Prominent global warming skeptic releases new study

[Strike 5,748]

 

You completely missed the point of my posting that story. I'm not "touting" Muller at all. The guy is a complete focking idiot. He spent years saying that global warming was fake and that scientists weren't being critical enough. Then he did his own study and FOUND OUT THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL.

 

Now he's trying to say that he wasn't really wrong because scientists still should have been more critical of global warming, even though they happened to be right in accepting the theory.

 

I don't know that he said GW wasn't real. He was a Skeptic. And that was because the donks pitching GW weren't doing honest research and were hiding data. Did you listen to the interview with him posted in this thread? So he wanted to find out once and for all what the deal was and did his own research. If the other researchers hadn't been hiding data and making sh*t up this never would have been an issue. But many skeptics, myself included, haven't denied that GW is happening. It's the extent and how much man is responsible for that have been at issue, and still are, especially the question about man's level of responsibility. And his study didn't address that question at all.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

I don't know that he said GW wasn't real. He was a Skeptic. And that was because the donks pitching GW weren't doing honest research and were hiding data. Did you listen to the interview with him posted in this thread? So he wanted to find out once and for all what the deal was and did his own research. If the other researchers hadn't been hiding data and making sh*t up this never would have been an issue. But many skeptics, myself included, haven't denied that GW is happening. It's the extent and how much man is responsible for that have been at issue, and still are, especially the question about man's level of responsibility. And his study didn't address that question at all.

 

This guy was skeptical that global warming was occurring at all. As in he flat-out did not believe the data that the Earth is demonstrably warmer today than it was 50 or 100 years ago.

 

It's one thing to question man's impact on global warming. It's another thing altogether to question whether global warming is at all real. Basically this dude is about 30 years behind the curve.

[Strike 5,748]

This guy was skeptical that global warming was occurring at all. As in he flat-out did not believe the data that the Earth is demonstrably warmer today than it was 50 or 100 years ago.

 

It's one thing to question man's impact on global warming. It's another thing altogether to question whether global warming is at all real. Basically this dude is about 30 years behind the curve.

 

I don't think skeptical means what you think it means.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

I don't think skeptical means what you think it means.

 

That's all you got?

[Strike 5,748]

That's all you got?

 

It's all I need. The science was flawed so he had some doubts. Lots of people, including scientists, weren't convinced in one way or another about GW. Hell, they had to change the name from Global Warming to climate change when it was revealed that the climate hasn't actually been getting warmer in over a decade, a fact confirmed by Muller's study. That doesn't mean he didn't believe anything was happening. You're kind of putting words in his mouth there.

[Frank M 181]

You're kind of putting words in his mouth there.

 

 

You would know, wouldn't you?

 

[Mike Honcho 5,332]

I don't know that he said GW wasn't real. He was a Skeptic. And that was because the donks pitching GW weren't doing honest research and were hiding data. Did you listen to the interview with him posted in this thread? So he wanted to find out once and for all what the deal was and did his own research. If the other researchers hadn't been hiding data and making sh*t up this never would have been an issue. But many skeptics, myself included, haven't denied that GW is happening. It's the extent and how much man is responsible for that have been at issue, and still are, especially the question about man's level of responsibility. And his study didn't address that question at all.

 

His conclusions contradict your assertions:

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.

[Strike 5,748]

His conclusions contradict your assertions:

 

Not really. He expresses an opinion there. That's what a person means when they said "we think." Also, you should post where your quote came from so the context can be looked at.

[Mike Honcho 5,332]

Not really. He expresses an opinion there. That's what a person means when they said "we think." Also, you should post where your quote came from so the context can be looked at.

 

 

An opinion, like your's, except he actually did the research and came to the exact same conclusion as others...I guess those others must have just gotten lucky despite all there shoddy work...

 

And for someone who apparently knows his motivations...

 

WTF are you talking about? Muller is simply someone after the truth. He wasn't embarrassed by anything and I'm still waiting for you to explain how he "recanted." See the thing is, those that have some skepticism have it because the science thus far is FLAWED. What Muller did was apply GOOD science to the data. It appears that much of the same conclusions were reached. We'll know for sure if his study passes peer review. But that's been the problem all along. Faulty science. And we still don't have a lot of good science showing how much of climate change is due to humans. And that's the real question, isn't it?

 

it's astonshing, you don't recognize the article he wrote that started this entire debate. The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism

 

You sound like someone who's come the conlusion that you being a "denier" is completely untenable position and are trying to defend your prior position with claims that the original work was Faulty science and other bogus reasons.

[Strike 5,748]

An opinion, like your's, except he actually did the research and came to the exact same conclusion as others...I guess those others must have just gotten lucky despite all there shoddy work...

 

And for someone who apparently knows his motivations...

 

 

 

it's astonshing, you don't recognize the article he wrote that started this entire debate. The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism

 

You sound like someone who's come the conlusion that you being a "denier" is completely untenable position and are trying to defend your prior position with claims that the original work was Faulty science and other bogus reasons.

 

I've read it. You might want to watch the interview with him that I posted a link to earlier in this thread where he discusses how the WSJ changed the title of his Op Ed piece, amongst other things. As far as me being a denier you clearly haven't read my thoughts on this topic.

[jerryskids 6,930]

Fair enough. I'm going to go on board with the idea that the oceans are rising because they are. If I remember correctly, it was averaging about 2 millimeters a year. Multiply that by a century (100 years) and you have two meters. Maybe the pace will speed up or maybe it'll slow down. I don't know. AndI don't know if that 2mm number is the most up to date either.

 

Best guess, 2 meters.

 

I just wanted to point out that 2 millimeters x 100 = 0.2 meters, not 2 meters.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I just wanted to point out that 2 millimeters x 100 = 0.2 meters, not 2 meters.

That's a whole .65 feet!

 

Buh-bye NYC.

[Greedo 13]

What's your degree in?

 

I wasn't making a claim I have no authority to make in my post. You and others were.

 

"Global Warming" was created as a master plan for Libs / Commies ( NWO ) to pretty much control ALL we do. The term "Global Warming" was changed to "Climate Change" because "Global Warming" was proved to be complete bullshix.

 

Since you also have no climatology degree, I trust you have some sort of peer reviewed articles showing that the earth is not warming (not sure over what time period you reference).

 

Clearly the problem gets back to impartiality. The political alignment of the entity doing the scientific funding has an agenda. The question is how/if that agenda infiltrates the science.

 

Right on nuggs. It's why those studies paid for by the oil industry, or any other area that is not impartial, should be questioned.

[Voltaire 5,363]

I just wanted to point out that 2 millimeters x 100 = 0.2 meters, not 2 meters.

 

 

In light of this new evidence, I will have to revise my calculations...