The scientific finding that settles the climate-change debate

by ishambat | October 25, 2011 at 08:14 am
156 views | 4 Recommendations | 7 comments

For the clueless or cynical diehards who deny global warming, it’s getting awfully cold out there.

The latest icy blast of reality comes from an eminent scientist whom the climate-change skeptics once lauded as one of their own. Richard Muller, a respected physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, used to dismiss alarmist climate research as being “polluted by political and activist frenzy.” Frustrated at what he considered shoddy science, Muller launched his own comprehensive study to set the record straight. Instead, the record set him straight.

“Global warming is real,” Muller wrote last week in The Wall Street Journal.

Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and the rest of the neo-Luddites who are turning the GOP into the anti-science party should pay attention.

“When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find,” Muller wrote. “Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that.”

In other words, the deniers’ claims about the alleged sloppiness or fraudulence of climate science are wrong. Muller’s team, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, rigorously explored the specific objections raised by skeptics — and found them groundless.

Muller and his fellow researchers examined an enormous data set of observed temperatures from monitoring stations around the world and concluded that the average land temperature has risen 1 degree Celsius — or about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — since the mid-1950s.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-scientific-finding-that-settles-the-climate-change-debate/2011/03/01/gIQAd6QfDM_story.html?hpid=z2

Advertisement
recommend This comment thread is now closed
1
Karen Hatter

Now, now, Ishambat! 

There is no convincing the anti-science crowd, ESPECIALLY when science is used to refute their beliefs. Of course, preserving monetary interests in the industries known to aid in climate change also plays a hand in rejection of scientific evidence. 

There may well be an assertion, now that Dr. Muller no longer supports their belief system, that he is in need of a de-programmer or an exorcist! 

0
YankeeJim

I am waiting for the WORD from the GOP to tell me when it is getting cold. Pass me a sweater, please.

0
Karen Hatter

Well, Jim, I hope you don't get pneumonia waiting for that heads up! 

Better keep a few afghans to snuggle under too. 

0
ishambat

The anti-science crowd needs to be told very loudly and very publicly that without science, they wouldn't have their SUVs and big-screen TVs, or their mobile phones, their supermarkets, their air conditioning, their pickup trucks, their military hardware, and all else that they see as staples of the American way of life.

Almost everything that business sells comes from science. And without science, capitalism would be little more than exchange of basic commodities at the level it was in medieval Persia.

0
Karen Hatter

Yeah, theirs is a very odd, compartmentalized world, Ishambat.

A friend of mine has characterized compartmentalization as an attempt at controlled psychosis.

0
Richard Welch

The most obvious explanation of the warming trend of the past few decades is that we are merely reaching the peak of the present interglacial period.  Both the historic pattern and geopulsation theory point to this, as does the dampening of temp increase in the past dozen years (see Roots of Cataclysm, Algora Publ. NY 2009).  The warm peak of course will be followed by another glacial episode of the Pleistocene, as has always been the case for the past million years or so.  CO2 rise is merely an effect, rather than a cause of  temp increases.  In short, everything is going exactly as should have been expected.

0
ishambat

In previous temperature shifts (known as Milenkovich cycles), the changes in temperature preceded the changes in atmospheric CO2. The CO2 concentrations rose by 25% since 1950s. If this had been a normal temperature change situation, then there would have been a corresponding significant rise in temperatures between 1500 and 1800. There hasn't been. Instead the rise in temperature over the 20th century coincided with and then followed the rise in atmospheric CO2. 

You are right about one thing. Everything is in fact going exactly as expected. You raise carbon emissions while cutting down rainforests that absorb carbon dioxide, you get a rise in atmospheric CO2 and a corresponding rise in temperatures.

As should be expected; and as should be common sense.

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from