Here’s a report from Think Progress, citing a new study, as well as reports about it in the New York Times and UK Guardian:
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST) is poised to release its findings next week on the cause of recent global warming.
UPDATE (9 pm, 7/28): A NY Times op-ed by Richard Muller, BEST’s Founder and Scientific Director, has been published, “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic.”
Here is the money graf:
“CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”
Yes, yes, I know, the finding itself is “dog bites man.” What makes this “man bites dog” is that Muller has been a skeptic of climate science, and the single biggest funder of this study is the “Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000).” The Kochs are the leading funder of climate disinformation in the world!
It gets better:
Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming.
In short, a Koch-funded study has found that the IPCC “consensus” underestimated both the rate of surface warming and how much could be attributed to human emissions!
UPDATE (9 AM, 7/29): The UK Guardian has a good story up, “Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds: Earth’s land shown to have warmed by 1.5C over past 250 years, with humans being almost entirely responsible.”
Filed under: Uncategorized
Those who deny Global Warming/ Climate Change are on the wrong side of history and will cost future generations dearly. Short term gains at the expense of long term health, it is very small minds that cannot expand the thoughts of life past their own.
Even Sarah Palin has flipped on this issue, as the evidence has become to compelling, with the broiling of the midwest, and Greenland’s ice cap going going..go…. It’s like in Spain, some four centuries ago, “golly, Columbus was right after all. How could we have known?”
Inconvenient to accept on many levels; from the bedrock tenet of capitalism–growth/expanding markets–to daily consumer choices, sixty foot stinkpots vs, sailboats, a vehicle with decent milage vs, a huge 9 passenger Extinction which nobody can park, etc. Like I’ve been asking for years, how could the effects of the Industrial Revolution not change a once pristine environment? No denier ever had an answer, just evasion, then on to ridicule and personal attack.
Russ, you are the first person whom failed to comprehend that most basic question, and I’ve been asking the question for years. So, as a put down, it failed. And I won’t put into a chart form. And it really amazes me how personal you deniers take the thought of human contribution to global warming.
Nice to at long last see some Koch Brother’s money spent in a positive manner.
“Koch-funded study has found that the IPCC “consensus” underestimated both the rate of surface warming and how much could be attributed to human emissions”… this seems real clear.
Here’s the ThinkProgress post (link).
It’s great to have Muller on board, but be aware that he’s still trailing the pack; Ken Caldeira says “I am glad that Muller et al have taken a look at the data and have come to essentially the same conclusion that nearly everyone else had come to more than a decade ago.”
(The IPCC consensus also tends to trail current scientific understanding, since (if I recall correctly) every country involved has to agree that the science backs their conclusions, and they haven’t included processes (like expected melting glaciers’ contribution to sea level rise) that weren’t well enough understood to be quantifiable.)
It’s fun watching your iceberg melt.
Current understanding captured by David Roberts at Grist:
Climate change is simple: We do something or we’re screwed
(text or video)
I think that its time for some of our local pundits to express an opinion on the issue now that climate denial funds have proven that climate change exists. I would really like to know what they believe now.
Russell Steele says:
07/29/2012 at 1:34 pm
Andy Revkin wrote in Converted’ Skeptic: Humans Driving Recent Warming
Muller’s database will hold up as a powerful added tool for assessing land-side climate patterns, but his confidence level on the human element in recent climate change will not. I’d be happy to be proved wrong, mind you.
Kochblocked. Couldn’t happen to a better pair of sociopaths.
Good article in the LA Times this morning on this issue…including a quote from Dr. Benjamin Santer, who will be doing an event with Sierra Business Council in Tahoe this fall.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-kochfunded-climate-change-skeptic-reverses-course-20120729,0,7372823.story
I will keep you all updated as the event dates and info become available, but Dr. Santer will be addressing climate change impacts in the Sierra Nevada, impacts related to extreme weather events and how the region can adapt to change, and addressing claims of climate change skeptics that climate change is human caused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_D._Santer
I do find it humorous that the BEST study depends on work by Dr. Robert Muller and quotes the worlds top climate scientists, while the skeptics case relies on a quote from former communications director for Rush Limbaugh Marc Morano and former meteorologist Anthony Watts, whose claim to fame is appearances on the Glen Beck and Sean Hannity shows and reconstructing temperature data using retires RV’ers like at least one of our local pundits.
Anthony Watt is also known for saying about the Muller BEST study on March 6th of this year on his blog, “… I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results.”
I guess Mr. Watt is taking back his pledge to abide by the findings of the Muller BEST study since his entire business model is based on Koch funded Heartland Institute grants and the largess of curmudgeons who set up thermometers next to their Airstreams and call it science.
Right now is an important opportunity to be gracious and build a consensus that will allow some movement.
It never was the facts of the matter. It has always been the inclination toward one explanation verses another that to a large extent has been based on the fog of conflict.
I pasted in above from elsewhere a comment by Russ Steele that appeared gracious to me.
