View Single Post
Old 03-16-2014, 10:39 AM   #16
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
redhawk's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Originally Posted by Schultzz View Post
Professor Hobbitt - Thank you for the referral. I read the follow up article and all it really says is that Dr. Muller has changed his stance. The article says nothing about refuting his first findings:

"How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does." R Muller

Yes, we see signs of the earth warming but this warming effect may be caused by solar flares. We also have seen shorter periods of cooling too. Do you remember back a few years ago when the scientists all agreed we were entering another ice age? I believe it was back in the 70's.

The earth heats up and cools down. So does the argument. The question should be why cannot we become better stewards of our environment? Certainly "greenhouse" gasses trapped cannot be healthy especially in China. Also the incinerators in Ohio cannot be doing our ADK's any good either. So yes let us work toward taking better care of our bountiful natural wonders, but let us also be aware of the greed which produced them and know that it may still be present in those who would profit from our present condition.

Just as you don't have to be a dog to be a veterinarian - just because you may have degrees behind your name doesn't necessarily indicate that you have the right to make radical statements such as the Rochester Professor. What it does give you the right to be is wrong by the same standard as anyone else "guessing". It's just that by being somewhat prominent more people are reached by your statement. Remember what they say about opinions?
Ok, so first you refer to his article to validate your opinion. However when he changes his stance, which would be an indication that the article he wrote was flawed in some way or wrong, you then find an excuse to not invaladate your opoinion based on his self admitted flawed inforformation or interpretation of the information?

He admits he was wrong by his change in stance. Therefore it is implied that his "facts" were incorrect or his intrepation was flawed. He doesn't need to ay his earlier facts were incorrect directly he says that inncorrectly with this statement:

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.

So here are the facts: He was wrong, he admits he was wrong, and if anyone is basing their opinion about the non existence of global warming on his earlier findings, then they are wrong too. One would hope that they too would admit that they were wrong.
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline