Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Climate sceptic scientist lets the evidence change his mind.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Climate sceptic scientist lets the evidence change his mind.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cl...730-23769.html

    THE Earth's land has warmed by 1.5 degrees Celsius in the past 250 years and ''humans are almost entirely the cause'', according to a scientific study set up to address climate sceptic concerns about whether human-induced global warming is occurring.

    Richard Muller, a climate sceptic physicist who founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, said he was ''surprised'' by the findings. ''We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds.''

    He said he considered himself a ''converted sceptic'' and his views had received a ''total turnaround'' in a short space of time.

    ''Our results show that the average temperature of the Earth's land has risen by 2½ degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of 1½ 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,'' Professor Muller wrote in an opinion piece for The New York Times.

    The team of scientists based at the University of California, Berkeley, gathered and merged 14.4 million land temperature observations from 44,455 sites across the world dating back to 1753. Previous datasets created by NASA, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Britain's Meteorological Office and the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit had gone back only to the mid-1800s and used five times fewer weather station records.

    The funding for the project included $US150,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, set up by the billionaire US coal magnate who is a key backer of the climate sceptic Heartland Institute think tank. The research also received $US100,000 from the Fund for Innovative climate and Energy Research, created by Bill Gates.

    Unlike previous efforts, the temperature data from various sources was not ''homogenised'' by hand - a key criticism by climate sceptics - but, instead was ''completely automated to reduce human bias''. The BEST team's findings, despite their deeper analysis, closely matched the previous temperature reconstructions, ''but with reduced uncertainty''.

    Last October, the BEST team published results that showed the average global land temperature has risen by about one degree Celsius since the mid-1950s. But the team did not look for possible ''fingerprints'' to explain this warming. The latest data analysis reached much further back in time but, crucially, also searched for the most likely cause for this rise in land temperature by plotting the upward temperature curve against suspected ''forcings''. It analysed the warming impact of solar activity - a popular theory among climate sceptics - but found that, over the past 250 years, the contribution of the sun is ''consistent with zero''.

    Volcanic eruptions were found to have caused ''short dips'' in the temperature rise in the period from 1750 to 1850, but ''only weak analogs'' in the 20th century.

    ''Much to my surprise, by far the best match came to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice,'' Professor Muller said. ''While this doesn't prove that global warming is caused by human greenhouse gases, it is currently the best explanation we have found, and sets the bar for alternative explanations.'' Professor Muller said his team's findings went further and were ''stronger'' than the latest report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    In an unconventional move aimed at appeasing climate sceptics by allowing ''full transparency'', the results have been released before being peer-reviewed by the Journal of Geophysical Research. All the data and analysis may be freely scrutinised at the BEST website. This follows the pattern of previous BEST results.
    ________________________________________

    Can't wait to see the sceptics explain this one.

    Chook.

  • #2
    Chook,
    I think that the "open mind" is something that people need to address. Far too many just take sides without objective thought.
    I have tried to keep impartial to this debate over the years. I still haven't made up my mind but I am being persuaded slightly by the happenings throughout the world.

    Political agendas or personal gain should not enter into it......unfortunately it almost always does.

    Just remember people, we only get one chance at our environment...stuff it up & no one gets out alive.

    Comment


    • #3
      For every one of these storys, theres an opposing one where believers have become skeptics.

      If Golmans is behind Climate Change, you know its a rort.
      Alcohol never solved any life problems.....then again neither did milk.

      Comment


      • #4
        Here would be a bigger surprise Chook : a balanced article from Fairfax reporting opinions from both sides which is all any of this stuff is. Rather than yet another piece jamming dogma into print/cyberspace

        Or maybe even one that just reported the facts for once: Human induced climate change is bullshit and the carbon tax is an exercise in wealth redistribution masquerading as saving the world

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by melon.... View Post
          For every one of these storys, theres an opposing one where believers have become skeptics.

          If Golmans is behind Climate Change, you know its a rort.
          Show me an article where a believer has become a sceptic based on evidence melon.

          Chook.

