» News
The Left is Crowing That A Former “Warming Skeptic” Has Done a Reversal
Really, which skeptic was that?
Richard Muller?
Oh, the “skeptic” that said this 4 years ago?
But just how much of a “skeptic” was Muller? Here’s the opening from his 2008 interview with Grist.org:
Grist: What should a President McCain or Obama know about global warming?
Muller: The bottom line is that there is a consensus — the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] — and the president needs to know what the IPCC says. Second, they say that most of the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to humans. You need to know that this is from carbon dioxide, and you need to understand which technologies can reduce this and which can’t. Roughly 1 degree Fahrenheit of global warming has taken place; we’re responsible for one quarter of it. If we cut back so we don’t cause any more, global warming will be delayed by three years and keep on going up. And now the developing world is producing most of the carbon dioxide.
Stranded in Sonoma
July 29th, 2012
I know I sound like a broken record but this bears repeating — until every libtard understands that what they are talking about is a religion and not science.
For a theory to be scientific, it must meet two criteria. You must perform real world tests and every test must show reproducible results. If your tests show a increase of 2, 5, 6, and 10 degrees, a decrease of 1, 2, and 4 degrees, and three tests show no change, then you do NOT have reproducible results. And computer models are NOT real world tests.
Your theory must also be able to be proven false. Because it just might be. But the warming zealots have said that global warming can mean that it is hotter, colder, wetter, drier. That’s not science; that’s religion. Because if it was science, then this question could be answered very simply — How do you prove anthropogenic global warming false? I’m not looking for evidence, I want to know to HOW. Even Einstein can be proven false. He hasn’t yet, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be.
When a koolaidian tells me HOW anthropogenic global warming can be proven false, that’s when we hold their feet to the fire and make them admit they’re wrong when that very thing happens.
mkultra
July 29th, 2012
Maybe this will finally force James Hansen to admit that Globull Warming is man-made too.
Working for the enemy
July 29th, 2012
Comforting to know that sometimes the stupid wears off.
Tim
July 29th, 2012
“… the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to humans …”
Catch that “probably?” That’s the skeptical part.
And if Stranded’s explanation is too complex for the Globaloney Demented: All of em claim to “believe” in Climate Change – proving by their own words that it is a “belief system” / religious cult.
Tim
July 29th, 2012
To Clarify:
I have never heard a Physicist mutter: “I believe in gravity.”
Or an Engineer say: “I believe in friction.”
Timwi
July 29th, 2012
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/
Timwi
July 29th, 2012
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100173174/global-warming-yeah-right/
Mikio
July 29th, 2012
Stranded in Sonoma said:
“Because if it was science, then this question could be answered very simply — How do you prove anthropogenic global warming false?”
First of all, I realize it’s futile dealing with an angry, unmoveable hypocrite like you, but that’s okay. If ticking you off (and your ilk who may be reading this) further through the sheer power of logic and reason is all that’s accomplished here, that’s good enough for me. Or perhaps you could shock me and show some intellectual honesty which would be remarkable. (But probably even less likely now after this ad hominem intro. Oh well!)
Anyway, here’s my attempt at an answer to your challenge. I suspect AGW can’t be proven false easily and the reason why is because there’s too much of a body of evidence that no single damning discrepancy will suffice to send the theory crashing down. It would take an accumulation of many such damning discrepancies to eventually cause the 97-98% consensus of working climatologists to dwindle.
Now, I’m only a layman, and I could be wrong on this. Perhaps a climatologist could name for us a single, simple thing that could disprove AGW. But I doubt it. It’s becoming more and more like the theory of evolution. Too massively well established. Or is that a bad analogy because you think evolution is just a liberal hoax too? I wouldn’t be surprised. Same Dunning-Kruger right-wing mentality there as well.
Mikio
July 29th, 2012
Tim said:
Catch that “probably?” That’s the skeptical part.
Congratulations. You just failed to get the gist of the blog post and contradicted your fellow right-winger, blog post writer BigFurHat.
You’re saying Muller actually was a skeptic. But BigFurHat was saying Muller actually wasn’t a skeptic, as per his usage of scare quotes around the word as follows:
Oh, the “skeptic” that said this 4 years ago?
Glad to help.
mkultra
July 29th, 2012
@Mikio, ‘consensus’ (even among scientists) does not equate to a scientific truth.
Mikio
July 30th, 2012
@mkultra –
If that’s the case, then there are no scientific truths.
And if there are no scientific truths, but you deniers/skeptics require that AGW be established as a scientific truth before you’ll accept it, then you all will obviously never accept it.
And you all say we’re the dogmatists. Ha!
mkultra
July 30th, 2012
You’re very emotional about this issue. I didn’t mean to upset you, Mikio.
Mikio
July 30th, 2012
mkultra –
Leave it to a right winger to intepret “Ha!” as being upset. Every day is Opposite Day for conservatives.
Tell ya what, you go ahead and think you hit a home run off me and I’ll wait ’til someone comes along who actually has a bat.
mkultra
July 30th, 2012
I never claimed to hit a home run with you, Mikio. I merely stated that you seem to be emotionally tethered to your position on man made global warming. I really don’t care if that emotion is happiness, anger, or sadness.