There is broad scientific agreement global warming is happening and that humans are at least partially to blame. But there are some important scientific skeptics. Last month, in the New York Times, one of the most important of them did a public about-face. Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley, now says it’s real and humans are almost entirely to blame. Here’s his conversation with Fareed Zakaria from the latest episode of GPS.
You say in that piece that all scientists should be skeptics. And I think you’re right. I remember Niels Bohr once said that every statement should be taken by a scientist as a provisional hypothesis that has to be tested. So what made you start doubting your original skepticism? What evidence convinced you that something real was happening here?
The issues were so large that about two-and-a-half years ago, my daughter and I began a major scientific research effort in which we recruited a dozen of some of the top scientists in the world, including Saul Perlmutter, who won the Nobel Prize last year – well after he joined our team. So we felt there were questions that were valid, questions about data reliability, about data adjustment, about the choice of the stations which had been used. These demanded attention and I couldn’t get the answers. The only way to do it is to do the study ourselves.
So, after a great deal of work, largely done by Robert Roady, who I can’t compliment enough for his superb work in data analysis, which we all carefully participated in...I came to the conclusion that, yes, global warming was real. Then, over the last three to six months, Roady was able to extend the record back to 1753. We now had a really long record, beginning before the American Revolution, when Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were the ones taking the data. With this long record, we could look for the signatures of the various possible causes. We’re able to rule out solar variability, able to rule out volcanoes. They had an effect, but it was short-lived. When we tried fitting it to see whether it looked like carbon dioxide, it was right on. It was a shock to me at how well that carbon dioxide curve fit our new temperature data set.
So when you look at the historical data now, is it fair to characterize the situation thus, that ever since the Industrial Revolution, human beings have been pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and that that increase in CO2 has been having the effect that we call global warming?
That is my viewpoint on this. You can’t prove it. It’s always possible that something random is happening that just happens to match the carbon dioxide data. But [the data] leads me to conclude that essentially all of this warming over the last 250, 260 years, has been caused by greenhouse gases emitted by humans.
Now, do you also worry about the potential effects that this will have on life on Earth? Because a lot of people talk about global warming and then they say, if it gets to a certain point, the higher end of the U.N. estimates, you could have very significant coastal flooding. You could have unintended consequences, the sort of follow-on effects that could be even more damaging to life on Earth.
Well, I am deeply worried about it. [With] the coastal flooding, the U.N. estimate is something like between two and three feet. That’s not huge. But I am concerned. I think rising temperatures soon will be in a realm that’s higher than we, Homo sapiens, have ever experienced. I don’t personally believe that’s good for our civilization. I think we really do need to do something about it.
When you look at the issue of what to do about it, there are people who say, look, the only thing we can do is what’s called adaptation. We should rotate crops. We should build dikes. We should do those kinds of things. And then there are people who say, no, the problem is so serious, you have to actually get at the root cause and slow down the emission of CO2.
I believe in the latter. [W]e’re a very adaptable species. But adaptation is always disruptive and it hurts…The biggest thing we have to do, we have to recognize that the reason that carbon dioxide is shooting up is not because of the United States. Ours has actually been going down over the last few years, as we switch from coal to natural gas. Natural gas emits only one third the carbon dioxide that coal does. If we are going to do something about this, there are two things we have to do. One is energy conservation and efficiency. That’s really important. A huge amount we can do there. Number two is we’ve got to switch the world – China, India and particularly the developing world – away from coal and onto natural gas. Now, that’s a solution that a lot of my environmentalist friends don’t like, because they’ve decided they have to oppose hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking. But, in fact, that is one of the two biggest things we could do – energy conservation and a switch to natural gas from coal.
Some of your funding came from the Koch brothers, who are famously anti-global warming or believe that it isn’t happening. How did that play out? Were they disappointed by the results of your research? Have they asked for their money back?
I actually find it amusing how many people think they know what the Koch brothers are thinking. It’s a caricature…I did speak with them, and they made it clear to me, from the very beginning, that they recognized that there were serious issues raised about prior estimates of global warming, everything from urban heat islands to data selection bias to other things. And they knew that I wanted to look into that, that our team would do a good, unbiased job. And all they were asking for was scientific objectivity. So I was very pleased with their funding. I really sensed they wanted to have this problem solved and they never gave me any suggestion, any hint of a suggestion about which side they were hoping we would come out on.
And you haven’t heard from them since you’ve gone public on these issues?
Oh, I actually have talked to them. And they appear to be very pleased.
Richard Muller’s new book is ‘Energy for Future Presidents.’ You can download the full version of this episode of Global Public Square on iTunes here.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
On your episode " How a Global Warming Skeptic changed his mind" I was impressed with the intervue until we got to the point of bringing out the fact that the koch brothers funded the research. You were quick to point out that there was no influence or pressure placed by the koch brothers and once we were convinced of that – the researcher went on to say that coal burning should be banned in lieu of using fracking – which in many ways is more damaging than burning coal. Also a process that the Kocj\h brothers have an interest in. Nothing was said about the damages caused by the burning of fossil fuels or any other corrective measures that should be taken. This episode – in my mind – was purely to brainwash us into believing that fracking is our only option to getting away from global warming. I have lost all respect for your show's objectivity and its ability to present an unbiased argument for critical issues that have such devastating impacts on all our lives and the lives of future generations. You should be ashamed of yourselves and I promise I will no longer be watching your show.
