Global Warming

[_Tarski]

The connection to Mormonism here is of course that denial of mainstream climate science has become part of Mormon culture. Droopy is, of course, an extreme example of this and is often claiming that the whole thing has been debunked long ago and is already dead. Unfortunately for him, this is not the case. Far far from it.

There has been an interesting development.

Richard Muller is a Berkeley physicist that was outraged by "climategate". This otherwise respectable scientist was going around ranting and insulting climate scientists and showing pictures of the hockey stick graph and making the usual complaints about it.

Muller set out to show how climate science could be done with integrity. He gathered a team of scientists and set out to do the analysis from the ground up: A fresh start. He would do it right and transparently. He would use (I gather) sophisticated statistics to ferret out bad data etc. Everything would be checked with the eye of skepticism.

Well, what do you know.... the project is finished and Muller's analysis gives the same results as those he was doubting. Kudos to him for having the integrity to admit what he now admits.
Of course, the results that were criticized by climate deniers have been vindicated by several other teams and in a way that doesn't apparently need tree ring data. Of course, this doesn't make it onto FOX news now does it? (Darwinism would also seem to be in trouble if one were to depend on FOX News for (anti-)information).

The thing that makes Muller's conclusions interesting are that he seemed (to many of us at least) to be going into it with an anti-climate science agenda. After all, he was going around giving denier style rants and complaining about the infamous emails etc. He declared he wouldn't publish in certain journals anymore and so on. He was going to do it all correctly!!

Well, Muller's results are in and they largely vindicate mainstream global warming science after all and this includes tentative conclusions about the anthropogenic component:
"they emphasize that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) driven by greenhouse gas emissions is very much in their picture"

The evidence has spoken (again). Of course, we can look forward to a personal demonstration from Droopy of how irrelevant evidence is to climate change deniers and other such politically motivated conspiracy theorists. How long until Muller is accused of faking his skepticism and initiating a plot of some sort? LOL

Read about it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

I will bet this bit of news will not make it into the heads of the anti-science nuts over at MAD.

[_Rambo]

Just before I stopped believing I really looked into climate change a lot. I was really confused who to believe.

I said to my Dad why doesn't the prophet come out and take some sort of stance on this because it is a bery important subject. He said what good would that do it will? Some people will leave over the stance. I was like but if he is the prophet they should follow him and not leave over it. Really I think climate change is a bigger issue than how many earings you have.

Our provincial government is spending 2 billion dollars to help fight climate change. If the world is not being impacted by man made global warming then isn't it more important to build hospitals and schools? Rather than giving money to the oil companies too use for CO2 projects?

I'm not a climate change denier but I'm not convinced either. Really the whole subject is confusing to me.

[_keithb]

The connection to Mormonism here is of course that denial of mainstream climate science has become part of Mormon culture. Droopy is, of course, an extreme example of this and is often claiming that the whole thing has been debunked long ago and is already dead. Unfortunately for him, this is not the case. Far far from it.

There has been an interesting development.

Richard Muller is a Berkeley physicist that was outraged by "climate gate". This otherwise respectable scientist was going around ranting and insulting climate scientists and showing pictures of the hockey stick graph and making the usual complaints about it.

Muller set out to show how climate science could be done with integrity. He gathered a team of scientists and set out to do the analysis from the ground up: A fresh start. He would do it right and transparently. He would use (I gather) sophisticated statistics to ferret out bad data etc. Everything would be checked with the eye of skepticism.

Well, what do you know.... the project is finished and Muller's analysis gives the same results as those he was doubting. Kudos to him for having the integrity to admit what he now admits.
Of course, the results that were criticized by climate deniers have been vindicated by several other teams and in a way that doesn't apparently need tree ring data. Of course, this doesn't make it onto FOX news now does it? (Darwinism would also seem to be in trouble if one were to depend on FOX News for (anti-)information).

