Climate change skeptic/scientist reverses position
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,423
A friend of mine who worked with Muller sent me this link. It's encouraging to see one more (of few remaining) climate skeptic/scientists change their position on climate change. The evidence mounts and any more, few scientists have doubts. Now, if we would just get down to the business of reducing anthropogenic global warming!
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 2823.story
Koch-funded climate change skeptic reverses course
By Neela Banerjee This post has been updated, as indicated below.
July 29, 2012, 12:28 p.m.
WASHINGTON – The verdict is in: Global warming is occurring and emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity are the main cause.
This, according to Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at UC Berkeley, MacArthur Fellow and co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. Never mind that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of other climatologists around the world came to such conclusions years ago. The difference now is the source: Muller is a long-standing, colorful critic of prevailing climate science, and the Berkeley project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G. Koch, has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change.
In an opinion piece in Saturday’s New York Times titled “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic,” Muller writes: “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 Berkeley project’s research has shown, Muller says, “that the average temperature of the Earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”
He calls his stance now “a total turnaround.”
[Updated, 4:17 p.m., July 29: Tonya Mullins, a spokeswoman for the Koch Foundation, said the support her foundation provided, along with others, had no bearing on the results of the research. "Our grants are designed to promote independent research; as such, recipients hold full control over their findings," Mullins said in an email. "In this support, we strive to benefit society by promoting discovery and informing public policy."]
Some leading climate scientists welcomed Muller’s comments, proof, they argued, that the science is so strong that even those inclined to reject it cannot once they examine it carefully. Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said that Muller’s conversion might help shape the thinking of the “reasonable middle” of the population “who are genuinely confused and have been honestly taken in” by attacks on climate science.
On his Facebook page, Mann wrote: “There is a certain ironic satisfaction in seeing a study funded by the Koch Brothers – the greatest funders of climate change denial and disinformation on the planet – demonstrate what scientists have known with some degree of confidence for nearly two decades: that the globe is indeed warming, and that this warming can only be explained by human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. I applaud Muller and his colleagues for acting as any good scientists would, following where their analyses led them, without regard for the possible political repercussions.”
Muller’s conclusions, however, failed to sway the most ardent climate contrarians, like Marc Morano, a former top producer for Rush Limbaugh and communications director for the Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee who now runs the website climatedepot.com. “Muller will be remembered as a befuddled professor who has yet to figure out how to separate climate science from his media antics. His latest claims provide no new insight into the climate science debate,” Morano said in an email.
Muller’s New York Times commentary follows research he did last year that confirmed the work of scientists who found the Earth’s temperature was rising. In the past, Muller had criticized which global temperatures were used in such research, contending that some monitoring stations provided inaccurate data. Now, Berkeley’s research has weighed in on the causes of the temperature rise, testing arguments climate contrarians have used.
“What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees?” Muller writes. “We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.”
Muller asserted that his findings were ‘stronger’ than those of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental panel. Yet, neither Berkeley’s research from last year or the new findings on causality have been published in peer-reviewed journals, which has raised criticism and concerns among climatologists and contrarians alike.
Benjamin D. Santer, a climate researcher at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and a lead author of the 1995 U.N. climate report, said he welcomed the involvement of another research group into “detection and attribution” of climate change and its causes. But he also said he found it troubling that Muller claimed such definitive results without his work undergoing peer-review.
“If you go into the public arena and claim to have generated evidence that is stronger than the IPCC, where is the detailed, scientific evidence? Has he used fundamental new data sets?” Santer said. “Publish the science and report on it after it’s done.”
He added: “I think you can do great harm to the broader debate. Imagine this scenario: that he makes these great claims and the papers aren't published? This (op-ed) is in the spirit of publicity, not the spirit of science.”
Elizabeth Muller, co-founder and executive director of the Berkeley project and Richard Muller’s daughter, said the papers had been peer-reviewed, but not yet published. But because of the long lead-up to publication, the Berkeley team decided to place its papers online, in part to solicit comment from other scientists. She said all the papers, including the latest, would be on the BerkeleyEarth.org website by Sunday evening.
“I believe the findings in our papers are too important to wait for the year or longer that it could take to complete the journal review process,” Elizabeth Muller wrote in an email. “We believe in traditional peer review; we welcome feedback [from] the public and any scientists who are interested in taking the time to make thoughtful comments. Our papers have received scrutiny by dozens of top scientists, not just the two or three that typically are called upon by journalists.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 2823.story
Koch-funded climate change skeptic reverses course
By Neela Banerjee This post has been updated, as indicated below.
July 29, 2012, 12:28 p.m.
WASHINGTON – The verdict is in: Global warming is occurring and emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity are the main cause.
