Bombshell: Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’ (...and the cause is human.)

[kpete]

Source: Think Progress

Bombshell: Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘Essentially All’ Due To Carbon Pollution
By Joe Romm on Jul 28, 2012 at 5:31 pm


“The decadal land-surface average temperature using a 10-year moving average of surface temperatures over land. Anomalies are relative to the Jan 1950 – December 1979 mean. The grey band indicates 95% statistical and spatial uncertainty interval.” A Koch-funded reanalysis of 1.6 billion temperature reports finds that “essentially all of this increase is due to the human emission of greenhouse gases.”

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST) is poised to release its findings next week on the cause of recent global warming. A forthcoming NY Times op-ed by Richard Muller, BEST’s Founder and Scientific Director, has been excerpted on a conservative website with the headline, “New Global Temperature Data Reanalysis Confirms Warming, Blames CO2.”

I have spoken with scientists and journalists familiar with BEST’s findings, and the excerpt appears genuine. Here is the money graf:


CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified scientific issues that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Now, after organizing an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I’ve concluded that global warming is real, that the prior estimates of the rate were correct, and that cause is human.

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/

[Scuba]

1. David and Charles must be pissed. Muller better watch his six.

[Nay]

55. Yeah, no shit. He better not go on any long walks, or he might suicide himself. No small planes

either.

[Uncle Joe]

58. I would wager they already knew human magnified global warming was for real but up until

this point they put their money on denying the science for personal financial gain and political power plays.

I believe the Kochs finally came to the realization that global warming climate change is making itself known in such increasingly dramatic ways, that trying to deny it costs far more than it pays.

The Kochs commissioned this study to be used as their fig leaf for cover and to allow themselves in finally coming out and admitting publicly, what they already knew was true privately.

[Scuba]

62. A very reasonable scenario. Thanks.

[tclambert]

71. I think they want to dodge liability for as long as possible.

They see the tobacco company scenario playing out for oil companies. Eventually, they expect to have to pay something as a penalty for the damage the oil companies have done to the environment. They want to delay that day and minimize how much they have to pay.

[cheapdate]

92. They didn't expect this result when they commissioned the study some years ago. n/t

[A Simple Game]

73. People like the Kochs usually get what they want. If they paid

for this report, the report is what they wanted.

I wonder if they are getting into alternative energy and are paving the way for large tax credits?

Then again they are of the age that they just may not care anymore.

[Control-Z]

2. I hate to think about

what might now happen to this guy.

Notice I don't even weigh the possibility of anything good or progressive coming of this? Not that it wouldn't be nice. Too many disappointments at this point, I guess.

[randome]

4. Reality is starting to sink in for many.

I think it's up to 70% of people think climate change is real now. This just adds fuel to the fire, if you'll excuse the metaphor.

We have to do something about it because we don't have a choice.

[Control-Z]

10. If there's anything we CAN do at this point.

I'm so pissed at the greedy fucking deniers. Sorry about the language but we should have done so much more before now.

[randome]

12. I'm pissed too.

But I think we can 'fix' this. It will require tremendous effort but we can do it.

[AynRandCollectedSS]

3. Now...

Let's watch and see how they plan to massively profit.

[geckosfeet]

13. Yep. Scare em then sell them the cure.

What a sweet deal.

[Kalidurga]

5. #RomneyShambles....

I have been there a lot over the past day or so and I think all the laughing has done something to my mind. This headline is reading : Bombshell: Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’ (...and the cause is human.). I know that can't be right, but no matter how many times I rub my eyes and shake my head that hallucination is still there.

[Berlum]

6. the cause of Global Warming is Republican greed

!% Republican Wankers have been paying millions to get a-holes like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity and Fox News to lie to the American people about this -- and thereby letting it worsen.

The Republicans are to blame.

[AlbertCat]

53. the cause of Global Warming is Republican greed

Well, it's been a issue since the 1970's.... which is why they had to sabotage Carter's second run for Prez. Carter wanted to act responsibly back then. Imagine if we had kept on that path for 40 years instead of the "Greed is good" meme.

[cyberpj]

82. I remember going to the very first "Earth Day" celebration in 1970 -when we still believed change

was possible.

I have noticed, over the decades, how Earth Day became a non-event with barely a mention on the evening's news programs. In my state, it has became one day to volunteer your services to help clean up the riverbanks.