          Comment


          • #6

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Big_Morls View Post
              Here would be a bigger surprise Chook : a balanced article from Fairfax reporting opinions from both sides which is all any of this stuff is. Rather than yet another piece jamming dogma into print/cyberspace

              Or maybe even one that just reported the facts for once: Human induced climate change is bullshit and the carbon tax is an exercise in wealth redistribution masquerading as saving the world
              This is an article based on evidence from a project by a sceptic that changed his mind on human induced climate change. You can review his findings at http://berkeleyearth.org/
              If you doubt that that Richard Muller is or ever was a sceptic, here are some of his earlier peices:
              http://junkscience.com/2012/07/29/si...hange-skeptic/
              http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/op...l-warming.html

              If you wanted both sides of the story, you got it morls, care to change you mind? Or can I take it from your second sentence you'd choose to ignore Muller's findings regardless what the evidence said?

              Chook.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Chook View Post
                Show me an article where a believer has become a sceptic based on evidence melon.

                Chook.
                How about a whole archive folder of emails that turned East Anglia Uni and the Great Climate architects on their ears?
                Alcohol never solved any life problems.....then again neither did milk.

                Comment


                • #9
                  But why wouldnt you want to become a believer......it pays better than being a sceptic.

                  http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/700...tical-science/

                  $700,000 for believers to convert skeptics – but nothing for skeptical science

                  From the 2011 Australian Research Council report: as much as $45,700,000 was spent on An Environmentally Sustainable Australia in 2011.
                  The cash cow that is “Climate Change” is so loaded that over a six year period, $718,000 dollars of ARC funds has flowed to “believers” (their terminology) to study and convert dissenters.
                  The death threat that wasn’t (by the kangaroo culler — John Coochey) was made at an event that deserves more attention. The “Deliberative Democracy” turns out to be part of a project funded by the Australian Research Council to the tune of $378,500. It’s title: Social Adaptation to Climate Change in the Australian Public Sphere: A comparison of individual and group deliberative responses to scenarios of future climate change. This year, a new version of the same project has been awarded another $340,000.
                  Quite properly, the deliberative forum claims it was not going to take sides:
                  “The project sought to engage with the full range of positions from people who are sceptical about climate change through to those who are very concerned. We do not endorse any particular point of view – it is the aim of the project to find out what these views might be.”
                  But the team included known alarmist Will Steffen. Andrew Bolt discussed the Forum and eye witnesses of the project report tell how skeptics were treated:
                  Mondo:
                  Messrs Steffen and his team delivered presentations on various aspects of climate change. We were not allowed to ask questions, or to challenge the multifarious false statements made. Instead, we broke out into groups, with the idea that a group could ask a question. Of course, each group was dominated by “warmists”, and the lone sceptic in each group was a) abused, b) derided, c) not listened to.
                  The result was that Steffen and co were presented with soft questions that were based largely on ill-informed views, convenient to the organisers.
                  John Coochey:
                  … they hired a comedian [Rod Quantock] previously trading as Mr Snooze (to be fair he was not bad modern style of humor) to ridicule anyone who was not a believer. That is not even an attempt at deliberation.”
                  In the name of research they had to listen to Rod Quantock tell jokes about skeptics at dinner? Was his speaking fee paid by the ARC grant?
                  The proposals always look so noble. The leading researcher, Dr Simon Niemeyer, describes his philosophy:
                  The solution is not to dazzle unbelievers with science, but to engage everybody in a mature debate
                  How mature is it to hire comedians to mock the unbelievers? How unbiased are the researchers who refer to one half of the public as “unbelievers” — implying not that they hold a different opinion, but that that some scientists know “the truth”, the one and only permitted view, and anyone who disagrees gets “dazzled” by the light.
                  But he doesn’t want to browbeat skeptics:
                  So the task now is to see if a more considered approach to debate is possible in the wider public sphere and to engage with people with different views rather than try to harangue them
                  Source: SMH
                  Browbeating, and haranguing are right out, but it is alright to dismiss, denigrate and categorize those who disagree?
                  After all that work they found that beating skeptics over the head with transparent propaganda while suppressing their views only make them more determined skeptics. Surprise me. Did we need $378k to find that out? I could have told them for free. And this is always the way with these projects to understand “skeptics” — they rarely come to ask the leading skeptics what it is that drives them. Obviously they don’t want to know what makes the most informed and active skeptics tick, they just want to know how to convert the punters to the state religion. If they want to convert the skeptics, all they need is some evidence.
                  The Orwellian use of the phrase “climate change” is so complete, that the report authors are oblivious to the meaning of the things they write:…
                  ” it should be noted that the nature of the project outcomes also has implications for the governance of climate change at all levels of government.”
                  It’s as if they think they can govern the weather.
                  These three projects were awarded to teams that included Dr Simon Niemeyer– the lead author of the first “deliberative democracy forum”.
                  ————————————————————-
                  Approved Project Title
                  Social Adaptation to Climate Change in the Australian Public Sphere: A comparison of
                  individual and group deliberative responses to scenarios of future climate change


