Australian Politics Forum

Looks like Alan jones will be lonely now because he will no longer be able to quote former climate skeptic Physics professor Richard A. Muller in his rants on radio :D

Quote:

Physics professor Richard A. Muller now believes that the world's climate change is a result of human activity.

Muller, once one of the most noted scientists who continued to deny the fact that global warming even existed, now says that it does and he says we are to blame.

Physics professor Richard A. Muller now believes that the world's climate change is a result of human activity.

Muller, once one of the most noted scientists who continued to deny the fact that global warming even existed, now says that it does and he says we are to blame.

In a New York Times editorial, Muller wrote, "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."

Muller is employed by UC Berkeley, which recently received considerable funding from the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which happens to give a lot of money to global warming skeptics.

The LA Times quoted Koch Foundation spokesperson Tonya Mullins as saying, "Our grants are designed to promote independent research; as such, recipients hold full control over their findings. In this support, we strive to benefit society by promoting discovery and informing public policy."

The biggest cohesive group of manmade global warming skeptics continues to be meteorologists (and the liberal party), who see the admitted increase in global temperature and changes to the climate as being nothing more than the expected cyclical planetary change.

After all, there were things like ice ages and ice melt long before anyone started burning coal, and this is what many meteorologists point to when they try to debunk the manmade theory.

But, Muller writes, "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."

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-science-brief/65049-noted-global-warming-skeptic-changes-his-mind

At best, Muller was always a believer in the co2 senario, but like a lot of people, was skeptical of the science trying to prove it.

The truth about Muller - "I was never a skeptic"
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html

progs is so embarrassed... he really does believe in climate change but can't let others online know that as his job is to allow business maximum time to change it's money making models to allow continued maximisation of profits in the new paradigm!

Muller trolled the deniers good ;D

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 31^st, 2012 at 6:33pm:

The guy has done nothing and cant get peer-reviewed, so what is your point. Can you tell me why you are creaming in your pants over nothing or is there something no-one else knows.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 31^st, 2012 at 6:33pm:

tHAT'LL TEACH THE DENIERS FOR PIMPING THEIR KIDS!!

:D :D :D :D 8-) :-? 8-) ;) ;)

Upton Sinclair wrote on Jul 31^st, 2012 at 6:33pm:

What makes this latest Muller data funny. This v2 relies upon his failed to get peer-reviewed v1. Best data couldnt be more ignorant and pseudo scientific.

Sooner or later everyone gets dementia!

http://www.smh.com.au/world/climate-change-sceptics-unwarmed-by-scientists-reassessment-of-cold-facts-20120730-23agk.html?skin=text-only

Quote:

A prominent Australian sceptics' group, the Galileo Movement, said its views would not change at all because of Professor Muller's study. The group features broadcaster Alan Jones as its patron and lists prominent sceptics Ian Plimer and Bob Carter and blogger Andrew Bolt as advisers

Ho Ho Ho.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 1^st, 2012 at 7:33pm:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/climate-change-sceptics-unwarmed-by-scientists-reassessment-of-cold-facts-20120730-23agk.html?skin=text-only

Quote:

Ho Ho Ho.

Nah - the denialist business is obviously a nice little earner. Galileo would turn in his grave.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 1^st, 2012 at 7:33pm:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/climate-change-sceptics-unwarmed-by-scientists-reassessment-of-cold-facts-20120730-23agk.html?skin=text-only

Quote:

Ho Ho Ho.

Why would they sway. Mullers v1 data has been pretty much rejected at peer-review and stupidly and ignorantly his v2 relies on v1. lol sway lol.

Just an update to clarify the original idea I had about Muller trolling the bugger out of the deniers

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 1^st, 2012 at 11:15pm:

Just an update to clarify the original idea I had about Muller trolling the bugger out of the deniers

It would have to be peer-reviewed you fool. You might think everyone is stupid with your usual lefty BS. No-one would say 'whatever you produce' unless you are taking it out of context, as they could have produced a piece of dog shi.., oh thats right, they did and now v2 redone dog shi.. of v1.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 1^st, 2012 at 11:29pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 1^st, 2012 at 11:15pm:

Just an update to clarify the original idea I had about Muller trolling the bugger out of the deniers

The angrier you get, the more incoherent you become.