The thing that makes Muller's conclusions interesting are that he seemed (to many of us at least) to be going into it with an anti-climate science agenda. After all, he was going around giving denier style rants and complaining about the infamous emails etc. He declared he wouldn't publish in certain journals anymore and so on. He was going to do it all correctly!!

Well, Muller's results are in and they largely vindicate mainstream global warming science after all and this includes tentative conclusions about the anthropogenic component:
"they emphasize that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) driven by greenhouse gas emissions is very much in their picture"

The evidence has spoken (again). Of course, we can look forward to a personal demonstration from Droopy of how irrelevant evidence is to climate change deniers and other such politically motivated conspiracy theorists. How long until Muller is accused of faking his skepticism and initiating a plot of some sort? LOL

Read about it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

I will bet this bit of news will not make it into the heads of the anti-science nuts over at MAD.

I actually say kudos to Muller. He was right to be skeptical. Climate change is strong claim, and it requires strong evidence to support it. Actually, this is an example of science which was done completely right, IMHO.

However, now that his study has confirmed the results of the previous study, the evidence seems to be very much in favor of climate change at this point. Of course, there can always be more studies and further evidence, but how much evidence does there have to be before governments are prepared to act?

In response to Rambo, I don't personally consider this a matter of belief. The evidence at this point strongly supports a climate change model, and, as a scientist, I go with the evidence.

[_Jhall118]

I think governments should not spend money on preventing CO2 admissions, because it would be a tragedy if we cleaned the air that we breathe and it wasn't responsible for saving the planet ;)

[_Simon Belmont]

Remember in the 1970s when everyone was worried about Global Cooling? You have to love the solid doctrines of science!

[_bcspace]

The connection to Mormonism here is of course that denial of mainstream climate science has become part of Mormon culture. Droopy is, of course, an extreme example of this and is often claiming that the whole thing has been debunked long ago and is already dead. Unfortunately for him, this is not the case. Far far from it.

GW is not necessarily dead, though there is a good chance it might have died in the late 90's. But AGW consistently has had no basis in fact; just the notion that CO2, being a greenhouse gas and lots being put into the air must mean it's causing GW. However, even the recent CERN discoveries show that these calculations must be significantly revised because the data doesn't show it.

[_jon]

Remember in the 1970s when everyone was worried about Global Cooling? You have to love the solid doctrines of science!

Was that back when blacks couldn't have the Priesthood?

[_Rambo]

I wasn't around in the 70's but was the science really positive about global cooling? Just as they are now about climate change?

I do think the earth is heating up but aren't we still coming out of an ice age?

I have heard that even if we do cut back all the CO2 emmisions that if a volcano errupts than that produces a crap load more CO2. I should really go look up numbers.

[_Jhall118]

The connection to Mormonism here is of course that denial of mainstream climate science has become part of Mormon culture. Droopy is, of course, an extreme example of this and is often claiming that the whole thing has been debunked long ago and is already dead. Unfortunately for him, this is not the case. Far far from it.

GW is not necessarily dead, though there is a good chance it might have died in the late 90's. But AGW consistently has had no basis in fact; just the notion that CO2, being a greenhouse gas and lots being put into the air must mean it's causing GW. However, even the recent CERN discoveries show that these calculations must be significantly revised because the data doesn't show it.

Are you kidding me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change

As just a starting point. Virtually no scientific body has disagreed with man made global warming. More relevant: no good studies are currently out that really refute it- they may quibble over the data, but they certainly don't debunk the theory.

Maybe it would help if you linked the study in question. Over an over again the same conclusion is being seen, not only that global warming is happening, but that it is man made. The amount of head burying in the sand that is going on over this issue is staggering.

Rambo:
The amount of C02 a volcano produces is very small compared to the amount of CO2 humans produce. Again, it is always best to look at the data.

[_Some Schmo]

Here's a question to ask yourself: what do scientists in particular have to gain from pretending that AGW is real?

And on the flipside, what do conservative capitalists have to gain by denying it?

I would think that the answers to those two questions should tell anyone what they need to know to determine the truth of the matter.