                  DP0879092 Dr SJ Niemeyer; Dr P’ Hart; Dr KP Hobson; Prof W Steffen; Prof BG Mackey; Dr JA Lindesay
                  2008 : $ 182,500
                  2009 : $ 176,000
                  2010 : $ 20,000
                  Total: $378,500
                  Primary RFCD 3601 POLITICAL SCIENCE, The Australian National University
                  This research addresses the ARC National Research Priorities Goal of ‘An Environmentally Sustainable Australia, specifically ‘Reducing and capturing emissions in transport and energy generation’. Avoiding, managing, and/or adapting to the climate change impacts is now the most pressing global environmental problem. This project will produce tangible and original insights into policy options for institutional adjustment to future climate change in Australia; will provide insight into the scope for positive community behavioural change; and possible transformations in Australian social debate to maximise adaptive capacity. It will also strengthen and produce original conceptual approaches and research methods.
                  ————————————————————–
                  DP120103976
                  Approved Project Title
                  Deliberative democracy in the public sphere: achieving deliberative outcomes in mass publics

                  Niemeyer, Dr Simon J; Dryzek, Prof John S; Schlosberg, Prof David; Hobson, Dr Kersty P;
                  Goodin, Prof Robert E; Bachtiger, Prof Andre; Setala, Dr Maija T
                  2012 $110,000.00
                  2013 $110,000.00
                  2014 $120,357.00
                  Total $340,357.00
                  Primary For 1606 POLITICAL SCIENCE, The Australian National University
                  Project Summary
                  This project will systematically explore ways in which citizens can engage more deeply with complex policy issues
                  without the need to resort to massive expenditure on running multiple deliberative forums, such as citizens’ assemblies. It will identify the language is needed to deliberatively inform and the vehicles for providing that information.
                  Climate Change & the Public Sphere Project
                  ———————————————–
                  DP120104797
                  Approved Project Title
                  Rethinking climate justice in an age of adaptation: capabilities, local variation, and public
                  deliberation


                  Schlosberg, Prof David; Niemeyer, Dr Simon J
                  2012 $30,000.00
                  2013 $70,000.00
                  2014 $150,000.00
                  Total $250,000.00
                  Primary FoR 1606 POLITICAL SCIENCE, Administering Organisation The University of Sydney
                  Project Summary
                  This project aims to produce recommendations, designed by citizens and stakeholders, for climate adaptation policies in three regions of Australia. These recommendations will be based on a definition of climate justice that incorporates basic needs and resources to be protected, as identified by potentially impacted communities.
                  [source]
                  ——————————————
                  References: Page to find all ARC grants
                  2010 grants
                  2011 grants
                  Alcohol never solved any life problems.....then again neither did milk.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by melon.... View Post
                    How about a whole archive folder of emails that turned East Anglia Uni and the Great Climate architects on their ears?
                    Unbelievable, lol still flogging that dead horse melon, if you've got nothing just say so, this continual reference to only serves to embarrass yourself.