This, according to Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at UC Berkeley, MacArthur Fellow and co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. Never mind that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of other climatologists around the world came to such conclusions years ago. The difference now is the source: Muller is a long-standing, colorful critic of prevailing climate science, and the Berkeley project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G. Koch, has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change.
In an opinion piece in Saturday’s New York Times titled “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic,” Muller writes: “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 Berkeley project’s research has shown, Muller says, “that the average temperature of the Earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”
He calls his stance now “a total turnaround.”
[Updated, 4:17 p.m., July 29: Tonya Mullins, a spokeswoman for the Koch Foundation, said the support her foundation provided, along with others, had no bearing on the results of the research. "Our grants are designed to promote independent research; as such, recipients hold full control over their findings," Mullins said in an email. "In this support, we strive to benefit society by promoting discovery and informing public policy."]
Some leading climate scientists welcomed Muller’s comments, proof, they argued, that the science is so strong that even those inclined to reject it cannot once they examine it carefully. Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said that Muller’s conversion might help shape the thinking of the “reasonable middle” of the population “who are genuinely confused and have been honestly taken in” by attacks on climate science.
On his Facebook page, Mann wrote: “There is a certain ironic satisfaction in seeing a study funded by the Koch Brothers – the greatest funders of climate change denial and disinformation on the planet – demonstrate what scientists have known with some degree of confidence for nearly two decades: that the globe is indeed warming, and that this warming can only be explained by human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. I applaud Muller and his colleagues for acting as any good scientists would, following where their analyses led them, without regard for the possible political repercussions.”
Muller’s conclusions, however, failed to sway the most ardent climate contrarians, like Marc Morano, a former top producer for Rush Limbaugh and communications director for the Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee who now runs the website climatedepot.com. “Muller will be remembered as a befuddled professor who has yet to figure out how to separate climate science from his media antics. His latest claims provide no new insight into the climate science debate,” Morano said in an email.
Muller’s New York Times commentary follows research he did last year that confirmed the work of scientists who found the Earth’s temperature was rising. In the past, Muller had criticized which global temperatures were used in such research, contending that some monitoring stations provided inaccurate data. Now, Berkeley’s research has weighed in on the causes of the temperature rise, testing arguments climate contrarians have used.
“What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees?” Muller writes. “We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.”
Muller asserted that his findings were ‘stronger’ than those of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental panel. Yet, neither Berkeley’s research from last year or the new findings on causality have been published in peer-reviewed journals, which has raised criticism and concerns among climatologists and contrarians alike.
Benjamin D. Santer, a climate researcher at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and a lead author of the 1995 U.N. climate report, said he welcomed the involvement of another research group into “detection and attribution” of climate change and its causes. But he also said he found it troubling that Muller claimed such definitive results without his work undergoing peer-review.
“If you go into the public arena and claim to have generated evidence that is stronger than the IPCC, where is the detailed, scientific evidence? Has he used fundamental new data sets?” Santer said. “Publish the science and report on it after it’s done.”
He added: “I think you can do great harm to the broader debate. Imagine this scenario: that he makes these great claims and the papers aren't published? This (op-ed) is in the spirit of publicity, not the spirit of science.”
Elizabeth Muller, co-founder and executive director of the Berkeley project and Richard Muller’s daughter, said the papers had been peer-reviewed, but not yet published. But because of the long lead-up to publication, the Berkeley team decided to place its papers online, in part to solicit comment from other scientists. She said all the papers, including the latest, would be on the BerkeleyEarth.org website by Sunday evening.
“I believe the findings in our papers are too important to wait for the year or longer that it could take to complete the journal review process,” Elizabeth Muller wrote in an email. “We believe in traditional peer review; we welcome feedback [from] the public and any scientists who are interested in taking the time to make thoughtful comments. Our papers have received scrutiny by dozens of top scientists, not just the two or three that typically are called upon by journalists.”
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
My friend who worked with Muller in Berkeley believes he's recent statements are sincere. If he now focuses his work on limiting human's influence on global warming I'll be glad for his job security.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
what was the dude's problem before then?
No air conditioning?
No, seriously, my understanding is he had based his thinking on earlier statistics which he didn't believed to be insubstantial but looking at more recent data was strongly convinced, "Ah oh, we're in deep shit."
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?hp
I generally hate reading any news about climate change... I find every article(from both sides) always has a thinly veiled agenda. This article, however, was probably the best I've ever read on the subject. Dr. Muller is both elegant and genuine at the same time. If you can read this article and still not believe there is even a change that humans are having a significant effect on the environment, nothing will ever convince you otherwise.
i really don't think this article would change anyone's opinion on the matter here ...
http://m.democracynow.org/stories/12972
AMY GOODMAN: "Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math", that’s the name of a Rolling Stone piece that’s written by Bill McKibben. He is the Co-founder and Director of 350.org. He joins us now from Vermont. Bill, welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about global warming, where it stands today, what needs to be done.