May I ask what draws you to debating by way of the written word when you struggle so much at expressing your opinions and emotions with anything even approaching a basic level of competency? :o

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 1^st, 2012 at 11:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 1^st, 2012 at 11:29pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 1^st, 2012 at 11:15pm:

Just an update to clarify the original idea I had about Muller trolling the bugger out of the deniers

I dont take stupid people like you into consideration. Maybe I should.

namnugenot wrote on Aug 1^st, 2012 at 10:23am:

Sooner or later everyone gets dementia!

Why would you say that? Not everyone gets it - have you got early onset?

SOB

Seems there is more from a peer-reviewer of Muller dog shi.. data. He has broken the code in talking about it.

the method used to attribute the warming to human emissions is way over-simplistic. I don’t think this question can be answered by the simple curve fitting used in this paper, and I don’t see that their paper adds anything to our understanding of the recent warming

more
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/worst-of-the-best-peer-reviewer-breaks-confidentiality/

I think our progs is starting to appreciate the value of the peer review process.

I just find it amusing to think anybody could believe that an economist could conduct a peer review on a paper on physics - or that the comments of amateur bloggers, and a retired radio announcer who just happened to read the weather, such as Antony Watts meets the criteria of a peer review process.

I start to see new significance in Carl Sagan's quote, but I don't relish the prospect that one of my submissions on Environmental Science may one day be "peer reviewed" by a taxi driver, or perhaps in these days of idiocracy, it will be "Peer Review" brought to you by Ronald MacDonald.

This has well and truly passed the peer review process for surrealism.

muso wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 5:02am:

Good enough for Flannery to tell us what the environment is doing and we must pay taxes.

You would have to ask the peer-reviewer process on why they choose who they do and the paper still has not been perr-reviewed, so he must be right.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2012 at 5:35pm:

I still fail to see how an economists peer review of scientific research is relivant.

I would question how he even qualifies as a peer?

MOTR wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2012 at 4:49am:

That looks very hockey-stick to me.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 3:22pm:

MOTR wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2012 at 4:49am:

That looks very hockey-stick to me.

By design

Dnarever wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 9:42am:

I still fail to see how an economists peer review of scientific research is relivant.

I would question how he even qualifies as a peer?

Lord Christopher Monckton could be qualified to "peer" review anything I guess. ;D

From Gavin Schmidt at RC

Quote:

Let the games begin!

4 August 2012

I picked a good weekend to be out of cell phone range and unconnected to the internet – and judging from how the rest of the week has gone, I’d have been minded to stay there…

As most readers are probably aware, there was an op-ed in the Saturday New York Times from Richard Muller announcing the Berkeley Earth team’s latest results. It was odd enough that a scientific paper was announced via an op-ed, rather than a press release, odder still that the paper was only being submitted and had not actually been accepted, and most odd of all was the framing – a ‘converted skeptic’ being convinced by his studies that the planet has indeed warmed and that human activity is the cause – which as Mike and Ken Caldiera pointed out has been known for almost 2 decades.

Not wanting to be upstaged, plenty of ‘unconverted skeptics’ – including Anthony Watts and Ross McKitrick decided to stage dramatic press events and release barbs of their own. This was followed by a general piling on of commenters and bloggers trying to spin the events in their preferred direction combined with plenty of cluelessness in the general media about exactly who these people are (no-one special), what earth-shattering discovery had been made (none) and what it all means (not a lot).

The ‘best’ response to this circus is to sit back and see how pretzel-like the logical justifications can become. I particularly like the recent twist to the “No true scotsman” post-hoc rationalisation. Since the ‘converted skeptic’/prodigal scientist meme is a very powerful framing for the media, the obvious riposte for the ‘skeptics’ is to declare that Muller was not a true skeptic. But since these terms have become meaningless in terms of any specific position, this ends up as a semantic argument that convinces no-one but the faithful.

The actual trigger for all this hoopla is the deadline for papers that can be cited in the Second Order Draft of the new IPCC report. They needed to have been submitted to a journal by Tuesday (31 July) to qualify. Of course, they also need to be interesting, relevant and known to the IPCC lead authors. But there seems to be far too much emphasis being put on this deadline. The AR5 report is pretty much 90% written, and the broad outlines have been known for ages. Very few of the papers that have been submitted this week are anything other than minor steps forward and only a small number will be accorded anything other than a brief mention in AR5, and most not even that.

