Climate Change Sceptic Changes Mind

[Cassiopia]

Prof Richard Muller A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures. In a US newspaper opinion piece, Professor Muller said "Call me a converted sceptic."

Writing for the New York Times, Prof Muller, from the University of California, Berkeley, said: "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."

From BBC News, full story here.

I wonder if this will help convince other sceptics?

 

[Koldo]

From the same link you provided:

Commenting on the paper, Prof Curry said: "Their latest paper on the 250-year record concludes that the best explanation for the observed warming is greenhouse gas emissions. Their analysis is way oversimplistic and not at all convincing in my opinion."

Sceptical blogger Anthony Watts criticised elements of the team's findings, releasing details of his own analysis which claims to show that US temperature trends in recent decades show "spurious doubling".

 

[Alceste]

Prof Richard Muller A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures. In a US newspaper opinion piece, Professor Muller said "Call me a converted sceptic."

Writing for the New York Times, Prof Muller, from the University of California, Berkeley, said: "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."

From BBC News, full story here.

I wonder if this will help convince other sceptics?

From what I have seen of the anti-science mentality on RF, which includes creationism, AGW denial and various other delusions, the only qualification these types of thinkers recognize is that the opinion being expressed is the one they want to hear.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Prof Richard Muller A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures. In a US newspaper opinion piece, Professor Muller said "Call me a converted sceptic."

Writing for the New York Times, Prof Muller, from the University of California, Berkeley, said: "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."

From BBC News, full story here.

I wonder if this will help convince other sceptics?

This is the same "skeptic" who "converted" a year ago. There were stories all over the place:

Outspoken Climate Skeptic Admits He Was Wrong About Global Warming

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real

The Case Against Global Warming Skepticism: There were good reasons to doubt, until now

How many times can the same "skeptic" change his mind about AGW?

 

[Cassiopia]

This is the same "skeptic" who "converted" a year ago. There were stories all over the place:

Outspoken Climate Skeptic Admits He Was Wrong About Global Warming

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real

The Case Against Global Warming Skepticism: There were good reasons to doubt, until now

How many times can the same "skeptic" change his mind about AGW?

I suppose when a person of integrity discovers he has been wrong about something of global significance it is fitting that he should call attention to that fact. We should applaud him.

 

[Quintessence]

I care less about convincing skeptics and more about convincing those in power to actually DO something about it. We're already past some major turning points. From what I've been keeping abreast of, massive mobilization is needed NOW to thwart several degree increases in global temperature. Which will be patently disastrous for humans and nonhumans alike. But mostly just humans who tend to concentrate their large population centers along shorelines that will be underwater.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've detected a fair amount of anti-science pro-AGW attitudes too. One can see them in people like Al Gore, who criticized scientists
for not jumping on his bandwagon fast enuf. Given the premise that scientists are generally pro-science, for a very non-scientist like
Gore to take a strong position on a scientific matter with no expertise in the field strikes me as a rush to believe. Most fervent
advocates on one side or the other of AGW have no scientific basis for their belief...citing only political & scientific consensus.
I'd say GW is fully documented & rather clear, but AGW is a nascent & complex area of study, so I plead ignorance on the latter.

 

[England my lionheart]

Prof Richard Muller A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures. In a US newspaper opinion piece, Professor Muller said "Call me a converted sceptic."

Writing for the New York Times, Prof Muller, from the University of California, Berkeley, said: "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."

From BBC News, full story here.

I wonder if this will help convince other sceptics?

Personally i find it a good thing that he finally accepted what should be apparent to us all,that 7 billion people are taking a massive dump ,in more ways than one,on our little Planet either blissfully or wilfully ignorant of the impact on the future of our species,oh well.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I suppose when a person of integrity discovers he has been wrong about something of global significance it is fitting that he should call attention to that fact. We should applaud him.

The links I gave are from October of 2011. And as they and others show, people did call attention to that fact. So why does the fact that he wrote a recent op-ed mean we should see headlines from today reading "Prominent climate change denier now admits he was wrong" or "climate change study forces skeptical scientists to change minds."