Ernie Kaminaris
brainwash?
fz is on tv.
I assume you walk or ride a bike to work. I have not met a person yet, who opposes fossil fuels, that has quit using them. Talk about hypocrisy. Now if you do abstain from using gasoline, I applaud you and please preach on about your cause. I may not agree, but i would admire your sincerity. If you continue to use that which you abhor, you only condemn your own lifestyle and dilute your message.
I want to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use. I moved closer to where I work and I almost always walk to stores unless what I am getting is too heavy or there is serious time pressure. I only fly once a year to a meeting I have to go to for my job. I keep the temperature in my apartment set to 83^F in summer and 60^F in winter. I cannot bike to work because there is no safe route for a bike without riding on sidewalks (not a bike-friendly town), but I worked on my computer at home during writing projects until I had to come to work daily to take care of the laboratory animals. I eat less than half the meat that most people I know do, and I usually eat the parts most people do not (dark meat chicken, minced fish, beef organ meat).
So, I guess I am a hypocrite because I still use fossil fuels because we all know the argument from 100% is not a fallacy (like raise taxes to 100%, cut military 100%, outlaw the manufacture and use of sulfuric acid 100%, etc.).
Your reply is too ignorant to respond to. It should not be made relevant by a factual or logical response.
"I have not met a person yet, who opposes fossil fuels, that has quit using them."
This statement is absurd. People use them because that's the only option they have. I have to feed my family. The only way I can do that is drive a car that uses fossil fuel, to work. Half of the voters align themselves with conservatives and these people constantly preach to "let the free market handle it". Sounds fine but the "free market" will keep us on this course even if its a train wreck for our country so long as another buck can be made from the situation. This is where free market ism fails.... it cannot be called upon to solve long term problems in a timely manner.
If I could purchase an affordable all electric car and if there were as many fast charging stations as there are gasoline pumps, then I would purchase one. But they are more expensive than gas driven cars and I don't have the money. Also the issue of charging stations fits the "chicken or the egg" scenario. Companies won't invest in charging stations until there are enough electric cars out there to make a profit but people won't buy the cars if you can only go 20 miles from your home. See the issue? Only government can solve this one.
Woodennkl – that is the only answer you can come up with? Really? So following your logic, that computer you are using made in China means that you support all US manufacturing be moved to China. Those credits and deductions you take on your taxes mean you are for continuing to blow up the defecit. And every time you buy coke you are voting for more tax give aways to the sugar corportations and are pro childhood diabetis. Think about a talking point from an industry or their paid talking heads before you repeat it. It will usually boomarang on you and your hypocrisy.
The average European uses about one third of the energy that the average American does. So it can be done without great sacrifice. But it's hard to do it alone. Hard to ride a bicycle to work when there are no safe bicycle paths.
Factchecker indeed – lies based on nothing real.
Once again, the numbers tell a different story. Everybody knows that the United States’ oil use per capita is high. But if you measure it as a function of economic production (in other words, if you put the input in relation to the output), energy consumption remains within European norms — and indeed lower than in Portugal, Greece, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Iceland.
http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=8176
'Tom', in reply to 'Woodennnkl', offers:
"Companies won't invest in charging stations until there are enough electric cars out there to make a profit but people won't buy the cars if you can only go 20 miles from your home. See the issue? Only government can solve this one."
Actually, only an informed society, possessing knowledge of the available facts about the near-future conditions that we shall face, can force their various governments to act.
However, due our collective infection by the madness of greed, its is highly probable that NOTHING shall be done with sufficient determination as to bring about a possible reprieve of the multiple crises that we shall soon face.
Those crises shall be exacerbated by 'Peak Oil' . . . . and the wars we shall wage and the oil and other fossil fuels that we shall wilfully misuse . . . in order that such as Vice-President Dick Cheney's claim that "Ámerica's lifestyle is non-negotiable" be upheld . . . whatever the costs and consequences to all others.
Daniel J. Lavigne
http://www.StopYourEngines.com
BTW: I long ago (2007) sold my vehicle and have never purchased another, choosing to depend on public transit or 'walking'.
Folks, the threat is real and our offspring face disaster.
Knowing such to be true, what are we to do?
Change our ways . . .?
Or ignore the reality as we pursue our purported need of "MORE!"; as in " I want MORE right NOW!" ?
Please note that replies to the above web-site shall not be available to me for a few more weeks.
Natural gas usage emits less carbon than coal usage, hands down. Don't let fracking paranoia blind you to this obvious fact.
im still skeptic 50 yrs ago scientists also thought butter was healthy and rich in calcium.
"im still skeptic 50 yrs ago scientists also thought butter was healthy and rich in calcium"
Butter is healthy! at least healthier than Margarine.
Butter is still healthy and still contains calcium. It should however be eaten in moderation, like everything else, including water and oxygen.
Whether this is a natural and cyclical event (I think so) or if man is the root cause, Mother Nature will prevail and fix the problem. It is to big for Mankind to manage. Get over it, it is what it is!
