn't the very fact of being skeptical mean being unsure of the evidence available? That would imply no definitive position either way.

Then, there are those that don't even understand the scientific evidence, but are afraid to take a position for fear of looking stupid by being unable to intelligently discuss either side, but that's another category.

I don't pretend to understand all the scientific evidence but when scientists across a variety of Scientific professions start agreeing on something that's related to all of their professions, it's time to pay attention.

 

[darkdog]

I have the feeling I should have read the report.

Not your fault. Blame the Associated Press for that one.

 

[TXgolfer]

As I thought. Afraid to take a stand one way or the other.

:roll: Quite the self absorbed response.

Why not focus on the subject. Your obsession with me is getting a little out of hand.

 

[darkdog]

If your idea of a skeptic is someone who blatantly ignores science and the position of all his peers while trying to push fringe ideas of what might be causing temperature readings to go up all across the board, you're not going to find any professionally trained or respected scientist who holds that idea...

A few people who would probably disagree- Michael Faraday, Alfred Wegener, Ignaz Semmelweis, to name a few. Sometimes, the most important science comes from those who are compelled to buck the status quo, go against their peers, and push "fringe" ideas. I'm not making an argument either way about today's climate skeptics, but rather pointing out that it's simply not true that accepting the mainstream position of his peers is a prerequisite for being a good scientist.

It's obvious that Muller believes in man-made global warming and is a proponent of reducing CO2 emissions and has been for a long time. (At this point, you're pretty much a loon in the scientific world if you believe otherwise). It appears, however, that he has a much more pragmatic stance on how to tackle the problems. Perhaps this is why he was branded as a skeptic and why the Koch brothers went to him to carry out their study? I have a feeling it's the best they could do. And that is the most important aspect of this report. It's not who carried it out; it's who funded it. The fact that Muller is not a real skeptic doesn't really change the overall importance of this report.

It's curious that taking a pragmatic stance would get one branded a skeptic, as if being a true Scientist (with a capital S) requires believing in the most impractical solutions of all, but you may be right.

I'm not sure what the Koch brothers' views on global warming are. I tried a quick Google search and it was drowned out by the BEST thing. However, they are libertarians and libertarianism doesn't require one to reject the idea of AGW. At least a few writers at Reason magazine believe in it. Libertarian believers would argue that the proposals from the mainstream AGW crowd, such as carbon taxes or cap and trade, would be all cost and no benefit. A solution that actually works without impoverishing us would be some combination of geoengineering and new carbonless energy technologies that can stand on their own without government subsidies.

Anyway, I'm not so sure these papers are that important. They're just another temperature record (although one that's probably valuable) and they don't say anything about the cause of global warming or how harmful or beneficial global warming is. At the same time, his coauthor isn't amused at Muller's PR antics and calls him out on "overselling" the results before the papers even go through peer review:

However, I am not so supportive of overselling the results of the papers. As I stated in my original post on this, I felt that two of the papers (AMO and surface station quality) were not yet ready for prime time.

BEST(?) PR | Climate Etc.

 

[TWA]

A few people who would probably disagree- Michael Faraday, Alfred Wegener, Ignaz Semmelweis, to name a few. Sometimes, the most important science comes from those who are compelled to buck the status quo, go against their peers, and push "fringe" ideas. I'm not making an argument either way about today's climate skeptics, but rather pointing out that it's simply not true that accepting the mainstream position of his peers is a prerequisite for being a good scientist.

I agree that some of our greatest scientists and greatest scientific discoveries have come from people who were ostracized by their peers ( Lets add Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler to your list), but science has come a long way since those days. The "scientific process" itself was still in an infant stage, and there were a lot more phonies in the field. Science is a much more self-correcting/self-regulating field these days, not beholden to the influence of church and politics, except with select topics, of which global warming is probably the main one.

It's curious that taking a pragmatic stance would get one branded a skeptic, as if being a true Scientist (with a capital S) requires believing in the most impractical solutions of all, but you may be right.

