DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**8Uxtkz7F** · 07-30-2012, 10:58 PM

Ouch just read an article in SMH about a converted sceptic

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cl...730-23769.html
“Ouch” ?

You wish. Besides the overwhelming transition of viewpoints going from alarmist to sceptical, what has Muller to say?

In your link Muller states in the New York Times –“ I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

But Richard Muller, December 17, 2003 said _ “In most fields of science, researchers who express the most self-doubt and who understate their conclusions are the ones that are most respected. Scientists regard with disdain those who play their conclusions to the press.

Ouch. Seems somewhat hypocritical.

But how far from the sceptics argument (uncertainty) has Muller moved?

Also from Muller’s Op-Ed in the NYT –''While this doesn't prove (his temp reconstruction) that global warming is caused by human greenhouse gases”

Thanks for admitting that Muller.

Also - It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed. Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.

07-30-2012, 10:58 PM	#10
8Uxtkz7F Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 548 Senior Member	Ouch just read an article in SMH about a converted sceptic http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cl...730-23769.html “Ouch” ? You wish. Besides the overwhelming transition of viewpoints going from alarmist to sceptical, what has Muller to say? In your link Muller states in the New York Times –“ I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.” But Richard Muller, December 17, 2003 said _ “In most fields of science, researchers who express the most self-doubt and who understate their conclusions are the ones that are most respected. Scientists regard with disdain those who play their conclusions to the press. Ouch. Seems somewhat hypocritical. But how far from the sceptics argument (uncertainty) has Muller moved? Also from Muller’s Op-Ed in the NYT –''While this doesn't prove (his temp reconstruction) that global warming is caused by human greenhouse gases” Thanks for admitting that Muller. Also - It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical. I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed. Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.
	Quote