Yes, Mother Nature will prevail, but that doesn't mean that it will be kind to mankind. Flooding the landmasses or raising the temperature of the planet may be natural consequences of humans altering the CO2 levels. The Earth has a number of "feedback" systems, but a comfortable climate for humans may not be the settling-point for these processes. There have been a number of cataclysmic events in Earth's history that have yielded the ice ages and other long-term inhospitable climates.
The only constant is change.
I saw an interview with T. Boone Pickens that contradicts the assumption that the Koch Brothers influenced this study. The study essentially concludes that we should switch our fossil fuels to natural gas. Pickens is a huge proponent of the economic and natural security aspects of this strategy, and also urges the switch. When asked why he thought the government has not already done this, his response was that the Koch Brothers oppose the switch to natural gas because it would drive the price of fertilizers up, and they use fertilizers in their farming interests. Pickens probably knows a lot about the reasons for opposition to his strategy.
are the koch bros involved in natural gas?
Haven't you smelled what comes from their @rse?
My guess on the Koch Bros is that they're smart businessmen and want to know if man caused global warming is true or not. Either way, they and all of us can make business decision using more accurate data.
I'm not buying that any "smart businessperson" gives a rats behind whether global climate change is caused by man or not! Did you not see, "The Smartest Boys in the Room" when Enron traders celebrated catastrophic wildfires in California, yelling "burn baby burn"? All they cared about was the price of electricity soaring in California and all "smart businessmen" like Pickens and the Kochs care about is how they will make a buck off destroy the planet. It's a fundamental flaw of capitalism. Read "The tragedy of the commons". Game over, folks.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full
the crook bros like t bone pickens are crooks out to serve themselves and their parasite ilk.
While it's great that this guy reversed his opinion, his arrogance delayed this by years.
There is nothing arrogant about double-checking data analysis. There were many reasonable questions that were crying out for answers.
dollars into his bank account helped.
Ernie – Good for you for speaking your mind. But obviously there was no brainwashing here. It's simply an interview, from which you can take or leave whatever information you desire. I would caution you not to be so quick to judge Fareed or Richard Muller.
I for one am of the opinion that the Koch brothers will support whatever cause will further their wealth. They will of course protect their current interests. But many investors have conflicting investment strategies – it's called "diversifying". And that is by no means a declaration of my support for the Koch brothers. If any of the reports that I have read/seen on them are true, I am disgusted by much of their goings-on.
Can you, are you able to provide examples of what you are so "discusted" about?
Richard Muller cited facts that changed his mind that have been around for a long time. I think the Koch brothers finally saw the writing on the wall. The campaign to make it appear that there was legitmate alternative narrative to global warming was fake from the beginning, driven by profit needs of energy companies. Unfortunately, part of the campaign was to turn into a political issue, because at that point alot of people turn off their minds and you don't need facts to support your position. So if anti-environment is what a good conservative is suppossed to be, that good enough for most folks. It's no longer enough for the Koch brothers to let their paid stooge backtrack. They need to sound the alarm and remove this as a partisan issue. We all live on the same planet.
Skeptics particularly in the Republican Party abound on this issue.
They opposed the Kyoto accords. They had a really wonderful time making fun of Vice President Gore. Like every Obama proposal, they opposed the cap for trade idea. The oil industry could do no wrong in their opinion even after the BP spill. They take the position that only after we see the results of Global Warming in a dramatic fashion will they believe it is real. Of course it would not matter to them that the impact would be possibly irreversible by then. And some of them would still cling to the claim that the Sun is warming or other natural phenomenon.
For those skeptics I ask the following:
Why would God who created this wonderful planet, destroy it by allowing the sun to heat up?
Do you understand if you are saying man did not cause this that you are really blaming the God who creaed this world for Global Warming. Apparently you believe that God who said that "it is good" has changed his mind.
Secondly does it really make any difference whether Global Warming is real or not. Since the resources of this planet are limited it would make sense for man to learn to squeeze every mile out of every gallon of gas (not with Hummers), squeeze every watt of energy out of coal and switch to natural gas which is much more environmental friendly. It would make sense for man to learn to CONSERVE. So the question of Global Warming or climate change would become mute if we did make a concerted effort to get the most out of all our enegy sources and reduced the impact on our world.
Finally, I would point to the book of Eziekel and the book of Revelation. In Eziekel 100 pound hail stones come down. In Revelations the Oceans die. The bible says that all the islands will be gone. All of these could be the results of Global Warming in the future. We have all assumed that REVELATION SHOWED God's judgment on man. But I submit that it is really Mans judgement on Man for destroying the beautiful planet that God provided us.
As for the Republicans and some democrats who continue to convince the masses that there is not such thing as Global Warming caused by man, you are doing a severe disservice to our world. Thanks!
No-one has really told me what is bad about global warming. The worlds weather has been in constant change, we live on land that used to be covered by the oceans and glaciers have been receding for millions of years. It is different some folks might have to move fromt he beach, but please tell me what is so bad about it?
The issue I have is politicizing it. Why to we use the enviroment to justify taxes, penalties and the general me vs. you scenario. I will do all I can do to preserve the planet, I backpack, climb mountains and enjoy the outdoors probably far more than the typical city bound global warming fanatic, but I've yet to see what's bad about the warming of the atomsphere. I gaurantee you that there is a farmer is Iceland that's rooting for it. He can plant more acres. There are advancing glaciers and there are more polar bears than there have ever been (google both of these for some quick facts), so please quit the doom and gloom stories of the impact of global warming.