Earth Day, Saving the Environment, even Zero Population Growth movements died by the end of the 70's... all most likely the last breath of our intent on change that began in the 60's, well before disco, cocaine, and Gordon Gecko beckoned so many of our generation down a different road. Party on dudes, party on!

[chervilant]

87. Yeah, it's like the Titanic.

Most of our species is 'partying on' while our ecosystem shudders inexorably toward increased desertification, water shortages, and untenable heat. When 60-65% of this nation's crops are rated 'poor to very poor,' one has to wonder how soon we'll see widespread food shortages and famine.

[rurallib]

7. the rich will save themselves while we drown or burn up

Or we can take power from them and do something, but of course we need to be united.

[randome]

8. The only way to save themselves is to save the planet.

Like it or not, we need massive resources to fight this thing. Torches and pitchforks won't solve a thing.

[cheapdate]

9. The focus of much scientific activity today

is in more accurately trying to anticipate the effects of climate change. The warming of the earth due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide is firmly established and has been for decades.

[Brooklyn Dame]

11. The only thing shocking about this...

...is that somehow the information was publicly released. Those Koch suckers must be slipping!

http://borderlessnewsandviews.com/2012/01/2012-republicans-may-not-believe-in-climate-change-but-your-insurance-company-does/

http://borderlessnewsandviews.com/2012/07/wait-climate-change-is-real-how-extreme-weather-is-waking-up-the-nation/

[OverBurn]

14. Call me a extreme pessimist

but I believe it is already to late. Humans have broke the planet beyond repair, we have been like a virus.

Humans won't be around in a short few hundred years. Planet Earth will heal it's self someday and a new dominant species will take over, hopefully they'll smarter and less greedy than we were.

[sofa king]

16. They won't be able to be greedy like us.

We already found the easy half of the hydrocarbons in the world, and burned 'em all. That stored energy is forever gone, and no subsequent society--human or other--will ever be able to duplicate the hydrocarbon emissions output we have reached over the past 150 years.

No future society will ever be able to rely on petroleum as a virtually free stored energy source. Future discoveries of it will be too small and too difficult to extract for the volume of consumption we take for granted today to ever again be equaled.

So like it or not, we're the chumps who pushed the shiny red button and kicked off a one-time event which may or may not drive us to extinction. Whatever follows in our wake won't be able to do this again.

That may be the one favor we ever did for future civilizations.

[Jackpine Radical]

34. Lacking hydrocarbons,

our descendants will probably do themselves in with nuclear energy.

[sofa king]

49. They won't be out of options, that's for sure.

But I'm pretty sure Petroleum Man will hold its own unique place in the record as the ones who had the best of everything, and pissed it away.

[SteveG]

26. I'm not as pessimistic as you

I'm pretty sure we, as a species, will survive, I'm also pretty sure our civilization will be drastically altered. I do agree with you that it is already too late, by about 50 years, to prevent the melting of the ice caps and a serious rise in sea level. We need to be pushing for moving people to higher ground.

[NickB79]

38. It's not just the sea rise, it's the destruction of farmland and water supplies

You're right, people will need to abandon low-lying areas near the seas. But we'll also have to abandon areas like the US Southwest as drought makes it impossible to supply enough water for cities, industry and farming. In fact, large portions of the planet near the tropics will likely be uninhabitable due to global warming if the worst-case predictions come true: http://www.350resources.org.uk/2010/10/22/global-warming-up-12%C2%B0c-half-the-world-will-be-uninhabitable/

T IS the late 23rd century. Houston, Tel Aviv, Shanghai and many other once-bustling cities are ghost towns. No one lives in Louisiana or Florida anymore, and vast swathes of Africa, China, Brazil, India and Australia are no-go zones, too. That’s because in all of these places it gets hot and humid enough to kill anyone who cannot find an air-conditioned shelter.

This is the nightmare scenario outlined in a study published earlier this year. If we carry on as we are, it claimed, in as little as a century a few small areas might start to get so hot in summer that no one could survive without air conditioning. Three centuries from now, up to half of the land where people live today would regularly exceed this limit.

“I knew just from basic physics that there would be a point at which heat and humidity would become intolerable, and it didn’t seem that anyone had looked at that from a climate change perspective,” says Steven Sherwood, an atmospheric scientist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. “When you look at the data, it becomes pretty clear that it wouldn’t take as much climate change as people seem to think to hit this.”

