A skeptical physicist ends up confirming climate data

[Tooktheredpill]

For all you skeptics

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra..._blog.html

[Tooktheredpill]

(10-20-2011 11:05 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  Hmm.. not terribly exciting.

Most "skeptics" believe that the data reveals little if any warming. This seems to confirm somewhere around 1 degree in 100 years.

What does one do with this data? It could mean any number of things. It could be a fluke. We could be coming off a global cooling period and starting to warm back up (as many allege).

Is it man-made? Is it cyclical? Given that data doesn't really go back far enough in time, what of the "Little Ice Age"?

Ultimately I think there are few skeptics that don't agree that there is some change. My observation is that it appears to be so insignificant as to be a big yawner. Why we need to spend gagillions of dollars and lifestyle changes over this is beyond me?

Given that science believes that the earth was warmer in prehistoric times does that mean dinosaurs drove SUV's?

How can people care too much about this from any scientific point of view when the ones who cry most loudly about it benefit financially from it? What about the fact that many of the proponents in politics are Marxists?

Meh.

I'll get back to you on this... don't have the time right now.

[ADKoeF]

This physicist, http://motls.blogspot.com/ , is my favorite skeptic. He's quite skilled at showing how ridiculous some of these AGW charlatans are.

[Tooktheredpill]

(10-21-2011 10:05 AM)ADKoeF Wrote:  This physicist, http://motls.blogspot.com/ , is my favorite skeptic. He's quite skilled at showing how ridiculous some of these AGW charlatans are.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Lubos_Motl.htm

[ADKoeF]

This Washington Post article is a fraud. Richard Muller has never been a AGW skeptic.

He's been actively promoting AGW for many years. He even called it "settled science" back in 2008.

http://www.grist.org/article/lets-get-physical

"Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?

Oh yes. [Laughs.] In fact, back in the early '80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming."

So this guy resigns from the Sierra Club because they weren't as radical as him on AGW. Now he's a skeptic?

[Tooktheredpill]

(10-31-2011 11:48 AM)ADKoeF Wrote:  This Washington Post article is a fraud. Richard Muller has never been a AGW skeptic.

He's been actively promoting AGW for many years. He even called it "settled science" back in 2008.

http://www.grist.org/article/lets-get-physical

"Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?

Oh yes. [Laughs.] In fact, back in the early '80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming."

So this guy resigns from the Sierra Club because they weren't as radical as him on AGW. Now he's a skeptic?

First, let's not forget that Watts is not the only climate change skeptic involved in the BEST project. Richard Muller is another well-known skeptic who worked on the BEST project.

Here's a direct quote from Watts that should provide some context to your quote:

Quote:Global warming is one of the most serious issues of our times. Some experts claim the rise in temperature during the past century was “unprecedented” and proof that immediate action to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions must begin. Other experts say the warming was very modest and the case for action has yet to be made. The reliability of data used to document temperature trends is of great importance in this debate. We can’t know for sure if global warming is a problem if we can’t trust the data.

Now, as you can see, he was clearly skeptical about the extent of global warming.

The quote is from this article (written by Watts): http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.c...ring09.pdf

[greg]

I was working on some other stuff and came across some notes I made on the great Al Gore global warming hoax from a few years ago.

At the 2008 Global Warming conference in Poland 650 of the world's top climatologists stood up and loudly proclaimed, hopefully loud enough to for ol' Al to hear, of course he's too busy making millions off of his hoax to notice, anyhoo, they said "Man-made global warming is a media-generated myth." Climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress said "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"

The Earth's temperature peaked in 1998. It has been falling ever since . It dropped dramatically in 2007 and even cooler in 2008 when it touched 1980 levels. Meanwhile, the University of Illinois Artic Climate Research Center released conclusive satellite photos showing that Artic ice is back up to 1979 levels. What's more, measurement of Antartic ice now show that its accumulation is up 5 percent since 1980.

So in other words, during what was supposed to be massive global warming, the biggest chunks of ice on earth grew larger!

Dr. Kunihiko, Chancellor of Japan's Institute of Scinece and Technology said that "C02 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another......every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so." ....You're not kidding just ask big Al!!!

Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivan Giaever said it best "I am a skeptic....Global warming has become a new religiion" indeed, and may I add so has evolution!!!

[myotch]

Greg,

That is why they have all but abandoned the "global warming" term in favor of "climate change".

Global warming does not adequately, reflectively explain snow in Denver in the summer months, much less globally cooling temperatures. "Climate change" is vague enough to allow the blame of any weather "erratica" on human industry.

(you shouldn't bring evolution into a climate debate. Apple and orange comparisons turn off not only your climate opponent, but will divide your climate allies. Just sayin')

[lucrezaborgia]

(12-10-2011 02:13 PM)myotch Wrote:  (you shouldn't bring evolution into a climate debate. Apple and orange comparisons turn off not only your climate opponent, but will divide your climate allies. Just sayin')

Maybe it's his new thing? The EVILLLSSS of evolution!

[myotch]

Perhaps he's going by the maxim "Believe in something, or you'll fall for anything."