"some folk", really?? let me guess you don't live by the coast. About 150 million people would be displaced by a 1m rise in sea level, but then it doesn't affect you so we should just not care. Along with the millions of refugees, weather becomes a lot more extreme the worse global warming becomes, its not quite as simple as everywhere gets a little warmer, think more super hurricanes and other extreme weather patterns.
I suggest you either listen to the scientists or do a little research of your own.
I want to take your questions seriously and I think it's a good one–"What's so bad about the warming of the atmosphere." As long as you google information about polar bears you might want to google this questions as well. By the way, I did google your assertion about polar bear numbers increasing. Not so unless you are cherry picking data from the one sub-population that is increasing: According to a 2009 report by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, of the 19 recognised subpopulations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 1 is increasing, 3 are stable and 7 don’t have enough data to draw any conclusions.
There are many reasons why the warming of the atmosphere is problematic for humans. Humans aren't the only organisms that are adapting to a warmer planet. The range of malarial mosquitoes is expanding into areas that have otherwise never seen malaria. Bugs and pests aren't dying off in regions that used to see deep freezes in the winter. I know, big deal, right. The food you eat will require more and more pesticides to fend off the bugs, providing it's able to grow at all from drought conditions.
you're such a troll. Can't believe people are falling for it!
You stole the comment from:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/summersville-wv/TLB1DT0ER5S7OJE5C/p2
I beg to differ. I did not steal this comment from another website. They took it from me. I am the sole author of the comment.
I checked the site and I noticed that they posted last week.
Hmmm....
Go back to that site and you will see that it says "yesterday" meaning 8/7/2012 Some how you misread.
liar and cheat = muslim
Actually, when Gore gave his presentation many years ago the CO2 was almost a perfect fit for future tempurature changes so what is different then all the data that has already been published showing the link. This is old news. Next he will say the water tempurature is rising...duh, we already know that, then he'll say the Co2 level is higher than it has been for 100,000's of years...duh, we already know this. Ocean water levels are rising...duh low lying Pacific islanders have been saying that for over a decade, so what is new? Did he just wake up after a 20 year nap?
So Terry Brookman, let me get this straight. You are saying that "duh" of course all the things Al Gore said are true and that we didnt need him to tell us because it was so obvious. So he must be an idiot. Yet, back when he used his celebrity status to publicize it, you and your ilk went into denial mode and he was an idiot. Interesting.
Humans are too lazy and selfish to do anything about an invisible problem that doesn't impact them today (OK, the drought is starting to impact them, but still no action).
Humans are too lazy and selfish to do anything about an invisible problem that doesn't impact them today thats why they worry more about the earth than where they will be spending eternity (Heaven or Hell).
the exisitance of haven and hell is far more questionable than the existence of global warming.
You may be "lazy and selfish" but, thank God, most are not.
Richard Muller was never a skeptic, this line of disinformation persists. Here's Muller in his own words in 2003:
"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. "
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/23-Medievalglobalwarming.html
Reads like an ad for natural gas. Can they disclose the ties to the industry please? It'd give everyone a new perspective on this.
Greenland Thawed like nothing before. if there is flood and rising ocean waters. Where do you think water will go?
yep it's stay Inland
muller says CO2 emissions in the US are going down. he says the biggest problem is india and china. yet the hysterical lefties will ignore this and continue to blame the US/capitalism/republicans/christians/SUVs/tea party/white males in general (probably also chick-fil-a and romney's horse while they're at it). and they will never have any credibility and nothing will get done.
The point is that the US still contributes a significant amount to the CO2 problem on this planet. Also as we are the only superpower and the most prosperous nation on the earth how do you expect China and India to look for alternatives , and reduce their emissions when we have refused to set a good example for the rest of the world. I love the USA but sometimes we as a nation don't understand the burden of being at the top of the heap puts on us.
Are you saying that it is the US' fault that China and India are not looking for alternatives?
Yes, the US is partly to blame. I will now quote a famous passage:
To whom much is given, much is required.
We are the superpower (thank God) but God demands more of us. We need to set the example.
When you say "quoting", you mean someone else wrote it!
true dat
Ah, so as long as the U.S. emissions are going down, all is well. As long as the white, Christian, male, conservative, Chik-Fil-A-eating, middle-aged, American can claim victim status, we can all put our heads back into the sand like good ostriches and hope it all goes away.
7 billion hungry mouths to feed and extensive food crop failures this year. Will next year hold the same fortune and if so where will your food come from? Will you be able to afford it? For the immediate future It doesn't really matter what people decide to do as the damage is already done. Greed, excess, indifference and ignorance has it's price and we are but maybe a decade or two away from getting the bill.
Your diatribe should be good enough for Bollywood or Nollywood.
So, if you believe that there was an ice age, then global warming clearly must be true. However, are the changes that we're seeing today something in the rhelm of "normal" (whatever that is), or abnormal? How can we take the accuracy that computers and systems have given us for the last 150 years and say that the accuracy existed 500+ years ago to truely know if our environment is or is not warming? Also, depending on what data you use in your study, if it's based on false data or false premise (and I'm not saying that it is or was), the outcome will also be false
Because the warming curve correlates with the rise in C02.
That tells you what the cause is. That was the point of his study.
