When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
It got funding from the KOCH brothers – famous AGW deniers, and they naively assumed he would confirm there boll0x (and that propogated by the Marshal institute the heartland institute cfact etc etc)
Because Muller was a true sceptical scientist – he went where the data took him
You can read his short article here explaining his results
the first is the actual interview wih (only 4 mins long) – but the second (bad badder BEST) is good to view first as it puts it in “context” of the denial debate
and when you listen to his interview, listen carefully to his last comment (start at 4 mins )– then read Jonc’s earlier comments “about some strange process” what scientists call “woo”
That's the difference between skeptics and deniers. Skeptics actually know what they're talking about.
Yes, and it's also the difference between skeptics and dogmatic believers. From Hodgy's link:
"It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous."
Yes, and it's also the difference between skeptics and dogmatic believers. From Hodgy's link:
"It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous."
lol, yes - that was in 2012 - even more data has come in since then
listen to his interview - in January of this year (actually recorded in Dec 2014)
and tell me he has any doubt re AGW or the effect of C02
and he actually says he is sceptical about "alarmist" claims - yes, but these are generally NOT made by scientist
Glaciergate was simply an error - the IPCC apologised and removed it as soon as it was pointed out
Yet when it comes to coverage of global warming, we are trapped in the logic of a guerrilla insurgency. The climate scientists have to be right 100 percent of the time, or their 0.01 percent error becomes Glaciergate, and they are frauds. By contrast, the deniers only have to be right 0.01 percent of the time for their narrative — See! The global warming story is falling apart! — to be reinforced by the media. It doesn't matter that their alternative theories are based on demonstrably false claims, as they are with all the leading "thinkers" in this movement
a little like the error in BBC reporting of WT7 - a mistake they apologised - move on
but not for the CT'rs, for them it has been a solid "rock" of evidence CT'rs use
Last edited by hodgy0_2; Dec 17, 2015 at 12:14 PM.
lol, yes - that was in 2012 - even more data has come in since then
listen to his interview - in January of this year (actually recorded in Dec 2014)
and tell me he has any doubt re AGW or the effect of C02
Not a single mention in his entire interview about hurricane frequency or intensity, glacial melting, polar bears, localized hot (or cold) spells, or the link (or lack thereof) between any of these and global warming.
Not a single mention in his entire interview about hurricane frequency or intensity, glacial melting, polar bears, localized hot (or cold) spells, or the link (or lack thereof) between any of these and global warming.
like I said these alarmist claims are not made by scientists and are not represented in the scientific literature
if they are and I have missed them show me
Muller is obviously talking about alarmism by the "green" lobby - and spun by lazy journalists
what do you think Muller's views are on C02 as a GHG?
this is what the science says about melting land ice
It got funding from the KOCH brothers – famous AGW deniers, and they naively assumed he would confirm there boll0x (and that propogated by the Marshal institute the heartland institute cfact etc etc)
Because Muller was a true sceptical scientist – he went where the data took him
You can read his short article here explaining his results
the first is the actual interview wih (only 4 mins long) – but the second (bad badder BEST) is good to view first as it puts it in “context” of the denial debate
and when you listen to his interview, listen carefully to his last comment (start at 4 mins )– then read Jonc’s earlier comments “about some strange process” what scientists call “woo”
oh and yes Jonc Muller is a physicist
lol
Not just you who thinks I'm talking bollox? Who exactly are you speaking for? Richard Muller? I don't know him and I'm pretty sure he doesn't know who I am! So he's a physicist.....So? The Pope, well respected in the field of Catholicism, could he convince you to become a Catholic?
Okay, I don't have all the answers that you clearly seem to have behind the science of AGW, hence why I'm sceptical of it. Nothing wrong with that. You believe in AGW and seem well read in the science behind AGW. With all the models, the technology, the science and the published papers behind AGW you've shown us, can I assume you are also able to tell me exactly the documented and tested quantifiable effect of man made CO2, since we can now determine exactly carbon-14 free CO2 as man made from the decades of data from NASA satelites. All your previous links doesn't specifically target CO2, more specifically carbon-14 free CO2, only CO2 with other greenhouse gases.
Just to add I acknowledge CO2 as a greenhouse gas, my question is the effects of man made CO2 and that the specified reduction in this man made CO2 will do what COP21 concluded earlier this month.
like I said these alarmist claims are not made by scientists and are not represented in the scientific literature
Claims of ice free Arctic by 2013 and glacier free Himalayan mountains by 2035 where made by scientists and experts, or are these not considered alarmist?
Just to add I acknowledge CO2 as a greenhouse gas, my question is the effects of man made CO2 and that the specified reduction in this man made CO2 will do what COP21 concluded earlier this month.
The point is jonc - as I pointed out earlier in this thread, let the scientist do the science - publish it in proper peer review journals (not perfect but has got humanity quite a long way in the last 200 years)
They don't always get it right (glaciergate) - but by and large it is self correcting
There have been genuine opposing theories to GHG, by proper climate scientis but bad/wrong science tends to fall by the wayside, hence these alternate theories are no longer accepted
Accept by the ABCD brigade (anything but carbon dioxide)
I posted a link to a series of YouTube videos that goes through the science and genuine scientific debate
Without the "green" goreist environmental lobby spin boll0x but also without the denialist claptrap
It looks at the science and examines the evidence
And you pose a valid question re COP21 and the 2% limit
But back to my first point you won't find answers on denial blogs
Last edited by hodgy0_2; Dec 17, 2015 at 09:02 PM.
yes this has been doing the rounds on the denier blogs for a while
all it actually shows is a healthy debate in the scientific community
but in reality it is absolutely combatible with AGW - a warmer air mass holds more moisture (basic physics) which leads to more precipitation (basic physics)
it can be tested in your kitchen
put a glass of water in you freezer and warm it 5 degree from -20 to -15 - it still freezes
next, open you freezer door for a few hours to let moisture in - you will see an accumulation of frost/ice
luckily climate scientist understand all this complicated physics
from the paper
"But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
in reality it is technical argument about shifting patterns of ice loss and gain in the Antarctic
“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica"
AGW is a global phenomenon, luckily climate scientist understand this - deniers don't
I can understand why the science denier want to paint this as a silver bullet that show AGW as a hoax, anti evolutionist are always looking for that fossil of a Panda in the fossil records that blows a hole in theory of Evolution
but like evolution, AGW rest on more that a single strand of evidence - it rest on literally 1000's and 1000's individual lines of evidence - backed up by measurement and observation
yes this has been doing the rounds on the denier blogs for a while
all it actually shows is a healthy debate in the scientific community
but in reality it is absolutely combatible with AGW - a warmer air mass holds more moisture (basic physics) which leads to more precipitation (basic physics)
it can be tested in your kitchen
put a glass of water in you freezer and warm it 5 degree from -20 to -15 - it still freezes
next, open you freezer door for a few hours to let moisture in - you will see an accumulation of frost/ice
luckily climate scientist understand all this complicated physics
from the paper
"But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
in reality it is technical argument about shifting patterns of ice loss and gain in the Antarctic
“We’re essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica,” said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica"
AGW is a global phenomenon, luckily climate scientist understand this - deniers don't
I can understand why the science denier want to paint this as a silver bullet that show AGW as a hoax, anti evolutionist are always looking for that fossil of a Panda in the fossil records that blows a hole in theory of Evolution
but like evolution, AGW rest on more that a single strand of evidence - it rest on literally 1000's and 1000's individual lines of evidence - backed up by measurement and observation
out of interest what denier blog did you get this from?
I can probably guess - but I am curious
I don't doubt the physics behind your fridge freezer analogy, but it's too simple to be able to explain away the net gains in Antarctica. For example, why doesn't your analogy work for the Arctic region or the Himalayas? The point I pick up is that this finding goes against the conclusions of the IPCC. What it highlights is that many scientists and the IPCC have still a lot to learn and that the climate is far more complex than the models that are used to predict AGW. But as I alluded to earlier, people, scientists included, generally find what they want to find and rationalise the results to what they want to see. I'm sceptical of the anthropogenic warmists and I'm sceptical of the deniers, I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I don't doubt the physics behind your fridge freezer analogy, but it's too simple to be able to explain away the net gains in Antarctica. For example, why doesn't your analogy work for the Arctic region or the Himalayas? The point I pick up is that this finding goes against the conclusions of the IPCC. What it highlights is that many scientists and the IPCC have still a lot to learn and that the climate is far more complex than the models that are used to predict AGW. But as I alluded to earlier, people, scientists included, generally find what they want to find and rationalise the results to what they want to see. I'm sceptical of the anthropogenic warmists and I'm sceptical of the deniers, I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
well there's nothing sinister about that
the IPCC don't do science
they are a sort of clearing house for the prevailing scientific thinking
science moves ever forward as new evidence / data becomes available
it always has and it always will
in the early 20th century the theory of Evolution was under attack,
the problem
well the Evolutionary theory could not explain why fossils in South America were the same as those found in Africa - it went against the theory of evolution as the fossil similarity could not be explained by the (then) current knowledge
a big problem
and in the earlier 20th century unresolvable - a big "win" for the anti evolutionists - Monkton and Watts would have been all over it
what resolved it? and further strengthened the theory evolution
the theory of Plate Tectonics / continental drift (only generally accepted in my lifetime!!!!!!)
Wow!!! it explained the fossil anomaly (and so obviously)
another piece of the jigsaw, another line of evidence (not "proof" but) evidence
science moves forward - to a better understanding of our world
that NASA study is simply and example of that - Scientist understand - deniers don't
Last edited by hodgy0_2; Dec 17, 2015 at 11:53 PM.
Until we properly sort out the pollution from China, India parts of Africa etc, we may as well just p*ss into the wind.
yes, I would not disagree
although from what I read China seems to be moving massively into renewables and developing renewable technology
and regards India - again their argument about burning fossil fuels to enable them to progress and move vast numbers out of poverty has some logic / merit
I believe these issues were discussed in Paris
but this is Politics/Economics - not science
my whole point on this thread is to try and demonstrates that the scientific evidence for AGW is pretty conclusive and gets more not less conclusive over time
and unless you fully understand and appreciate that (as opposed to simply saying "its God's will" or succumbing to the FUD put out by the fossil fuel lobby) how can the politics/economics argument ever get the right solution
IT has a saying Garbage In Garbage Out
Last edited by hodgy0_2; Dec 18, 2015 at 01:48 PM.
