The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism

Those darned scientists! Prof Richard A Muller has been frequently quoted in the past by warming deniers and when he put together a team to study the hundreds of other scientific studies from around the world, it was thought to be a “final blow” against all those Al Gore acolytes and sycophants. The Koch brothers even provided some funding for the work.

The (in)famous Anthony Watts wrote in March of this year, “[i]I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.[/i]” Naturally, a scientific study that he once advocated for is no longer acceptable, as you will read if you click the link. Ah, Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.
A major point in the deniers attack on the global warming/climate change reports of the recent past has been the Urban Heat Island effect on temperature records. Dr Muller’s team looked at the matter and found that such effects had been included in the records

There were good reasons for doubt, until now.

What about poor station quality? Again, our statistical methods allowed us to analyze the U.S. temperature record separately for stations with good or acceptable rankings, and those with poor rankings (the U.S. is the only place in the world that ranks its temperature stations). Remarkably, the poorly ranked stations showed no greater temperature increases than the better ones. The mostly likely explanation is that while low-quality stations may give incorrect absolute temperatures, they still accurately track temperature changes.

I hope you see what the study is showing here, scientists who have looked at the issue of climate change are using the change in temps, not the extreme points of temperatures. Also it is change over long periods, decades not years, not daily swings in temperature readings and not new record highs and lows. So when various deniers build igloos in DC during a snow storm  it shows nothing more than an inability to understand what the scientists are saying.

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections. Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate.

In a pattern seen with the right’s attacks on the President, even when he does what they once advocated, the deniers now say the Muller study is flawed,
Climate Study Does Not Placate Skeptics


2 responses to “The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism

  1. Pingback: Logarchism » The BEST Study Yet

  2. Pingback: The scientific finding that settles the climate-change debate – The Washington Post | Odds and Ends: Pit's Complete Waste of Bandwidth

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s