We could argue for a hundred years about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, while the world burns around us. Wait, that already happened. We could argue for a hundred years about whether slavery was the cause of the Civil War while men (and women) fight and die to end it. Wait, that already happened. We could argue for a hundred years whether man or nature causes global warming while crops wither, deserts become swamps, and fertile farmland becomes desert. Oh wait, we are already doing that.
Seems that there are some "climate gate" elements to Prof Mueller's claims:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
weird how most of the corporaet media won't even talk about Judith Curry – the only climatologist on Mueller's team who says he's a fraud.
This is a big thing...yes we know and we see it...but this is me and I feel the only reason all this is happening is that earth is busy repairing it self...because its more like the human body...if something is wrong it will destroy itself only to repair...who can tell when a volcano will errupt...no one...but when the gas build up is to much it excape from the weaker arreas in the ground...so I dnt care who or what you are...this planet will give something we do not have any power over...because we messed it up so well that fixing it will be a worse mess...and the only reason for that is that we placed money 1st not giving a dam what happens to our planet...
How you going to slow down China's emissions? They are the number 1 producer of electronics and goods for the world.
We are heating from the core, out. That is your global warming fact and why the ice is melting faster than 100 year, worst case models. Do the math if you have the ability or just apply common since to the changes in ice being caused by a minor rise in surface temp ( less than one degree ). The earth and especially plants love CO2. We were lush and greene at twice the CO2 levels of today
Yep, plants love CO2. Just put your tulips in your tailpipe and watch 'em flourish. Balance and moderation my friend. Often, what is good for us at one level will kill us at another.
And yet, we see those slick expensive commercials touting how wonderful coal is. And how we need to vote to elect those that protect coal mining interests.
I even saw an article about a family in West Virginia upset that politics is interfering with the dream that their 4-year-old has to grow up to be a coal miner like his dad and his grand dad, because the U S is trying to move away from burning coal.
I think the U S is not really serious about doing anything about global warming.
But then again, I see those expensive slick BP commercials telling us that the Gulf of Mexico is actually better now because of the oil well blow out.
Is this the Emperor's New Clothes?
NIce, how the Republicans are still stuck in the 19th century. It's the 21st century folks...time to step it up.
It's nice how liberals and the left want to keep finding new ways to tax us more.
It's nice how corporatists want to keep us distracted with cries of "no new taxes" while they keep an eye on the shareholders' bottom line.
"distracted"? what kind of magic mushrooms have you been eating?
By the way Al Gore you didn't invent the internet and thirty years ago these were the same scientists who said the Earth was cooling. While i do believe the earth is warming tell me why the hell anyone should believe these sceintists know whats going on.
The Al Gore internet joke is old and stale and nobody really believes he meant to take credit for it. But it IS standard procedure when trying to discredit an idea to open the argument by pointing out a flaw in the idea's perceived champion. The word for people like you is "shill". Google it.
Because, based on your statement, scientists know more than you do.
I love how all you tree huggers cry about global warming. But, let me ask you what are the 7 billion humans on this planet supposed to do? Like it or not, nothing new has came about that can replace fossil fuels yet. The only way the green lovers can get their vision to come true would be for 6.5 billion of us to die off. Get real people.
Google Michael E. Mann and see the con-men at the head of the IPCC writing each other emails how they will keep out any global warming deniers by changing the rules so they can't speak. Then look how they said "hide the decline" when talking about how temperatures have gone down in the last 20 years or so. Mann had to step down from the head of the IPCC. The IPCC is where Al Gore and most global warming alarmists get ALL of their data from. Seems legit!
Getting a little ahead of your self's here.... this is one story. I've read many that say other wise.... However...8 out 10 warmest day's in history are before the 90's. Gore touted a 1 degree increase in twenty year's as global warming. Now.... the record's indicate the planet has cooled over 2 degree's in the past 6 year's. That is factual. Numerous so-called expert's have been found(found or stolen e-mails) to be doctoring data...even NASA. I've found the winter's to be longer in VT and the summer's cooler. With the time I spend in TN.... the same. Last 3 winter's...very cold. Old timer's hearken back to the 40's & 50's when we discuss temp's now..... I feel that the Global Warming crowd are treating this like some fanatic fringe religion. All based off theory..... the planet cycling (temp wise) is factual. Scientist just found palm tree(fossils) in the Antarctica. Go figure.
Perhaps the world should build a humongous, super gigantic central AC system to regulate the earth's temperature.
This way the temperature will stay more within the man-made-global-warming enthusiasts' liking.
God forbid that this all may just be a natural climate cycle of earth.
I agree with the dangers of global warming, but in reality, if each person reduces their carbon footprint by 50
% at the same time population doubles, we are in the same position. There is no reduction. The problem is and will be people polution. There are too many of us for our own good. As in nature, problems take care of them selve, there will be events that cause great reductions in human populations from disease, starvation or wars to the point where the numbers are sustainable. I see no other alternative, do you?
Boy, you're just a bundle of joy, aren't you....lol....
With a smaller population, who will buy all the crap from China?
If we successfully cure our 'global' warming how about the rest of the world. We will escape the bad results of 'global' warming but the rest of the world will suffer? Or maybe we believe the USA is the world?
Unless China and India and the moslem countries reduce their carbon foot-prints, whatever the rest of the world does will not count.