                    Chook.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by melon.... View Post
                      But why wouldnt you want to become a believer......it pays better than being a sceptic.

                      http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/700...tical-science/

                      $700,000 for believers to convert skeptics – but nothing for skeptical science

                      From the 2011 Australian Research Council report: as much as $45,700,000 was spent on An Environmentally Sustainable Australia in 2011.
                      The cash cow that is “Climate Change” is so loaded that over a six year period, $718,000 dollars of ARC funds has flowed to “believers” (their terminology) to study and convert dissenters.
                      The death threat that wasn’t (by the kangaroo culler — John Coochey) was made at an event that deserves more attention. The “Deliberative Democracy” turns out to be part of a project funded by the Australian Research Council to the tune of $378,500. It’s title: Social Adaptation to Climate Change in the Australian Public Sphere: A comparison of individual and group deliberative responses to scenarios of future climate change. This year, a new version of the same project has been awarded another $340,000.
                      Quite properly, the deliberative forum claims it was not going to take sides:
                      “The project sought to engage with the full range of positions from people who are sceptical about climate change through to those who are very concerned. We do not endorse any particular point of view – it is the aim of the project to find out what these views might be.”
                      But the team included known alarmist Will Steffen. Andrew Bolt discussed the Forum and eye witnesses of the project report tell how skeptics were treated:
                      Mondo:
                      Messrs Steffen and his team delivered presentations on various aspects of climate change. We were not allowed to ask questions, or to challenge the multifarious false statements made. Instead, we broke out into groups, with the idea that a group could ask a question. Of course, each group was dominated by “warmists”, and the lone sceptic in each group was a) abused, b) derided, c) not listened to.
                      The result was that Steffen and co were presented with soft questions that were based largely on ill-informed views, convenient to the organisers.
                      John Coochey:
                      … they hired a comedian [Rod Quantock] previously trading as Mr Snooze (to be fair he was not bad modern style of humor) to ridicule anyone who was not a believer. That is not even an attempt at deliberation.”
                      In the name of research they had to listen to Rod Quantock tell jokes about skeptics at dinner? Was his speaking fee paid by the ARC grant?
                      The proposals always look so noble. The leading researcher, Dr Simon Niemeyer, describes his philosophy:
                      The solution is not to dazzle unbelievers with science, but to engage everybody in a mature debate
                      How mature is it to hire comedians to mock the unbelievers? How unbiased are the researchers who refer to one half of the public as “unbelievers” — implying not that they hold a different opinion, but that that some scientists know “the truth”, the one and only permitted view, and anyone who disagrees gets “dazzled” by the light.
                      But he doesn’t want to browbeat skeptics:
                      So the task now is to see if a more considered approach to debate is possible in the wider public sphere and to engage with people with different views rather than try to harangue them
                      Source: SMH
                      Browbeating, and haranguing are right out, but it is alright to dismiss, denigrate and categorize those who disagree?
                      After all that work they found that beating skeptics over the head with transparent propaganda while suppressing their views only make them more determined skeptics. Surprise me. Did we need $378k to find that out? I could have told them for free. And this is always the way with these projects to understand “skeptics” — they rarely come to ask the leading skeptics what it is that drives them. Obviously they don’t want to know what makes the most informed and active skeptics tick, they just want to know how to convert the punters to the state religion. If they want to convert the skeptics, all they need is some evidence.
                      The Orwellian use of the phrase “climate change” is so complete, that the report authors are oblivious to the meaning of the things they write:…
                      ” it should be noted that the nature of the project outcomes also has implications for the governance of climate change at all levels of government.”
                      It’s as if they think they can govern the weather.
                      These three projects were awarded to teams that included Dr Simon Niemeyer– the lead author of the first “deliberative democracy forum”.
                      ————————————————————-
                      Approved Project Title
                      Social Adaptation to Climate Change in the Australian Public Sphere: A comparison of
                      individual and group deliberative responses to scenarios of future climate change