BILL MCKIBBEN: Well, look, we’re really seeing this summer, around the world, despite what Dr. Muller was peddling a minute ago, what climate change looks like in its early stages. And it’s been a pretty scary summer, not just here in this country where we’re seeing epic heat and drought, but up on Greenland, maybe the most important place in the world where the science and the actualities of what’s going on are sort of clearer day by day by day. We’re seeing record melts, we’re seeing snow turning to water and soaking up more of the sun’s heat. It has been a ragged summer. And the point of this piece in Rolling Stone which, oddly enough, though it’s fairly mathematical, has gone kind of viral, the point of it is, we now know enough to know what the future holds unless we change fast. The piece points out that scientists have long told us that if we want to stay below two degrees warming, which is what every government in the world, even the most conservative, have adopted as the bottom line, we can only burn 565 more gigatons of carbon. Unfortunately, a new analysis by a bunch of U.K. financial analysts, showed that the fossil fuel industry and those countries that kind of operate like the fossil fuel industry, you know, Venezuela or Kuwait have in their reserves, 2795 gigatons of carbon in there, coal and gas and oil. That’s still below ground, but economically, it’s essentially above ground. They’re borrowing against it, their share prices are based on it. Unless we change things very dramatically, it’s going to get burned and we are going to overwhelm the climate system.
AMY GOODMAN: Bill McKibben, your...
BILL MCKIBBEN: And so, we are going to need to stand up to that industry. That’s the bottom line.
AMY GOODMAN: Your assessment of Dr. Muller’s conversion, as he describes it, now saying that global warming is human-caused?
BILL MCKIBBEN: Scientifically, it’s not very interesting because, you know, most scientists figured it out 20 years ago. All he has done is confirm their work. Politically, it is interesting because we’re reaching the point where even the kind of industry-funded deniers can’t with a straight face, say that it’s not warming. In fact, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, two weeks ago, probably more importantly, said, Yes, forget all the things that my predecessors have said about how global warming was a hoax. Global warming is real, and we’re causing it. He then went on to say, but it’s an engineering problem with engineering solutions, and the example that he gave was, if we need to move our crop production areas, we will. By crop production areas, I think, he means what the rest of us call farms, and if you look at an atlas, there is really not a lot of room to move them. You can’t take an Iowa cornfield where we’re not going to grow any corn this year because of the heat and drought, and somehow transplant it up to the melting Arctic tundra because when you get up there, there is no soil. What needs to be adapted is not our crop production areas. What needs to be adapted are the business plans of the fossil fuel industry. They need to stop exploring for more hydrocarbons, they need to stop warping our democracy by buying off the House and the Senate, and instead, we need to put a — I mean, the most obvious thing to do, what every economist now for 20 years has been saying...
AMY GOODMAN: Five seconds.
BILL MCKIBBEN: ...is put a stiff price on carbon to reflect the damage that it does. And that’s one of the things we work on at 350.org.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you very much, Bill McKibben, for being with us. We’ll link to your piece at Rolling Stone.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
exactly - the debate was over a looong time ago ... but in america where critical thinking as gone the way of the do-do bird and partisan indoctrination is the norm ... this is what you are gonna get ...
It's the insanity of denial at this point that is craziness. What it boils down to is an oil addiction syndrome. The first step to recovery is admitting addiction. The world as a whole is having a very difficult time doing this.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
The only thing I might add that might help is the toning down of some of the rhetoric. If you look at scientific history, I can't think of one thing humans got right in thirty years. So these talks of (not saying you in particular) that global warming is a proven fact just isn't accurate. And stances such as this, saying the evidence is incontrovertible, hurt the cause. Because people that don't have much of a scientific background don't understand exactly how science works. Muller said it much more eloquently than I can-
"How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. "
Global Warming is currently the best explanation (by far) to the current trends we see in climate. Science exists to provide explanations, not prove "facts". Now understand, I'm really only talking about semantics here, I'm not trying to change the actual message of global warming.
yes ... but that is clearly $$$ motivated ... and its the same big oil companies doing the same thing ... at least the premier of alberta believes in global warming ...
i would say that is the result of a poor communication strategy amongst environmentalists and the sign of how powerful lobbyists and PR people can be ...
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/torrential-rai ... 57206.html
It's exactly this type of hemming and hawing that is sold to people preventing any action from taking place. Well, we're only 99% certain of what causes it so we better do nothing until we're %100. A little too late for that approach...