First we must do something really quickly about the birth rate in the undeveloped moslem world.
The population is not likely to double. Look at the growth rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_growth_rate_1950%E2%80%932050.svg). It's decreasing. Some developed countries already are below replacement level, and their populations are aging. Once the women in the less developed countries become better educated and have access to brith control, the birth rates there will also decline.
All I want to knowis if Romney paid his taxes
One might think the IRS would also be interested, but apparently this is not the case, it would seem no problem exists. There is not always fire when there is smoke, especially when Democrats are trying to divert attention from our economy, creating the smoke.
Will, you really do not want much!
It really is about time people stop trying to find the cause of global warming and start spending resources on how to live with it. Ok, so what if it is anthropogenic. Is anything going to change to stop it? No. Will the world all of a sudden decide to completely reverse everything they've been working on for the last 100 years? No. As a people, we just need to realize that the climate is warming regardless of the cause, and find ways to be able to live with it. It is not going to change anytime soon. Maybe if all technology becomes clean in a few hundred years and there are no greenhouse gases being emitted then any human interference will go away, but the world is still in a warming trend...which is as much know to scientists as anthropogenic global warming is. Yet, all we do is bicker about what is causing it. Get over it. Let's learn how to live with it.
We already know the cause. It's something we have some control over. Using alternatives to fossil fuels is inevitable anyway, since we will eventually run out of that. Governments need to support the research and development of these alternatives.
There has been no warming since the mid 80s. In the 70's, scientists were saying global cooling will kill us all. They are con-men. Al Gore has stake in carbon credits and will make billions off it. He jet sets around the world and has a giant mansion that uses 13x the power of an average citizen. The funniest thing is he also has a house on the West Coast that is in the exact place where he is saying will be completely underwater in a few years. But go ahead, continue to believe the 1% and the corporate media!
It is my understanding that the Koch brothers have extensive involvement in natural gas deposits which will require fracking to get out the gas. Were you aware of that? Does that put Dr. Muller's described research study, endorsement of fracking operations to recover natural gas, and about turn on climate change in another light? It looks as though he is still dancing to the brothers' tune. It has new lyrics.
And has any layperson considered the fact that they are using surface water , wells typically less than 200 ft. deep and pumping it thousands of feet deep. We'll NEVER see that water again. It'll be totally inaccessible and useless forever.
We need to move beyond debating whether global warming is real and look to see what we can realistically and economically do about it. The global warming skeptics are living in denial instead of reality. The first step is to acknowledge the problem. By denying the problem the skeptics don't have to take any action.
Google Judith Curry. She is part of Mueller's team. She's the ONLY climatologist in the team. She says he's wrong. I wonder why you'll never hear about her in the mainstream media?
Termites give off 10 times the C02 as humans.
Please consider your statement in lieu of the size and population of termites.
Greenland was once green. I wonder who caused that global warming?
Here's what Google can do for people like you, Mr. "Greenland was once Green"
The name Greenland comes from the early Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find a land rumored to lie to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grœnland ("Greenland"), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers.
This article is a total fraud. For starters, this EXACT same news was released about 6 months ago. Why they are bringing it up again now, I have no idea. Secondly, Google Judith Curry. She is the ONLY climatologist on the team and she says Mueller is totally wrong with his "findings". Just Google and read what she says. FINALLY, If you do some digging, you will see Mr. Mueller here believed in global warming as far back as the '80s. I know most people won't do any searches since their minds are already made up on the matter...but I implore everyone to see what a total fraud Richard Mueller is. As if a Berkeley professor doubted Global Warming for 20 years. What a joke. You can just tell he's lying when you listen to him.
So Joe, it's unclear to me what your agenda is. Mueller has long been a noted gadfly to the global warming faction of the scientific community. Now that he has publicly flipped, you are saying, he was "one of them" all along? So you advocate disbelieving and disavowing any scientist who uses the scientific method and data to come to a conclusion that offends your political sensibilities? Even if that scientist was once on "your" side? I hate those annoying facts, don't you? They so get in the way of my agenda and afternoon Scotch.
The Irony is that Pure Power Corp has clean coal, waste to energy and other technologies to clean up 90 % of emissions, with a new gain in output. But Cannot find the right backers, even with a NASA Plasma Physicist's recommendations for funding? Oh well, regardless of whether we are causing global warming, we are poisoning ourselves, and there is a solution. Google Me: James Tracy Pure Power Corp. Pass this on to the right smarter people please.
James
When we think of global waming we are for the most part thinking of USA warming and how we are going to fix the problem. When one looks at a globe one sees that the USA is quite a small portion of the globe, alhough we are quite sure we are its most important parrt. That is, should we solve 'our' global warming problem, which is unlikely if the problem is simply climate change which has been going on for the past several billion years, global warming may continue for the rest of the earth.
Thirty-five years ago the same scientific community was telling us Earth was going to turn into a giant popsicle, and we needed to cover the poles in a carbon blanket.
Yeah. The amazing thing about science and scientists is that they constantly re-visit theories and update them based on new data made possible by advancing technology. That's why it's so fun to look back and laugh at those who thought the sun revolved around the moon and Nixon was the answer to bring those darn anti-war activists back into line.
Dr. Muller was never a sceptic, he had a problem with Mann's "Hockey Stick."