This is an astounding claim. Scientists have long warned that climate change will have serious consequences: big sea-level rises, floods, droughts, more extreme weather, extinctions and so on. But if Sherwood and co-author Matthew Huber of Purdue University in Indiana are right, huge parts of the planet could effectively become uninhabitable.

Humanity is going to experience a mass die-off over the next century numbering in the billions. We'll be lucky to maintain a population of 1 billion by the end of the 21st century.

[Odin2005]

88. Call me naive, but I think the temp will not get that high.

The typical global average temperature during an iceless "hot-house" period is 24C, right now it is 16C. The huge temp spikes during the Eocene were POLAR temperatures, not global ones, I believe.

If it does hit 24C, however, India and South China are still going to be screwed.

[GliderGuider]

89. Do you really think the damage at +8C would be confined to India and South China?

The big issue isn't just one of temperature, it's rainfall disruptions impacting the global food supply. The global weather disruptions we're seeing right now are happening with a +1C rise, instead of at +2 like everyone expected. A growing body of opinion (including the British Royal Society) is saying that +2 is into the "dangerous warming" territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoiding_dangerous_climate_change

Limiting the average global surface temperature increase of 2°C over the pre-industrial average has, since the 1990s, been commonly regarded as an adequate means of avoiding dangerous climate change, in science and policy making.[12][13] However, recent science has shown that the weather, environmental and social impacts of 2°C rise are much greater than the earlier science indicated, and that impacts for a 1°C rise are now expected to be as great as those previously assumed for a 2°C rise.[11]

In a July 2011 speech, climate scientist Kevin Anderson explained that for this reason, avoiding dangerous climate in the conventional sense is no longer possible, because the temperature rise is already close to 1°C, with effects formerly assumed for 2°C.[14][15] Moreover, Anderson's presentation demonstrates reasons why a temperature rise of 4°C by 2060 is a likely outcome, given the record to date of action on climate, economic realities, and short window of time remaining for limiting the average surface temperature rise to 2°C or even 3°C.[14] He also states that a 4°C rise would likely be an unstable state, leading to further increases in following decades regardless of mitigation measures that may be taken.[14]

The consequences of failing to avoid dangerous climate change have been explored in two recent scientific conferences: the 4 degrees and beyond climate change conference held Oxford university it 2009; and the Four Degrees Or More? Australia in a Hot World held at the Univ. of Melbourne in July 2011.

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934.toc

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/20.abstract

[progressoid]

27. Yeah,

That's an easy conclusion to come to based on our past and current actions.

But I still hold out hope for some sort of last minute turn-around.

[agent46]

15. The climate change deniers

...who have been preaching their suicidal propaganda like it was a religion, will now grow silent. Then they will return with bullshit about "adaptation." In this way they will continue their Randian fetish with the corporate "survival of the fittest" meme.

Everyone will be talking about adaptation and no effort will be made to mitigate the trends. Not one of the corporatists or their acolytes will be held accountable for their lies. Just wait.

[randome]

17. The choice to live in denial is no longer an option.

Preaching that climate change is a myth while the planet burns is not going to sell well.

[agent46]

19. That's why "adaptation"

is the next corporate pitch. Not change.

[Raster]

66. "we'll invent something... our science is strong"

The free market will save the planet.

[freedom fighter jh]

20. We do have to adapt.

We have to do everything possible to slow climate change down. It is accelerating.

But it will continue to accelerate even after the best of our efforts. Those efforts may save millions of lives and we must do what we can. At the same time, climate change is here and we must adapt to the part of it that we cannot change. If you live on the shore and sea level is rising, CO2 is not your only worry -- you need to find a home above sea level before anything else.

The PR challenge is to get the word out that fighting climate change and adapting to it are not mutually exclusive. To salvage the best life we can, we must work on both fronts.

[agent46]

32. I need to be clear about adaptation

Yes. We need to do all we can but that isn't what the corporate meme of adaptation will mean. What they will imply by adaptation is acceptance of the new normal and the survival of those who can afford to exploit it. The rest of us are on our own. No change in the capitalist status quo.

[CrispyQ]

52. "We have to do everything possible to slow climate change down. It is accelerating."

Tell that to all the Americans who are in love with their big cars & their air conditioning.

While I agree with you completely, most Americans are not going to back off on their life styles. Ask Jimmy Carter how it went for him when he told America they had to turn down their thermostats & wear sweaters. In the movie "Three Days of the Condor" the one character at the end nailed it when he said no one wants to be the president/administration that tells America they have to cut back.

Maybe when gas is $8 a gallon & cooling your house costs twice what it does now, people will back off, but no one's backing off now. At least, not enough to make any difference. And our 'leaders' lack the political will to do anything other than enrich themselves.

I believe humanity is between a rock & a hard place.

[NewJeffCT]

29. Nope

they'll continue the old climategate meme.

[agent46]

33. There is that distinct possibility too. n/t

[xtraxritical]

18. If the Kochs have half the business acumen attributed to them they will be moving into

carbon-less alternatives. This would especially be solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and especially hydrogen. They must know that now is the time to transition. They have children and grandchildren too.

[hatrack]

37. It's probably simpler than that: they know they will die soon, and they don't care

It'll be much more fun for them to spend their remaining years pushing the power button (like lab rats pushing the bar to get another dose of cocaine) than trying to clean up the mess they did so much to make.

Besides, they're probably thinking that their kids and grandkids will inherit their money, so they'll be able to "adapt", unlike most of the rest of us on the planet.

They won't.

[randome]

44. Funny thing is, they may NOT die for quite a while.

Stem cell treatments are advancing every month. It is not science fiction to see that living hundreds of years may soon be considered normal.

[matt819]

21. Study "about to be released"

Let's see what actually happens.

And, if published, let's see how the report differs from this summary.

[abelenkpe]

22. W00t!

Really really bad news confirmed by those who sought to deny it. Too bad it's likely too late to do much about it.

[AlinPA]

23. Wrong answer. They will bury it.

[orangegrove]

24. Science never lies.

Science never lies.

[progressoid]

30. Welcome to DU!

[nashville_brook]

25. does this mean we can have our planet back?

[BrendaBrick]

28. UPDATE: 9 PM

From think progress link above (snip)

UPDATE (9 pm): A NY Times op-ed by Richard Muller, BEST’s Founder and Scientific Director, has been published, “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic.”

***************************************************************************************************

p-Ed Contributor
The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER
Published: July 28, 2012

CALL me a converted skeptic. 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.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the 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.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

[Kingofalldems]

31. Freepers: Kochs are now Communists

[lunasun]

35. The Kochs will get folks to discredit or mock him ala Gore but I

guess mostly the clueless are left in their camp so they do not have too much worry and the greedy in their camp only care about money today

[hatrack]

36. Thanks, Charles & David, for revealing to us the whereabouts of the sky . . .

Last edited Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Yeah, global warming's real. No shit.

[Poptech]

39. Muller is absolutely dishonest - he was never a skeptic

Last edited Sun Jul 29, 2012, 01:15 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html

"I was never a skeptic" - Richard Muller, 2011

"If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants." - Richard Muller, 2008

"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." - Richard Muller, 2008

"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." - Richard Muller, 2003

[William Seger]

48. So AGW isn't real?

That's the kind of "logic" populartechnology.net uses in arguing that we should put petroleum industry profits above the health of the planet and the future of our species. Why are you parroting it on DU?

Edit: Never mind; I didn't notice your handle. The reason you're parroting populartechnology.net is because you ARE populartechnology.net .

[Poptech]

59. Strawman

I am not arguing your strawman arguments but the verifiable fact that Muller was never a skeptic.

I personally believe the "planet" and our species is doing fine. I support the use of the most economically viable transportation fuel - oil and I support the ability of any free enterprise that provides a product or service that consumers find of value to be profitable.

[caraher]

61. Interesting manifesto

"I support the ability of any free enterprise that provides a product or service that consumers find of value to be profitable."

This would seem to indicate an ideological opposition to, say, any environmental or safety regulation. Care to correct me or otherwise elaborate on your views? I'd hate to argue with a strawman, but there's not much flesh here to work with...

Incidentally, I do agree that Muller has never been the denier Romm tended to portray him as - and that the BEST project mainly served to verify for himself what he already knew to be true. But what the BEST project mainly did was reveal that many so-called "skeptics" truly deserve the label "denier" instead. As long as Muller was seen as a hope for weakening the scientific evidence for warming he was lauded as objective and fair-minded; when the results began to dribble out, the deniers jumped ship en masse. That's the true significance of the BEST saga.

[Poptech]

67. Denier?

I don't see how my failure to comment on something would imply a position on something I never commented on.

I really do not know what you are talking about. AGW skeptics do not deny the holocaust happened or that there is a climate.

[Viking12]

63. He's been spamming climate sites all over the net w/ this nonsense

He sure seems to have a lot invested in the meme. What he means when he says "Muller was never a skeptic" is "Muller was never a batshit crazy denier like the writers at populartechnology.net"

[GliderGuider]

64. I'd never run into populartechnology.net before, but

"Batshit crazy" resonates with me.

[GliderGuider]

80. Ick! I just dropped over to the poptech site. Denialists of the first order.

Gag me with a maggot.

"To everything there is a season, spin, spin, spin."

[Poptech]

68. The truth is nonsense?

Muller's own words are nonsense?

No need to ad hominem people that scientifically disagree with you.

[GliderGuider]

69. First rule of holes, my son

"When you discover you're in one, Stop Digging!"

We can all see you down there with that shovel.

[Poptech]

70. Projection

Please don't project when you cannot answer questions.

[GliderGuider]

72. Questions?

You haven't asked any.

I hope all that Koch-water isn't too heavy to carry.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. Too often people try to pass off ideologically driven bullshit as "science". It isn't.

You know, like the Discovery Institute, or all the petroleum industry funded global warming denial crap.

[William Seger]

83. The nonsense is...

... implying that "Muller is absolutely dishonest - he was never a skeptic" is of the slightest relevance to the issue of whether or not AGW is real, then calling that implicit argument a "strawman."

The petroleum industry pays people with scientific credentials to cherry-pick the data and ignore anything that doesn't fit the story they want to tell, which is that somehow or another, dumping metric fucktons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere doesn't affect the climate. That isn't science.

[Kennah]

40. Either Kochs figured out a way of making a shitpot of money, or we're completely fucked.

[Poptech]

41. Clarification on Koch Funding,

"The research examined recent global surface temperature trends. It did not examine ocean temperature data or the cause of warming on our climate, as some have claimed" - Tonya Mullins, Director of Communications, Charles Koch Foundation

http://www.charleskochfoundationfacts.org/2011/10/foundation-statement-on-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature-project/

[GliderGuider]

42. I'm not sure what points you're trying to make.

The money was given with "no strings attached" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). The study itself may not have stated a conclusion about the cause, but Muller sure as hell did. The Koch Foundation's mention of ocean temperatures appears to be a red herring.

I don't know Muller's previous history, but the quotes you mined make it sound like he was a skeptic in the scientific sense, just not a denier. I'm thrilled with both the outcome of the study and Muller's op-ed. It's going to shut up a lot of agenda-driven idiots.

[caraher]

56. Muller's break with orthodox climate science is mainly that he was disturbed by "climategate"

Muller said he felt that the grafting of actual temperature records onto tree ring proxy data for a cover illustration was scientific misconduct and he would therefore no longer trust the work of those researchers. He also felt that certain challenges such as the "urban heat island effect" and the claims about NOAA weather station sites not being up to snuff were being given short shrift by established climate scientists.

It's worth noting that the BEST study had many funders, not just Koch. While Muller was the great hope of the denier crowd, I don't think he ever had any intention of doing anything other than going where his data and results took him. Which, of course, was basically exactly where everyone else who'd studied the question in depth went (hardly surprising, when they're looking at essentially the same temperature records).

I think Romm has a tendency to see things in black and white and sort people who aren't 100% with him into the "enemies" category. Muller was never as "skeptical" as Romm and, at times, Muller himself would have us believe.

Meanwhile, bringing up ocean temperatures is just a desperate attempt to change the subject. First, the denier talking point is that the claims of climate change are based on a flawed surface temperature record; when that blows up, they somewhat irrelevantly point out that firmly establishing the validity of surface temperature trends doesn't prove the oceans are warming.

[GliderGuider]

85. Thanks. nt

[Amonester]

43. Too late for

Much too late

[panzerfaust]

45. "CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago ..."

Three more wasted years.