The US produces 10 time more carbon per capita than India, but India only has just under 4 times as many people, so India isn't the problem (at the moment).
China is doing slightly "better", each person contributing a third as much carbon, but with a slightly larger population.
But, as you can see, at the moment, they are not the issue, the traditional western nations are.
Although I have "crossed the floor" on the science of the argument, I'm not necessarily a huge proponent of cutting emissions for cutting sake. I believe that it is sensible to try and find a better energy source that is renewable, it makes sense on all sorts of levels, but that's it.
Eventually, some environmental situation will overtake humanity that it is utterly powerless to prevent, so it is better that we learn to adapt to a changing climate rather then try to prevent an inevitability.
Even if we prevent the projected changes this time round, ultimately, the Earth is going to change, whether it's natural climate variance, plate tectonics or something else.
Eventually, some environmental situation will overtake humanity that it is utterly powerless to prevent, so it is better that we learn to adapt to a changing climate rather then try to prevent an inevitability.
Even if we prevent the projected changes this time round, ultimately, the Earth is going to change, whether it's natural climate variance, plate tectonics or something else.
and again I totally agree
I suppose the problem with AGW is the rate of change
usually flora/fauna/ - and now humanity have had time to adapt to Climate Change (which everyone agrees happens) because it happens over large timescales
it gets harder as the times scales reduce form 1000's of years to potentially 100's
the short video below is a good summary of the potential effects of AGW (in the short term) based on what is in the scientific literature and then highlights what humanity can do (and is doing) about it
The US produces 10 time more carbon per capita than India, but India only has just under 4 times as many people, so India isn't the problem (at the moment).
China is doing slightly "better", each person contributing a third as much carbon, but with a slightly larger population.
But, as you can see, at the moment, they are not the issue, the traditional western nations are.
Although I have "crossed the floor" on the science of the argument, I'm not necessarily a huge proponent of cutting emissions for cutting sake. I believe that it is sensible to try and find a better energy source that is renewable, it makes sense on all sorts of levels, but that's it.
Eventually, some environmental situation will overtake humanity that it is utterly powerless to prevent, so it is better that we learn to adapt to a changing climate rather then try to prevent an inevitability.
Even if we prevent the projected changes this time round, ultimately, the Earth is going to change, whether it's natural climate variance, plate tectonics or something else.
When looking at carbon figures it's true but IMHO it's a narrow view of a wide range of pollution far worse than just the carbon that is produced by these countries, not just into the air, but into the sea and land. All these recent political talks have been ignorant to it. For example coral reefs ...affected more by local tin mining or co2? Deforestation? What impact does that have on the Earth to manage current co2 levels; less forests the less it can cope....It's not measurable, although statisticians and scientists will try; Something to bear in mind seeing that wood-sourced fuels is being pushed hard by the renewable fuels industry.
The graph shows a decline in the amount of ice over the last 35 years, but unless you (or whoever produced it) can show the rate of decline or increase of the ice for a much longer period (many hundreds of years at least), how are we to know if what is shown is simply part of a recurring natural cycle?
35 years in geology is much too short a period for any kind of confidence in a graph like that.
That's the trouble with this debate. No one can produce any proper long term evidence for or against 'man made climate change', because it simply hasn't been recorded accurately for long enough. What we are left with is mere speculation on both sides.
The graph shows a decline in the amount of ice over the last 35 years, but unless you (or whoever produced it) can show the rate of decline or increase of the ice for a much longer period (many hundreds of years at least), how are we to know if what is shown is simply part of a recurring natural cycle?
35 years in geology is much too short a period for any kind of confidence in a graph like that.
That's the trouble with this debate. No one can produce any proper long term evidence for or against 'man made climate change', because it simply hasn't been recorded accurately for long enough. What we are left with is mere speculation on both sides.
Are you a climatologist?
If not, how the hell can you just write off a whole field of science, and challenge the massive body of evidence, with what is just a sweeping statement?
Last edited by Martin2005; Dec 19, 2015 at 05:56 PM.
That graph proves nothing. No-one was measuring the ice for the last 1400 years, so that's just someone's opinion.
What would you have done when the land bridge between Britain and Europe was flooded a few thousand years ago? Blamed man made global warming for it?
I'll repeat what I said above: No one can produce any proper long term evidence for or against 'man made climate change', because it simply hasn't been recorded accurately for long enough. What we are left with is mere speculation on both sides.
Anyhow, this argument is pointless because I'm not going to change my mind about it, and neither of you are either. I'll stop watching it now and leave you to continue with your hysteria.
Incidentally Martin, I knew a scientist a few years back. He used to ride his bicycle to work in the Fens, in the dark and fog, with no lights. When asked why he didn't have any lights, he said he 'didn't need them because he could see okay'.
So he's a physicist.....So? The Pope, well respected in the field of Catholicism, could he convince you to become a Catholic? 