I agree, but I don't think all scientists are that impractical or political, except perhaps the loudest ones. After reading about this Muller, he seems to be able to separate the political BS from the straight science stuff. I can see how this would not make him all that popular with some of his peers.

I'm not sure what the Koch brothers' views on global warming are. I tried a quick Google search and it was drowned out by the BEST thing. However, they are libertarians and libertarianism doesn't require one to reject the idea of AGW. At least a few writers at Reason magazine believe in it. Libertarian believers would argue that the proposals from the mainstream AGW crowd, such as carbon taxes or cap and trade, would be all cost and no benefit. A solution that actually works without impoverishing us would be some combination of geoengineering and new carbonless energy technologies that can stand on their own without government subsidies.

Oh, I'm quite sure they would like nothing better than to "prove" that GB isn't real so that they can continue with their environmentally-ruinous ways. I am very wary of libertarians, because while I like that they are fairly tolerant in the social issues and fiscally sensible, they are often the worst when it comes to environmental policy. To a libertarian, the environment is always second to humanity. If it means destroying an ecosystem in order to provide jobs and profit, then so be it! What they fail to realize is that if we want to continue living on this planet any enjoy it's currently inhabitable and (mostly) beautiful state, we don't have a choice; we've got to put the environment first.

I'll check out the link you provided. Thanks.

 

[jillio]

I agree that some of our greatest scientists and greatest scientific discoveries have come from people who were ostracized by their peers ( Lets add Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler to your list), but science has come a long way since those days. The "scientific process" itself was still in an infant stage, and there were a lot more phonies in the field. Science is a much more self-correcting/self-regulating field these days, not beholden to the influence of church and politics, except with select topics, of which global warming is probably the main one.



I agree, but I don't think all scientists are that impractical or political, except perhaps the loudest ones. After reading about this Muller, he seems to be able to separate the political BS from the straight science stuff. I can see how this would not make him all that popular with some of his peers.



Oh, I'm quite sure they would like nothing better than to "prove" that GB isn't real so that they can continue with their environmentally-ruinous ways. I am very wary of libertarians, because while I like that they are fairly tolerant in the social issues and fiscally sensible, they are often the worst when it comes to environmental policy. To a libertarian, the environment is always second to humanity. If it means destroying an ecosystem in order to provide jobs and profit, then so be it! What they fail to realize is that if we want to continue living on this planet any enjoy it's currently inhabitable and (mostly) beautiful state, we don't have a choice; we've got to put the environment first.

I'll check out the link you provided. Thanks.

Galileo! NO! YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!

 

[deafskeptic]

I agree that some of our greatest scientists and greatest scientific discoveries have come from people who were ostracized by their peers ( Lets add Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler to your list), but science has come a long way since those days. The "scientific process" itself was still in an infant stage, and there were a lot more phonies in the field. Science is a much more self-correcting/self-regulating field these days, not beholden to the influence of church and politics, except with select topics, of which global warming is probably the main one.



I agree, but I don't think all scientists are that impractical or political, except perhaps the loudest ones. After reading about this Muller, he seems to be able to separate the political BS from the straight science stuff. I can see how this would not make him all that popular with some of his peers.


Oh, I'm quite sure they would like nothing better than to "prove" that GB isn't real so that they can continue with their environmentally-ruinous ways. I am very wary of libertarians, because while I like that they are fairly tolerant in the social issues and fiscally sensible, they are often the worst when it comes to environmental policy. To a libertarian, the environment is always second to humanity. If it means destroying an ecosystem in order to provide jobs and profit, then so be it! What they fail to realize is that if we want to continue living on this planet any enjoy it's currently inhabitable and (mostly) beautiful state, we don't have a choice; we've got to put the environment first.

I'll check out the link you provided. Thanks.

Let us hope that the scientists can become politics free regarding climate change and other issues that will have an effect on business as usual.