I buy your ideas for the sum of ££££$$$$$$€€€€€, if there are no restrictions.
Some of your contributions (voluntarily and forced), helped me for my ... books. Thank You.
Those are:- your ideas.
Why our weights are lighter (smaller) in North-West Territory and Arctic Regions than any other places around the World?
...Earth was a Hot-Gas before. The 'Stone Mountain' in Atlanta, Ga. is one proof. Go and see.
Since the year 1670's to ..., we kept adding Hours and technically, our current Hours, Days, Months and Years are not the same, if we didn't make the changes from its originality.
Our Religious Holly Books, seems also changed its some Words as well.
What did George Orwell wrote, knocks some of US doors.
Get-up.
Global warning! Is the right word to use and it's meaningful.
It is warming but we are good for only twenty percent of it. The proof is in the measurements from other planets, they are all warming up. The only source for this is the sun and the galactic rift, we are being hit by more neutrino emission. They go right through us and most other matter but lose energy as they go through the earth, that energy is released in the form of heat. All the data points to this but it is being pushed by All Gore for political gain and profit, like the carbon tax. You have to remember that All said he invented the INTERNET and Tron is his favorite movie, he pushes nothing but junk science, By the way the INTERNET was built by the military and AT&T before WWII for the purpose of military communication between bases and brain trusts like MIT, Berkley,edu and such, I was playing on the net before there was a browser using BBS and UNIX command line. If you use the resources you now have you can weed out the BS offered up by our government, like we can stop the planet heating up somehow, try stooping a volcano or a tsunami.
The internet was made before WW2...rofl..dude , eniac was the first computer built and it wasn't finished until after WW2 also it wasn't mush more than a friggin big calculator. It had no data transmission capability and more importantly , nobody to talk to as it was one of a kind. Where do you get this drivel?
I did not say data but there was voice and a crude form of data dot dash dot dot, 1011 it's called Morris code smart guy. As far as temperature all the charts going back a hundred and fifty years do show the temperature rising and that is a fact. There have been more species lost and gone forever than exist today and that includes insects to apes, the only constant is change. We are going to die one way or another and sometimes we do it in mass. Fukushima is bigger than Chernobyl and only a close earthquake away from poisoning the entire planet, if number four spent rod cooling tank falls over we are fu(ked, right now instead of thirty feet of water covering and cooling them there is only two feet, If you stood next to one rod, they are twelve feet long by one half inch in diameter, for a half hour you would be dead within a month. There are hundreds of tons of them in number four containment chamber, without water they melt and go into the ground and then up into the atmosphere.
I did not say data but there was voice and a crude form of data dot dash dot dot, 1011 it's called Morris code smart guy.
No , you said and I quote " By the way the INTERNET was built by the military and AT&T before WWII " , but now you are saying they had telephone and telegraph. I think most educated people already knew that.
"Morris" code? Really?
"only" 20%? That's one fifth, my little math genius. Just half a degree rise in mean ocean temperatures in one part of the Pacific causes catastrophic changes in ocean currents and affects U.S. weather patterns. Stop treating scientific data as a unpatriotic attack on your beloved country or a threat to your family's income. Data is raw and emotionless and must be dealt with head-on and with open eyes and minds.
Very good , you've proved to yourself the planet is getting warmer , just as it has for the past 10,000 years. Oh, but it's accelerating you say? Mankind won't stop or cure it , but nature will , as it will run it's course. And if mankind is eliminated in the process , so be it . It was a fun ride while it lasted.
People will buy anything to try to stay alive, they once called it snake oil. The usual ingredients were water. alcohol, sugar, flavor of some kind and opium or cocaine. Our elected officials are the very best snake oil salesmen, no party preference and rotting tomato's should be taken to any party rally. I would prefer a hand gun, nothing better for cleaning up a lying SOS. It might give them pause before they start lying, everyone with a lap top or I-pad for fact finding and a hand gun.
According to satellite data by RSS, the slope for the last 15 years and 8 months is flat, meaning there has been no global warming according to RSS since December 1996. Check it out for yourself at:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend
Using ice core sampling the temperature and CO2 levels have been measured back about 800,000 years.
In that period the levels and temperatures have been rising and falling. Over a short time frame we may be in a cooling or
a warming period. But one must look at the overall trend. Until the nineteenth century the graph is somewhat level. In the
mid-century it began a very noticeable rise. It has been rising rapidly since that time. That overall trend curve is now
quite steep.
Instead of arguing about whether or not global warming exists, lets focus on the facts we already know:
1) Oil and energy prices are going to continue to rise. Unless you have money just dripping from your pores, it doesn't hurt to scale back on your consumption. Make a reasonable effort to use less energy. Next time you are buying a car get a car instead of an SUV, or a compact instead of a sedan, look into clean diesels, etc. When shopping for new appliances get buy energy efficient. Don't leave your lights on in your house when you aren't using them or idle your car when you aren't driving. Small things help the environment, save you money and protect our economy by allowing you to spend your money elsewhere.
2) Less dependence on foreign oil = security and financial stability. The people we buy a good percentage of our oil from are not our friends. A lot of money we spend on gas ends up in the hands of people who hate us: terrorists and people killing our troops overseas. You don't have to agree with global warming to want to protect our national security. By purchasing a car that gets more mpg, you are indirectly helping our national security and protecting the troops. Also, our country would become less subject to the whims of OPEC and it will be harder for them to play hardball with us.
