The Scientific Finding That Settles the Climate Change Debate | Washington Post

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Anne Tolch

unread,
Oct 25, 2011, 11:50:24 PM10/25/11
to san-diego-region-ag...@googlegroups.com

Appreciation and gratitude to Michael Hetz for shining a light on this one.

With best as always,

Anne

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-scientific-finding-that-settles-the-climate-change-debate/2011/03/01/gIQAd6QfDM_story.html

The scientific finding that settles the climate-change debate

By Eugene Robinson, Published: October 24

For the clueless or cynical diehards who deny global warming, it’s getting awfully cold out there.

The latest icy blast of reality comes from an eminent scientist whom the climate-change skeptics once lauded as one of their own. Richard Muller, a respected physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, used to dismiss alarmist climate research as being “polluted by political and activist frenzy.” Frustrated at what he considered shoddy science, Muller launched his own comprehensive study to set the record straight. Instead, the record set him straight.

 “Global warming is real,” Muller wrote last week in The Wall Street Journal.

Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and the rest of the neo-Luddites who are turning the GOP into the anti-science party should pay attention.

“When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find,” Muller wrote. “Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that.”

In other words, the deniers’ claims about the alleged sloppiness or fraudulence of climate science are wrong. Muller’s team, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, rigorously explored the specific objections raised by skeptics — and found them groundless.

Muller and his fellow researchers examined an enormous data set of observed temperatures from monitoring stations around the world and concluded that the average land temperature has risen 1 degree Celsius — or about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — since the mid-1950s.

This agrees with the increase estimated by the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Muller’s figures also conform with the estimates of those British and American researchers whose catty e-mails were the basis for the alleged “Climategate” scandal, which was never a scandal in the first place.

The Berkeley group’s research even confirms the infamous “hockey stick” graph — showing a sharp recent temperature rise — that Muller once snarkily called “the poster child of the global warming community.” Muller’s new graph isn’t just similar, it’s identical.

Muller found that skeptics are wrong when they claim that a “heat island” effect from urbanization is skewing average temperature readings; monitoring instruments in rural areas show rapid warming, too. He found that skeptics are wrong to base their arguments on the fact that records from some sites seem to indicate a cooling trend, since records from at least twice as many sites clearly indicate warming. And he found that skeptics are wrong to accuse climate scientists of cherry-picking the data, since the readings that are often omitted — because they are judged unreliable — show the same warming trend.

Muller and his colleagues examined five times as many temperature readings as did other researchers — a total of 1.6 billion records — and now have put that merged database online. The results have not yet been subjected to peer review, so technically they are still preliminary. But Muller’s plain-spoken admonition that “you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer” has reduced many deniers to incoherent grumbling or stunned silence.

Not so, I predict, with the blowhards such as Perry, Cain and Bachmann, who, out of ignorance or perceived self-interest, are willing to play politics with the Earth’s future. They may concede that warming is taking place, but they call it a natural phenomenon and deny that human activity is the cause.

It is true that Muller made no attempt to ascertain “how much of the warming is due to humans.” Still, the Berkeley group’s work should help lead all but the dimmest policymakers to the overwhelmingly probable answer.

We know that the rise in temperatures over the past five decades is abrupt and very large. We know it is consistent with models developed by other climate researchers that posit greenhouse gas emissions — the burning of fossil fuels by humans — as the cause. And now we know, thanks to Muller, that those other scientists have been both careful and honorable in their work.

Nobody’s fudging the numbers. Nobody’s manipulating data to win research grants, as Perry claims, or making an undue fuss over a “naturally occurring” warm-up, as Bachmann alleges. Contrary to what Cain says, the science is real.

It is the know-nothing politicians — not scientists — who are committing an unforgivable fraud.

eugener...@washpost.com

Anne Tolch

(619) 518-3178

Vice Chairperson

The Sustainability Alliance of Southern California

www.thesustainabilityalliance.org

Marilee McLean

unread,
Oct 28, 2011, 7:14:10 PM10/28/11
to anne...@gmail.com, san-diego-region-ag...@googlegroups.com, Michael Hetz
I was so struck by one thing about the Eugene Robinson op-ed....and that was that the only mention of Muller's research in the whole newspaper was on the opinion
page!   I made two calls to the UT asking if the research could be mentioned elsewhere in the paper  since it definitely merited mention as science rather than opinion...got two calls back from different editors but no agreement on their part to further "research the research".  At least I was able to make my point.
   I think it's important to spread this news however and wherever we can---that a major climate denier has now reversed his position due to his  extensive scientific research!   We should not be satisfied to read about this as a mention in an editorial---the Climate Deniers would have blasted this through every major media outlet if the research had proven their case.  The Wall Street Journal saw fit to print it---but not our local paper????
   I hope you'll agree with my short attached letter and take futher action if you feel moved to do so.
Thanks to each of you for your inspiration!
Marilee
    ----- Original Message -----
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "San Diego Region Against Proposition 23" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
san-diego-region-against-...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/san-diego-region-against-proposition-23?hl=en
Climate change reality!.doc

Kathleen Connell

unread,
Oct 28, 2011, 8:08:55 PM10/28/11
to marile...@roadrunner.com, <annetolch@gmail.com>, <san-diego-region-against-proposition-23@googlegroups.com>, Michael Hetz
I think it is a breath of fresh air that the UT published this very strong  piece-with political swift kicks to Republican candidates. It is the later element of the piece that relegates this item to the op-Ed page. 
But I see your point. We know the UT modus operandi, and I think Editors have to tread carefully to keep thier jobs. Or so I have noticed.  

We need a more progressive paper in town but nothing seems to stick, like SDNN's short life demonstrates. 

Kathleen



Kathleen Connell, M.A.
Principal
Connell Whittaker Group LLC

Join us on Nov 16
Green Experts Academy, San Diego

Sent from my mobile phone

<Climate change reality!.doc>

Michael Hetz

unread,
Oct 29, 2011, 2:03:38 PM10/29/11
to Marilee McLean, anne...@gmail.com, san-diego-region-ag...@googlegroups.com
Right on Marilee. Now the challenge is going to be "proving" the anthropomorphic causes. Conservatives are using the same old tired arguments - that since we don't know for sure man is the cause, we can't afford the regulations,  our economy needs to maximize our natural, fossil- fuel resources. 

This is  same argument they  used opposing acid rain and ozone, that the problems were too insignificant and the costs too high. Only this time they are going to pin it on natural causes, or acts of god. Their position really is - we have to destroy the environment to save the economy. 

Job-killing environmental regulations needs to be turned on it's head. It should be-  planet killing jobs are dead end jobs. - they are now claiming we need the Keystone XL pipeline because it will create thousands of new jobs. Jobs that will hasten the collapse of the environment. 

Michael 




<Climate change reality!.doc>

Marilee McLean

unread,
Oct 31, 2011, 1:30:13 PM10/31/11
to Steve Goetsch, mic...@thenoodleshop.com, anne...@gmail.com, san-diego-region-ag...@googlegroups.com
I do agree that hard-core deniers are difficult to reach, but Richard Muller was a denier and proved himself and others to be wrong!   I think we need to take every opportunity to state the facts so that the general population hears constant reinforcement that climate change is REAL!
Marilee 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 12:20 PM
Subject: RE: [sd-against-prop-23] Re: Yes, I agree it was a great op-ed.....just submitted a response to the UT

Little hope of "proving" climate change to the deniers.   It is a triumph of "beliefs" over actual facts.

 

If they found whales swimming on Mount Laguna most of them would still deny sea level rise!

 

 

Steve Goetsch

Solana Beach, California

image001.jpg
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages