"Humans Are Almost Entirely The Cause Of Climate Change" Richard Muller Former Climate Change Denier - YouTube:
This is a very interesting video/news from MoxNews.
The Exxon Valdez has an oil spill, has a name change, has a name change, has a shipwreck, has a name change, and is now being dismantled/retired. The wreck, by any other name, is still Valdez.
NatGas +/- . . . Not so sure about the Frac'ng story... But hang in there til the end. It is well worth the wait. If it has equal likes and dislikes, then it is probably pretty good!
Richard A. Muller, the last hold out of global warming, has now come out with a book. Once you remove the noise, the level of CO2 matches perfectly with global warming. It is important to know that humans are the cause, probably the primary cause, of global warming. This is good, kind of. "If we cause it, then there's something we can do about it." He didn't think solar variations, volcanic eruptions, el nino, etc., had longer term impacts. "The carbon dioxide curve was right on."
Muller won the MacArthur Genius Grant 30 years ago. He was the last major skeptic on Global Warming. He just completed major research on global warming funded by the Koch Foundation, a ?conservative? group by the Charles G. Koch family, the oil billionair family. Anyone knowing about the funding source, would have been surprised about the results.
He found last year that Global Warming is real.
He now has determined that human activity seems to be the predominant cause. The rise in CO2 matches perfectly with the rise in temperatures. Correlation is not causation, but the correlation is very strong.
Global economic shock to cut back on CO2 emissions? Energy efficiency. And switch away from coal. He suggests NatGas as immediate switch away from coal. NatGas produces 1/3 the level of CO2 as coal. (I'm not so sure about 1/3, I think it is 33% less CO2 than coal per energy equivolent.)
The big thing is that the controversy of Global warming is dead. It's a fact. It appears to be perfectly correlated with human factors that generate greenhouse gases (eCO2). So the next debate (or controversy, maybe) is what are we gonna do about it.???
New version of his book:
'via Blog this'
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query muller. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query muller. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, August 3, 2012
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real - Yahoo! News
Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real - Yahoo! News: "Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels."
So the long-term denier Muller has finally decided that there really is global worming. Duh.
At least as important is that the funding is by Koch Foundation. It looks like they will stand behind the findings and push on for more research as to the cause of global warming.
Apparently Muller has a presentation on Monday and is preparing for peer-review publication of 4 articles on the research.
That is why I really like approaching the whole issue from the perspective of "Sustainability". If it can't be done in the long term (like population growth, deficits, fossil fuels) then it is not sustainable. We/you/me have to start planning to change our evil ways, now at a time of our choosing... or later at a time that is much less convenient and likely far more expensive. Ouch! or Double Ouch!:-(
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Why the Mail on Sunday was wrong to claim global warming has stopped... Ice cold debate
Why the Mail on Sunday was wrong to claim global warming has stopped | Environment | guardian.co.uk:
The Guardian comes back with a strong argument against the David Rose article in the Daily Mail on Oct 20, 2012. David argues that there has been only a very small increase in global surface temperatures for the 16 years ending in 2011. Not as much, certainly, as expected, by forecasts.
First, no one anywhere can deny climate change. Higher highs, lower lows, and more extreme temperatures, pretty much everywhere. All of the places I travel (in the US and most of the places I read about and talk to people from) have been exhibiting extremes almost every year. Often the 100-year extremes have been reached a couple times over the last couple years!:-) Ouch.
The chilling goosebumps should come out on anyone who starts to check out the arctic ice caps. Much of the north pole was navigable this summer by ship, something that no researchers forecasted last century, they expected it about 2050 or later. The recession of the Arctic ice seems to be happening at a faster and faster pace.
James Hansen gives a simple but visual image of the warming of our planet. See this blog post here.
Richard Muller, the last skeptic of the climatologists, recently published research that was funded by the right-leaning Koch brothers. (I refuse to call them "conservative" because it debases the word.) In the first report Muller found that there is, in fact, global warming. In the second report he found that humans appear to be almost entirely the cause.
Carbon Dioxide has increased in the atmosphere in a direct match with the industrialization of the world and also with the increase of the population. But, if you look at the earth's systems as, well, systems, it is impossible to believe the the massive buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere would have not effect... And that many of those effects would not be adverse.
Given that we know CO2 has a long persistence, say 100 years, in the atmosphere, it should make a sane man nervous... very nervous.
Ignoring the facts, is a long distance from being helpful in any way.
'via Blog this'
The Guardian comes back with a strong argument against the David Rose article in the Daily Mail on Oct 20, 2012. David argues that there has been only a very small increase in global surface temperatures for the 16 years ending in 2011. Not as much, certainly, as expected, by forecasts.
First, no one anywhere can deny climate change. Higher highs, lower lows, and more extreme temperatures, pretty much everywhere. All of the places I travel (in the US and most of the places I read about and talk to people from) have been exhibiting extremes almost every year. Often the 100-year extremes have been reached a couple times over the last couple years!:-) Ouch.
The chilling goosebumps should come out on anyone who starts to check out the arctic ice caps. Much of the north pole was navigable this summer by ship, something that no researchers forecasted last century, they expected it about 2050 or later. The recession of the Arctic ice seems to be happening at a faster and faster pace.
James Hansen gives a simple but visual image of the warming of our planet. See this blog post here.
Richard Muller, the last skeptic of the climatologists, recently published research that was funded by the right-leaning Koch brothers. (I refuse to call them "conservative" because it debases the word.) In the first report Muller found that there is, in fact, global warming. In the second report he found that humans appear to be almost entirely the cause.
Carbon Dioxide has increased in the atmosphere in a direct match with the industrialization of the world and also with the increase of the population. But, if you look at the earth's systems as, well, systems, it is impossible to believe the the massive buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere would have not effect... And that many of those effects would not be adverse.
Given that we know CO2 has a long persistence, say 100 years, in the atmosphere, it should make a sane man nervous... very nervous.
Ignoring the facts, is a long distance from being helpful in any way.
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Skeptical Science on a Skeptical Scientist: Patrick Moore on climate change
Is there really a debate as to whether humans are contributing to Global Warming?
This will take you some time, so if you are looking for a couple quick sound-bites, skip this entire post, and absolutely, skip the videos.
Dr. Patrick Moore was recently pointed out to me as a qualified scientist and a active skeptic of Global Warming. Read about Moore on Wikipedia. He was an active founder of Greenpeace, but left the greenie organization when they become too radical. He thinks that Greenpeace has moved toward more social and anti-capitalistic agendas, not so much the protection of the environment that Greenpeace was founded on.
Now he is very skeptical of many things, especially the man-made contribution to global warming.
Moore has become a PR guy for some of the most criticized companies and industries by environmental groups. Working, and consulting for 'the enemy' is not at all a bad thing. Being in the economic engine side of energy production, metals, etc., can give people detailed insight into complete solutions to major issues. But this does not seem to be how Moore functions; his interviews and books seem to actually be an extension of his job as a PR guy. See the criticism at the end of his Wikipedia page.
(Wiki note: The Wikipedia entry seem mature, with about 700 edits, 21 over the last 30 days and the most recent edit today. No editorial complaints. Note that there are no articles outside links to this page, so Moore does not seem to be the indisputable expert he might lead us to believe.)
There are many interviews of Moore that seem rational and reasonable enough on the surface: Hannity Feb 2014, and Fox Business Network with Stuart Varney pushing his book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout. But, don't watch these videos unless you are willing to go look that the scientific breakdown of what Moore has to say. Point by point, issue by issue.
This is a blog by John Mason (2012, Aug 25).
Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change:
Mason takes on the details of an interview in which Moore lavishes on facts, figures, assumptions and conclusions. And Mason breaks it down point-by-point with the best facts that exist today. Mason gives some of the best, and most factual, address of the issues associated with "Global Warming" and those who would say their "ain't no such thing". And he did it all without "sensationalist scare tactics".
When you are done, ask yourself: Who was the most shrill and panic? Who presented the facts with the most facts? Who's probabilities are most probable, give the facts?
This SustainZine blog does not devote much time to the debate over "Global Warming". Life's too short. There is global warming. Moore and Mason agree on this. Humans contribute to global warming. Moore says only a little; Mason (and the IPCC scientists) say humans contribute a lot to global warming. One of the last skeptical climate scientist Richard Muller, said that there was global warming and that humans are a major cause. Blogs here. Muller's research was funded by the Koch brothers.
This blog, however, focuses on Sustainability. Sustainability is good. Activities and business models that are non-sustainable are broken models. (Hah, you thought I was going to say "Bad".). A steady move toward 100% sustainability is not only a good plan, it is a sane plan. (Hah, you thought I was going to use the words "insane not to do so...".)
So let's get past this foolish debate and have real people and real companies start making real progress toward sustainability. If businesses and communities and individuals take long enough to get started on serious efforts to become sustainable, then governments will (start to) take charge.
What probably scares people more than Global Warming itself, actually, is that Governments far and wide will jump into the mix to "fix" things.
We especially like efforts that will save money, save time, save resources and reduce our impact on the environment. Usually, we "don't need no government" for that. (Actually that, not entirely true, but subject of another story.)
Responsible vs. Irresponsible.
You choose?
'via Blog this'
This will take you some time, so if you are looking for a couple quick sound-bites, skip this entire post, and absolutely, skip the videos.
Dr. Patrick Moore was recently pointed out to me as a qualified scientist and a active skeptic of Global Warming. Read about Moore on Wikipedia. He was an active founder of Greenpeace, but left the greenie organization when they become too radical. He thinks that Greenpeace has moved toward more social and anti-capitalistic agendas, not so much the protection of the environment that Greenpeace was founded on.
Now he is very skeptical of many things, especially the man-made contribution to global warming.
Moore has become a PR guy for some of the most criticized companies and industries by environmental groups. Working, and consulting for 'the enemy' is not at all a bad thing. Being in the economic engine side of energy production, metals, etc., can give people detailed insight into complete solutions to major issues. But this does not seem to be how Moore functions; his interviews and books seem to actually be an extension of his job as a PR guy. See the criticism at the end of his Wikipedia page.
(Wiki note: The Wikipedia entry seem mature, with about 700 edits, 21 over the last 30 days and the most recent edit today. No editorial complaints. Note that there are no articles outside links to this page, so Moore does not seem to be the indisputable expert he might lead us to believe.)
There are many interviews of Moore that seem rational and reasonable enough on the surface: Hannity Feb 2014, and Fox Business Network with Stuart Varney pushing his book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout. But, don't watch these videos unless you are willing to go look that the scientific breakdown of what Moore has to say. Point by point, issue by issue.
This is a blog by John Mason (2012, Aug 25).
Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change:
Mason takes on the details of an interview in which Moore lavishes on facts, figures, assumptions and conclusions. And Mason breaks it down point-by-point with the best facts that exist today. Mason gives some of the best, and most factual, address of the issues associated with "Global Warming" and those who would say their "ain't no such thing". And he did it all without "sensationalist scare tactics".
When you are done, ask yourself: Who was the most shrill and panic? Who presented the facts with the most facts? Who's probabilities are most probable, give the facts?
This SustainZine blog does not devote much time to the debate over "Global Warming". Life's too short. There is global warming. Moore and Mason agree on this. Humans contribute to global warming. Moore says only a little; Mason (and the IPCC scientists) say humans contribute a lot to global warming. One of the last skeptical climate scientist Richard Muller, said that there was global warming and that humans are a major cause. Blogs here. Muller's research was funded by the Koch brothers.
This blog, however, focuses on Sustainability. Sustainability is good. Activities and business models that are non-sustainable are broken models. (Hah, you thought I was going to say "Bad".). A steady move toward 100% sustainability is not only a good plan, it is a sane plan. (Hah, you thought I was going to use the words "insane not to do so...".)
So let's get past this foolish debate and have real people and real companies start making real progress toward sustainability. If businesses and communities and individuals take long enough to get started on serious efforts to become sustainable, then governments will (start to) take charge.
What probably scares people more than Global Warming itself, actually, is that Governments far and wide will jump into the mix to "fix" things.
We especially like efforts that will save money, save time, save resources and reduce our impact on the environment. Usually, we "don't need no government" for that. (Actually that, not entirely true, but subject of another story.)
Responsible vs. Irresponsible.
You choose?
'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)