Famous Global Warming Skeptic Surprised By Own Research - Now Convinced Significant Part is Man-Made (Al Gore, interview)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"In direct contradiction to Richard Muller’s BEST study, the new Watts et al 2012 paper has very effectively shown that a substantive warm bias exists even in the mean temperature trends. "
What is interesting is that Watts new paper shows that the NOAA's "adjustments" are nearly double to triple in upwards adjustments.
If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick.
So this guy always believed in man contributing to global warming.
All this thread proves is that THIS scientist is using science to prove what he already believes in his heart.
Exactly. 2 years ago he wasnt a deniar, now he is not one but was one...interesting. sounds like a guy who never was a real skeptic trying to play that card for cred to me.
If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick.
So this guy always believed in man contributing to global warming.
All this thread proves is that THIS scientist is using science to prove what he already believes in his heart.
You are right about what this thread proves....except I would add one more thing. In attempting to prove what he already believed, he is now saying he did not believe what clearly he did believe. Down here in the south we call that a lie.
which begs the question... if he will lie about that, what else is he lying about???
What is interesting is that Watts new paper shows that the NOAA's "adjustments" are nearly double to triple in upwards adjustments.
Oh, and Mullers paper was rejected by JGR Ferd.
It's a fair point on the peer review. Definitely a bad step not to have that hurdle cleared before going public, and it decreases my assessment of his credibility.
That's not to say that I'm convinced that global warming doesn't have a significant man-made driver. I suspect it does - fair amount of data out there to suggest this to be the case other than Muller - but I can't unequivocally prove that, of course. The big problem is that we will only be certain when looking back after many, many years...and by then, if we are contributing to it, it will be way too late to do anything about it. My guess is that it's already too late now.
You are right about what this thread proves....except I would add one more thing. In attempting to prove what he already believed, he is now saying he did not believe what clearly he did believe. Down here in the south we call that a lie.
which begs the question... if he will lie about that, what else is he lying about???
I've heard this from Watts and Marc Morano. Muller was for global warming, then he was (mildly) against it, and is for it again. He was never a real "skeptic" like Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and the people in Watts' new whitepaper.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.