But, that is the point: Delay to the point of no return (which it is starting to look as though we already have).

One of the few things which makes me glad that I am old.

[DCBob]

46. The RW GW denier argument will now evolve to its final stage..

Its too late to do anything about it so we have to live with it.

Sickening.

[Gabby Hayes]

47. It will only seem better, and maybe.......

The big polluters are counting on short memories because there will be some respites between the worsening swings in the weather pendulum. This summer is scaring the crap out of a lot of people up North, just as the summer of 2011 did in Texas. The summer of '11 replaced 2009 as the hottest ever known where I live in Texas. By a ton. The summer of '09 replaced '08 as the hottest ever. By a ton.

The summer of '07 was so cool it was known here as The year without a summer. But the previous summer -- 2006 -- was one of the five-hottest ever, in terms of days with temperatures at or above 100 degrees. In fact, since 1998 (the year deniers claimed the world began to cool) we have experienced seven of the ten worst summers on record. Again, that is in terms of days at or above 100 degrees.

Hopefully we won't see any records set where I live this summer, although people are goosey. There are even signs of an El Nino, which is usually good news for Texas because of the promise of heightened rainfall chances. Some short-term improvements will be seen where you live too, but as in Texas any new ground you gain may well be lost when the pendulum makes another hard swing the other way.

Remember that the science of soil conservation flourished in the 1930's and headed-off an even bigger calamity during the dust bowl of the '50s.' During the ensuing years and decades there have been far-thinking people worldwide feverishly looking for ways to clean up our current mess from behind. Some are garage and backyard inventors, or students in science fairs. Bring them all together with those working on the future of energy -- and protect them from industrial monkey-wrenchers.

[SkyDaddy7]

50. This is actually OLD NEWS...

Dr. Muller, an incredibly egotistical person but a well respected scientist, claims that now he has done the research no one should question global warming! WTF?!?! He said some really nasty things about other climate scientist prior to doing his study. If you want just one example of his incredible ARROGANCE just look at what he called his study, "BEST"! LOL!

To anyone who has paid close attention to the topic of Global Warming knows the debate ended well over a decade ago. So why Dr. Muller began saying the things he did & questioning the consensus the way he did who knows. But I have very little respect for him.

I fully understand science & how it works but this was not the typical beef between scientist...So save me the time of trying to teach me the scientific process. I follow science very closely & especially the issue of global warming & when Dr. Muller, a very respected scientist, started basically accusing other climate scientist like Dr. Mann of lying, changing data & FRAUD it made many people take a step back.

I personally think Dr. Muller EGO simply wanted the attention others were getting so he decided to appeal to the professional DENIER crowd...In the process he became their hero for years until last fall when he announced the results to his study then the Professional Deniers & all their USEFUL IDIOTS on the Right began calling him FRAUD like they had been calling 99% of all the other climate scientist for years!

[randome]

51. Well, he can be a useful idiot for us, then.

Egos should not have anything to do with the discussion. Regardless of his motives, we need to use everything at our disposal to fix this.

[drm604]

54. Right.

If we can fix this by appealing to egos, then we should do so.

I don't know if Muller's statements will convince many of the remaining deniers, but we have nothing to gain by trashing him or his latest statements.

[GliderGuider]

76. The new piece is the NYT op-ed, not the study itself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

I've got nothing against a scientist having an ego, so long as it doesn't keep them from following the science.

[freshwest]

57. They've known this for years, but played their Randian gambit. The 1% producers are determined to

Eliminate the 99% parasites to save the world. Their media keeps us in a state of fear and disgust of each other to make us accept our demise.

They've got the flexibility to move from one living space to another, this is our problem now, they will not help us. They are in a position to be kept separate from the consequences and will stand aside and watch the show. We can either solve these problems ourselves or nature will solve it by eliminating the majority of us. But not them.

The percentages may be different depending on how one looks at the whole, but I believe with the technology that we have developed over the centuries, the 1% don't need us. Most of what we, the 99% (percentages on this vary, with humanity falling into different areas on a line) is for our own benefit, to keep the masses going. It's hard to observe what is happening in the middle of a stampede.