The next important step is still waiting to be taken, and that is for us all to put our heads together and figure out what to do. Right now there is a window of opportunity.
Excellent idea Greg, to put our heads together & consider policy. This might be a good starting point:
David Roberts on Eric Pooley, Most economists agree on the economics of climate change mitigation (link)
Are you there skeptics? What do you think of this idea from Anna’s link?
“Most economists agree that the costs of addressing climate change will be modest and that the costs of failing to do so will be enormous.”
This book might be an interesting read – Cold Cash, Cool Climate (“comes at the climate change problem from an entrepreneurial viewpoint”).
The author has a blogpost series on it starting here (link)
(note – I’ve only just discovered it, so maybe it’s a little early to be recommending it, but on overview it seems good.)
If indeed the dominos and ducks are just about to line up and fall….against burning fossil fuels, then our next vehicle must be a plugin hybrid, but one that can handle snow easily, and than means being able to put on chains easily, as I have yet to hear of an all wheel, 4wd hybrid plugin. As next vehicle may happen in next six weeks, and thoughts or suggestions?
Apparently all wheel 4wd will not be available, as it kills the gas milage figures, so high clearance, ease in chaining, and plenty of room count.,
Chains & 4WD are the least of the problem right now.
I just drove from Yellowstone this weekend. Where are you going to plug in your hybrid?
The problem with these cars, is there is no ‘infrastructure’.
We have to completely ‘retool’ the United States for this to work. Forget gas stations. You need to convince every motel chain to have a dozen of these plugin stations per store.
Look back to the first half of the twentieth century. How did we put gas stations all over the place? I believe it was initially with government subsidies. In fact, I believe every major transportation break through; rail, air, freeway, the Fed’s were there on ‘kick off’.
The exit question is, ‘are we willing to do it again’ (have the Fed start the country wide retooling to provide electrical plugs for hybrid cars)?
This is as big as health care. Are we really serious about the cost and are we going to demonize this effort?
Chris, Isn’t that the same statement that the horse & buggy guys were making 100 years ago about gasoline?
You don’t think that some enterprising business owners (i.e. the current petroleum based companies who are “energy companies”) will build these out in the same facilities that they now sell gas in?
I think you’re a bit dopey if you don’t see the economic possibilities here, and how they will obviously take advantage of these opportunities.
Dopey?!?
What segment of the population owned cars 100 years ago? I agree it’s worth doing. My point is, it’s going to be a huge undertaking, both financially and, unfortunately, politically.
Chris, if you look at the cost of installing one of these charging stations (estimated at $12,000 each) and if you look at the cost of a gas pump ($27,000) I think you’ll get the idea of what I’m speaking about, especially when you look at the complete cost including the special double lined tanks and the necessary annual testing, the electrical costs are much much lower!
OK great! First off, you’re not going to recharge a car at a gas station. It takes a little longer than a few minutes.
My point still is, who is willing to put up the ‘upfront cost’ nation wide?
I Don’t see Russia and China being concerned about climaate change…and that is a big problem.
Pete K,
One of the biggest things we exported to China was the idea that money trumps peace or cooperation. This does not only pertain to W Bush but more so the powers that be ideology.
“Money trumps peace, sometimes. Commercial interests are very powerful interests around the world”
In the schema of historical development, regarding money and commericialism, Ben, I don’t think we’ve taught or inthe long run exploited thhe Chinese at all They’ve been masters at these vocations, long before our little ole country was created. I can not accept one premise after another, that the USA is responsible for every thing evil on this planet. I go into more detail but will be hospitalized tomorrow.
Ed,
It wasn’t until Nixon opened up relations with China did they even begin to become a developed nation. It was Reagan, Bush, and Clinton that created the policy of normal trade relations, which engulfed China’s economy with US transnationals that the ol mighty dollar is the bottom line. It was Clinton that inserted the US into the WTO giving up US economic sovereignty and putting the interests of transnationals over the interests of citizens of participating nations including the US and China. Is it the US’s fault? No. Was the US involved in exporting this disgusting form of capitalism? Yes.
Here is another explanation of this type of capitalism.
I don’t have time to watch Ritter for an hour as I must get hold of my oncologist to get admitted to Sutter as it’s been hell of a week end–with discovery of 5 cc lesion in lung. No brag, just fact as Walter Brennan used to sau on his last TV show.
But what’s the alternative to helping other countries? doing whatever we can to ensure they can’t compete with us. Like I’ve said before, a case (a doctoral thesis) can be made for anything, as Zinn and Ritter and my hometown guy, Knustler. did.
Take care of yourself, Ed. You have brought a very reflective voice to these blogs, and I certainly imagine to your life as well.
The chance to walk along with you these days has been a fine gift you have given us. Please continue as long as you can.
Thanks, Greg.
Ed,
Sorry to hear about your health. The point is what Perkins is talking about is not helping other countries at all. I will post a 2 minute perfect description of how it works.