3) Fossil fuels are a finite resource. Eventually we are going to run out. Also, the more we drain them for the planet, the more the law of supply and demand kicks in, and prices will go up. Lets consume less, and promote coming up with ways to become less dependent on them in the future.
4) If the global warming crowd is right, then maybe we will be able to help the planet with these reasonable changes. If not, we are affording ourselves some financial security, national security and setting ourselves up from having to deal with the crisis of depleted natural fossil fuels in the future.
Hello folks. Everyone is cordially invited to visit – thestarofkaduri.com
too bad that he cannot think outside of the box. natural gas burns cleaner than coal, but extracting it through hydraulic fracturing is an inevitable disaster for the environment, in my opinion. it is true that fracking releases methane, which is 3 times more of a global warmer than co2? how many millions of gallons of water does fracking use up per site? is it true that the precious water, once laced with the hundreds of poisonous fracking fluids can never be used for common consumption? or will never be reintroduced into mother earth's water cycle? yes, global warming is real. global warming is due to fossil fuel consumption. let's get going on the green technologies. solar, battery efficiency, wind without annihilating birds, etc.
the planet is stuffed, i'm moving to mars, book me on the next flight. 800,000 years ago mars had a prosperous middle class civilisation who cooked their planet, they then moved to earth, they would have moved to venus but the venusians had cooked their planet a thousand years earlier, that's when the scientologist moved out.
Bellanca (a few comments above) is exactly right. An additional reason to conserve: it helps stretch out the fossil fuel supply longer, which gives us more time to develop cheaper alternatives. This is also a reason to switch to natural gas as the article suggests.
The biggest problem, however, is that we never respond economically until the crisis is nearly upon us. As we conserve the fissile fuel supply, pressure on the prices for the fuels will go up more slowly, making it more difficult to economically justify the invention and mass production of alternatives.
As a result, we have a problem that the free market is not well equipped to solve with Adam Smith's "invisible hand". The recent government investments/subsidies with Solyndra and other environmental companies makes it look like government is not well equipped to handle this either. So where is the solution going to come from?
I'm glad he did this, but it speaks of his distrust of his own scientific community that he thought so many scientists my be doing their research and data correction wrong. That is the crux of the problem. All of a sudden he's in a hurry to do something about this tragedy in progress when apparently he was one of the voices that has thwarted full-bore action. Would he, I wonder, now consider his former self as a kind of environmental villain? Or criminal?
I mean "date collection."
Everyone is always saying something about the Koch brothers. How they are this and how they are that..eveil to the core and all that other stuff...Look, i can think of a helluva lot more people who would be worse if they had that kind of money..I was just surprised that they funded the research. I didn't really think they would have cared for this kind of stuff..
"Roady was able to extend the record back to 1753". Wow that's 259 years worth of records. Let me do the math. The Earth is 4,500,000,000 years old minus 259 years is basically 4.5 BILLION YEARS. 4.5 BILLION YEARS worth of missing records. Any assumption with 4.5 BILLION YEARS worth of missing records must be accurate right? You can take it to the bank, just don't try and cash it.
It was not just change his mind ~ It change us too ~ The problem of global warming keep increasing in these few years ~ The ice berg is getting smaller and smaller ~ Polar bear going to extinct ~ We need to work together to stop the global warming ~ Perhaps my Kechara Wish Fulfilling Chakras will work to wish that the global warming will not getting more serious ~
I can remember, as a young 1st Lt flying out of Myrtle Beach,, NC. The Air Force had a term, CAVU or Clear and Visibility Unlimited and it really was. You could see back to the Big Bang without a telescope. By the time I was a senior Captain and flew out of Wright Field, CAVU had a whole new meaning. A CAVU day was one when I could see a B-52 on its takeoff roll on Patterson Field about 6 miles away. True Wright-Patterson was up in the industrial midwest with its more polluted air but still the difference was stark. Now sitting in the window of a commercial cattle car at 36000 ft, there is little to see but haze. In 50 years, we have poluted the air so bad that we can no longer see the beauty of the earth. It doesnt take a Nobel prized scientist to prove to each of us that we have fouled the air, sea, and land. We have to make a big change immediately if our children are to survive here on earth and Earth is not to become a second Mars. God told our forefathers more than 2000 years ago that we were reponsible for the care of the land and the animals. We have definately screwed that up so far.
Geoengineering, nuff said. Nicola Tesla warned that over heating of the atmosphere and waters of the planet could occur due to over use of stratospheric spraying, of aluminum oxide and barium. Remember to inhale through the Devine chambers.
Certainly he would change his mind. Bush isn't making him debunk Global Warming any longer and now he is free to say what he actually feels. For those who still do not believe in Global Warming being caused by man, it is time to wake up and do something about it before the planet enters a "Runaway Greenhouse Effect" similarly to what has happened on the planet Venus.
I have been exploring for a bit for any high quality articles or blog posts on this kind of area . Exploring in Yahoo I finally stumbled upon this site. Reading this information So i am satisfied to show that I've an incredibly excellent uncanny feeling I found out just what I needed. I most no doubt will make certain to do not fail to remember this site and provides it a glance on a constant basis.