Furthermore, once the SOD is finalised (Aug 10), Tuesday’s deadline becomes moot, and the only thing that matters for the final report is whether papers are accepted by March 2013. (In a spirit of full disclosure, I should mention that I was working on a couple of papers with an eye to making this deadline, but in the end decided it was preferable to take the time to do a good job on the papers than to submit something shoddy).

The only worthwhile substance to any of this is the work that has mostly been done by Robert Rohde on the Berkeley Earth code and database as we’ve noted previously – and once this weeks drama has faded into the distance overshadowed by some new blog-storm, this work will still be a useful advance.

But still the games go on. Senate hearings are one of the longest running games of political theatre going – where the Senators pretend to listen to the panelists and the panelists pretend that this is an efficient way to inform policymakers. This week’s was little different from the ones in the past – some earnest submissions from the mainstream, and a cherry-pickers delight of misinformation from the Republican invitee, John Christy, who even quoted the woefully inept first draft of the Watts paper as if it meant something.

To confuse the metaphor even further, Roger Pielke Sr loudly declared that whatever the results of the Watts paper it will end up being a game changer:

[indent]The TOB effect could result in a confirmation of the Watts et al conclusion, or a confirmation (from a skeptical source) that siting quality does not matter. In either case, this is still a game changing study.[/indent]

If only people would change the games they play…

My inclination is just to sit back and watch the spectacle, admire the logic-defying leaps, marvel at the super-human feats of hubris and, in two weeks time, remark on how little actually changed

A good listen to AGW loons speaking with Muller. Some here that would be exactly the same as the AGW loons on this mp3, might learn something or atleast get angry ;D
http://bradblog.com/audio/GreenFront_RichardMuller_080112.mp3

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 5:13pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 3:22pm:

MOTR wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2012 at 4:49am:

That looks very hockey-stick to me.

By design

I see your tin foil hat is back on. Doesnt it get hot under there ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 10:25am:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 5:13pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 3:22pm:

MOTR wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2012 at 4:49am:

That looks very hockey-stick to me.

By design

I see your tin foil hat is back on. Doesnt it get hot under there ?

Someone has to keep the idealogues honest with all this data manipulation.

Pure man-made warming via data manipulation.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 10:53am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 10:25am:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 5:13pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 3:22pm:

MOTR wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2012 at 4:49am:

That looks very hockey-stick to me.

By design

I see your tin foil hat is back on. Doesnt it get hot under there ?

Someone has to keep the idealogues honest with all this data manipulation.

Pure man-made warming via data manipulation.

Unless of course they manipulate in your favor.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 10:54am:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 10:53am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 10:25am:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 5:13pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 3:22pm:

MOTR wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2012 at 4:49am:

That looks very hockey-stick to me.

By design

I see your tin foil hat is back on. Doesnt it get hot under there ?

Someone has to keep the idealogues honest with all this data manipulation.

Pure man-made warming via data manipulation.

Unless of course they manipulate in your favor.

Then that would be your job to make sure it is right, now wouldnt it.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 11:07am:

Then that would be your job to make sure it is right, now wouldnt it.

Nooo. That would be the job of the peer review system. Which is why hacks like Goddard start blogs and don't submit their analyses to peer review journals. I know for a fact that you do not posses the wherewithal to assess the credibility of Goddard's claims, as evidenced by your predilection to simply accepting easily refute denier claims.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 9^th, 2012 at 11:07am:

Then that would be your job to make sure it is right, now wouldnt it.

Pal-review system. Yeh that would do it lol

Dnarever wrote on Aug 1^st, 2012 at 7:33pm:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/climate-change-sceptics-unwarmed-by-scientists-reassessment-of-cold-facts-20120730-23agk.html?skin=text-only

Quote:

Ho Ho Ho.

http://www.desmogblog.com/andrew-bolt-cuts-ties-climate-science-denying-galileo-movement-over-alleged-anti-jewish-conspiracy-theory

ANDREW Bolt is Australia's loudest and most popular climate science doubt-spreader who just loves to stoke the fires of environmental conspiracy theorists with his daily splurge of blog posts and his weekly radio and TV shows.

The blogger and columnist in the Murdoch-owned News Ltd press describes climate change as a "religious movement" and says climate scientists are part of a global conspiracy.

Bolt allows his commenters to refer to the United Nations as the "United Nazis" and regularly joins the "one world government" conspiracy theorists while pulling quotes out of context to insinuate "warmists" have ambitions of totalitarian "global management". He maligns solar power at every opportunity and claims wind farms are an "insult to the intelligence".