                      DP0879092 Dr SJ Niemeyer; Dr P’ Hart; Dr KP Hobson; Prof W Steffen; Prof BG Mackey; Dr JA Lindesay
                      2008 : $ 182,500
                      2009 : $ 176,000
                      2010 : $ 20,000
                      Total: $378,500
                      Primary RFCD 3601 POLITICAL SCIENCE, The Australian National University
                      This research addresses the ARC National Research Priorities Goal of ‘An Environmentally Sustainable Australia, specifically ‘Reducing and capturing emissions in transport and energy generation’. Avoiding, managing, and/or adapting to the climate change impacts is now the most pressing global environmental problem. This project will produce tangible and original insights into policy options for institutional adjustment to future climate change in Australia; will provide insight into the scope for positive community behavioural change; and possible transformations in Australian social debate to maximise adaptive capacity. It will also strengthen and produce original conceptual approaches and research methods.
                      ————————————————————–
                      DP120103976
                      Approved Project Title
                      Deliberative democracy in the public sphere: achieving deliberative outcomes in mass publics

                      Niemeyer, Dr Simon J; Dryzek, Prof John S; Schlosberg, Prof David; Hobson, Dr Kersty P;
                      Goodin, Prof Robert E; Bachtiger, Prof Andre; Setala, Dr Maija T
                      2012 $110,000.00
                      2013 $110,000.00
                      2014 $120,357.00
                      Total $340,357.00
                      Primary For 1606 POLITICAL SCIENCE, The Australian National University
                      Project Summary
                      This project will systematically explore ways in which citizens can engage more deeply with complex policy issues
                      without the need to resort to massive expenditure on running multiple deliberative forums, such as citizens’ assemblies. It will identify the language is needed to deliberatively inform and the vehicles for providing that information.
                      Climate Change & the Public Sphere Project
                      ———————————————–
                      DP120104797
                      Approved Project Title
                      Rethinking climate justice in an age of adaptation: capabilities, local variation, and public
                      deliberation


                      Schlosberg, Prof David; Niemeyer, Dr Simon J
                      2012 $30,000.00
                      2013 $70,000.00
                      2014 $150,000.00
                      Total $250,000.00
                      Primary FoR 1606 POLITICAL SCIENCE, Administering Organisation The University of Sydney
                      Project Summary
                      This project aims to produce recommendations, designed by citizens and stakeholders, for climate adaptation policies in three regions of Australia. These recommendations will be based on a definition of climate justice that incorporates basic needs and resources to be protected, as identified by potentially impacted communities.
                      [source]
                      ——————————————
                      References: Page to find all ARC grants
                      2010 grants
                      2011 grants
                      Got nothing but conspiracy theory bullshit eh?

                      C'mon you said
                      Originally posted by melon.... View Post
                      For every one of these storys, theres an opposing one where believers have become skeptics.
                      Produce one melon, just one where a believer has become a sceptic based on evidence. Just one shouldn't be that hard.

                      Chook.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        These aren't facts Chook they're opinions based on guesswork.

                        Whinging Commie lefties like you throw them around and expect the rest of the world to pay for you to feel better about driving a petrol powered car and turning the coal fired lights on.

                        Enjoy your guilt trip.

                        I will stick to the facts human induced climate change is an unproven theory spouted by fools like you to impose a massive penal structural change on rational humans all over this country.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Big_Morls View Post
                          These aren't facts Chook they're opinions based on guesswork.

                          Whinging Commie lefties like you throw them around and expect the rest of the world to pay for you to feel better about driving a petrol powered car and turning the coal fired lights on.

                          Enjoy your guilt trip.

                          I will stick to the facts human induced climate change is an unproven theory spouted by fools like you to impose a massive penal structural change on rational humans all over this country.
                          So much for wanting varying opinions eh?

                          Didn't even check out the website and the Mullers data did you? Didn't even try to determine for yourself did you? Never reviewed the graphs, the data tables or the results did you? Ignorant retards like you make me sick. Can't be bothered to read or learn or educate yourself, just jam your head up your retarded arse and remain ignorant yet comment on everthing like you know. Your the perfect rightie, a farking lemming!

                          Chook.
                          Last edited by Chook; 07-30-2012, 12:42 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'm a lemming? Ha ha ha ha ha ha

                            Did you read any of the science chicken little? Or just regurgitate other peoples tomes and deliver these pathetic diatribes.

                            You sad sad little man

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Climate change is a crock of shite!

                              That is all.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X