So, we knew this, they gave us hints years ago. Many of us have changed our ways, but we haven't changed the way that power is distributed in this world. If the 1% (I wish I had another term, really, it seems inappropriate) decide to sacrifice a chain of islands like Bikini to test their atomic toys, or move mountains for a buck and destroy the forests that provide oxygen, the water we all need, the marine and other ecosystems, we scavenge to see what our part of the spoils will be and do nothing to stop it. We are overwhelmed, like children watching our sandcastles washed away in the tide.

We do not work as a united mankind, opposing the desolation we know is going on here. They've given us many things to take our minds off the real game going on. But it is going on, out of our consciousness for the most part, as we keep happily busy and are proud of our diversions. Sorry to be so gloomy, this is just one of the ubjects I find depressing. All is not truly lost for everyone. Have a nice Sunday morning, folks.

[chervilant]

90. Good post, as usual.

However, I see a common thread in the posts hereinabove: a surprising lack of attention to how global climate change is affecting agriculture and availability of water. One person did post the most recent drought map, which should cause concern about the current crops in our nation's 'bread basket,' 60-65% of which are rated poor to very poor. When will yields be insufficient to feed the masses?

In another thread last week, I learned that photosynthesis stops at 104 degrees Fahrenheit. Here in the Ozarks, we've been at 104 to 106 over the last three days. How many of our trees and bushes will simply die from heat and lack of water (we're also in extreme to exceptional drought conditions)? Many of our grasses and common weeds are already dead or near dead.

IMHO, we are witnessing our extinction event. I believe that catastrophic famines and water shortages will wipe out most of our population within the next twenty years. Countries in the Tropic of Chaos are already experiencing famines and water shortages, and an alarming number of children in those areas die every day.

Since many people in the United States have greater access to food, water and energy sources, many here also have little appreciation for how tenuous are the vital resources necessary for our species' continuance on this planet. When agriculture fails to produce enough to feed OUR nation, the 1% will find little comfort in their massive reserves of inedible wealth.

[itsrobert]

60. Good topic, but old news. And this is an opinion piece

This is recycle news as Muller stated this back in October 2011.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html

I don't think this should be locked however since it has gained so many replies. Locking would be counter-productive.

[Enrique]

74. and ThinkProgress posted the same graph at that time

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/14/367597/the-koch-funded-scientist-who-came-in-from-the-cold-muller-warming/

[sarcasmo]

65. I bet the Cock brothers want their money back.

[lilithsrevenge12]

79. I'm surprised they didn't send the results directly into the sun

[GliderGuider]

81. Better too late than never

From The Guardian:

Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds

Prof Richard Muller, a physicist and climate change sceptic who founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (Best) project, said he was surprised by the findings. "We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds." He added that he now considers himself a "converted sceptic" and his views had undergone a "total turnaround" in a short space of time.

Last October, the Best team published results that showed the average global land temperature has risen by about 1C since the mid-1950s. But the team did not look for possible fingerprints to explain this warming. The latest data analysis reached much further back in time but, crucially, also searched for the most likely cause of the rise by plotting the upward temperature curve against suspected "forcings". It analysed the warming impact of solar activity – a popular theory among climate sceptics – but found that, over the past 250 years, the contribution of the sun has been "consistent with zero". Volcanic eruptions were found to have caused short dips in the temperature rise in the period 1750–1850, but "only weak analogues" in the 20th century.

When the Best project was announced last year, the prominent climate sceptic blogger Anthony Watts was consulted on the methodology. He stated at the time: "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong." However, tensions have since arisen between Watts and Muller.

Prof Michael Mann, the Penn State palaeoclimatologist who has faced hostility from climate sceptics for his famous "hockey stick" graph showing a rapid rise in temperatures during the 20th century, said he welcomed the Best results as they "demonstrated once again what scientists have known with some degree of certainty for nearly two decades". He added: "I applaud Muller and his colleagues for acting as any good scientists would, following where their analyses led them, without regard for the possible political repercussions. They are certain to be attacked by the professional climate change denial crowd for their findings."

We're seeing evidence of the truth of that last sentence on this thread.

[joshcryer]

84. My certainity borders on religion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x276366

[rks306]

86. facts

The hardest thing for GOP to accept, facts based on science.

[Roland99]

91. *Just* from greenhouse gases? Not the urban concrete islands, too?

[wordpix]

93. "Three years ago I identified scientific issues that...threw doubt on the very existence of global

warming."

So that makes this scientist way far behind the times.