I realize that news and especially online news is inevitably wrong, but all the guy did was agree with criticisms of MBH98 and MBH99's principal component analysis (a statistical technique for reducing set dimensionality, which is usually better than some others like factor analysis as far as getting different results depending on the researchers). And as at best they were flawed but the flaws didn't really matter, this hardly makes Muller a "prominent skeptic."

Even better, when he did criticize (or agree with M&M's criticisms) these studies in 2003 and 2004, he concluded (emphasis added):
Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium

and (from 2004):

"How does this bombshell affect what we think about global warming?

It certainly does not negate the threat of a long-term global temperature increase. In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick are careful to point out that it is hard to draw conclusions from these data, even with their corrections. Did medieval global warming take place? Last month the consensus was that it did not; now the correct answer is that nobody really knows. Uncovering errors in the Mann analysis doesn't settle the debate; it just reopens it. We now know less about the history of climate, and its natural fluctuations over century-scale time frames, than we thought we knew.

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick."

In his op-ed, he simply refers to "previous climate studies" without mentioning that these were by the same people, MBH, and most people who have heard of the infamous "hockey-stick" graph and the ensuing controversy don't know that the graph was the product of 2 studies.

Thus while technically accurate, it is at best misleading to say "I identified problems with previous climate studies" given that these 2 studies are almost always referred to in conjunction. Moreover, given what he actually said about the relationship between his problems with these studies and global warming, his statement that the problems "threw doubt on the very existence of global warming" means he is either being rather deceptive (or just lying) now, or was then.

Either way, that's not what I would call integrity.

 

[Alceste]

I've detected a fair amount of anti-science pro-AGW attitudes too. One can see them in people like Al Gore, who criticized scientists
for not jumping on his bandwagon fast enuf. Given the premise that scientists are generally pro-science, for a very non-scientist like
Gore to take a strong position on a scientific matter with no expertise in the field strikes me as a rush to believe. Most fervent
advocates on one side or the other of AGW have no scientific basis for their belief...citing only political & scientific consensus.
I'd say GW is fully documented & rather clear, but AGW is a nascent & complex area of study, so I plead ignorance on the latter.

It always surprises me how quickly Americans drag Al Gore into discussions of climate science. Do you guys think of him as a scientist or something? I think of him as a wealthy talking two-by-four.

 

[waitasec]

Prof Richard Muller A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures. In a US newspaper opinion piece, Professor Muller said "Call me a converted sceptic."

Writing for the New York Times, Prof Muller, from the University of California, Berkeley, said: "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."

From BBC News, full story here.

I wonder if this will help convince other sceptics?

it's too late...we are going to hell in a hand basket

 

[Revoltingest]

It always surprises me how quickly Americans drag Al Gore into discussions of climate science. Do you guys think of him as a scientist or something? I think of him as a wealthy talking two-by-four.

He did win a Nobel thingie for his global warming story. We Americans bring him up cuz
those wacky Swedes keep giving our politicians their prizes, ramping up the embarrassment.
Did you miss the beginning of my post where I offered him as an example of "anti-science"?

 

[Alceste]

He did win a Nobel thingie for his global warming story. We Americans bring him up cuz
those wacky Swedes keep giving our politicians their prizes, ramping up the embarrassment.
Did you miss the part of my post where I said he's anti-science?

Those idiots hand out Nobel prizes to idiotic American politicians like I hand out candy to trick-or-treaters. What does that have to do with science?

 

[Revoltingest]

Those idiots hand out Nobel prizes to idiotic American politicians like I hand out candy to trick-or-treaters. What does that have to do with science?

You should read more carefully.

 

[Alceste]

You should read more carefully.

Psh. You know as well as I do I only come in here when I'm drunk.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Psh. You know as well as I do I only come in here when I'm drunk.

I'd make some snide, judgmental comment right now were it not for the fact that I do the same.

 

[Alceste]

I'd make some snide, judgmental comment right now were it not for the fact that I do the same.

Cheers! :goldfish:

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Cheers! :goldfish:

I'll drink to that! (or, rather, continue drinking but at the moment mentally picturing glasses clinking)