But there is at least one conspiracy theory which Andrew Bolt isn't happy to endorse. Up until last week, Bolt was listed as an adviser to one of Australia's most active climate denialist organisations the Galileo Movement. But then what happened?

In a report late last month in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Galileo Movement's project manager Malcolm Roberts, a former mining industry consultant, was asked if recent research led by US physicist Professor Richard Muller had swayed the group's thinking on human-caused climate change. The SMH report read
[inent]Mr Roberts said climate change science had been captured by ''some of the major banking families in the world'' who form a ''tight-knit cabal''. He said he understood that the group's views might sound strange, but claimed they were becoming increasingly popular.[/indent]
[indent]''It does sound outlandish,'' Mr Roberts said. ''I, like you, was reluctant to believe it [but] there are significant things going on in Australia that people are waking up to. The UN's climate front is just a part of the overall UN 'Agenda 21', which is the sustainability program and the biodiversity program … But the biggest one's the UN agenda for global governance.''[/indent]

The bit about "banking families" made its way to Bolt, who was apparently spooked and wrote Roberts an email saying his words "sounded very much like one of those Jewish world conspiracy theories that I despise". After getting a reply, Bolt wrote:
[indent]Your conspiracy theory seemed utterly stupid even before I knew which families you meant. Now checking the list of banking families you’ve given me, your theory becomes terribly, shamefully familiar.[/indent]
[indent]Two of the three most prominent and current banking families you’ve mentioned are Jewish, and the third is sometimes falsely assumed to be. Yes, this smacks too much of the Jewish world conspiracy theorising I’ve always loathed.[/indent]
Bolt then asked to be removed from the list of the Galileo Movement's advisers, which is a veritable who's who of climate science denial, listing the likes of Lord Christopher Monckton, Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer and the Cato Institute's Pat Michaels. Popular Sydney radio host Alan Jones is Galileo's patron. Will any of them feel the need to follow Bolt?

In the comments section, Roberts claimed his words were not anti-semitic and that "Some of my friends and those who I respect, admire and value enormously for their achievements are Jewish." But Roberts then offered to educate Bolt on "major international banking families", "cabals" and pushes for "global governance".

Bolt's defection does put him in something of an awkward position, not least because one of the people who Roberts recommends to Bolt for more on his banking theories is David Evans, who is one of Bolt's favourite skeptics. For example, Bolt cites Evans here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and, well, you get the picture.

Evans, the husband of climate sceptic blogger JoNova, once outlined his thesis in a 2009 paper published by the Science and Public Policy Institute titled Manufacturing Money, and Global Warming. Naming the "Rothschilds", Evans writes

[indent]The banking families don’t work for a living in the normal sense, like the rest of us. They avoid scrutiny and envy by blending in and make themselves invisible. Since they own or influence all sorts of media organizations, it isn’t too hard. There are unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories, but nobody can really credibly say how much wealth and influence they have.[/indent]

One of Bolt's other favourite "experts" to cite is Christopher Monckton who, like Evans and Nova, is also an adviser to the Galileo Movement. Bolt cites Monckton enthusiastically here, here, here and here and probably lots of other places.

Monckton has been pushing his various conspiratorial talking points around the globe for years. To add to his insistence that climate change is some sort of socialist plot to take over the world, Monckton has recently taken to questioning the legitimacy of President Barack Obama's birth certificate in a Tea Party-sponsored tour. Is Bolt happy to stick with Monckton, one wonders?

But is it fair to generalise that people who deny climate change science are all conspiracy theorists? Well no, but one piece of new research does suggest that people who reject the science are also more likely to entertain a whole range of whacky ideas.

Research led by cognitive psychologist Professor Stephan Lewandowsky at the University of Western Australia, to be published in the journal Psychological Science, found an important predictor for climate science denialism was a belief in free-market economics.

But the research also found a correlation between denial of human caused climate change science and "conspiracist ideation", such as acceptance of supposed CIA plots to kill Martin Luther King, faked Moon landings or how the US government let the Japanese attack Pearl Harbour so they could enter World War II.

Or the strongest correlation, plots to create world governments.

Desmogblog (http://s.tt/1kawU)

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl Member Run Boards >> Environment >> Noted global warming skeptic changes his mind http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1343699637 Message started by thelastnail on Jul 31^st, 2012 at 11:53am