No Longer Skeptical: Global Warming Real and Man-Made Says Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Director

Physicist Richard Muller is reporting the results of his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature reanalysis online in an op/ed in the New York Times. Yesterday, I cited sections of that op/ed, but now the entire piece is available. Again, the BEST team has looked at the global temperature record and concluded that the average temperature has increased 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1750s. More than half the increase (1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) has occurred since the 1950s.

From the op/ed:

We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.

The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.

Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the “Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.

Go here to read the whole op/ed.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • o3||

    "What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees?"
    _
    all the hot air excreted by the know-nothing wingnutz.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Triple Asshole,

    all the hot air excreted by the know-nothing wingnutz.


    Sounds a little bit more plausible than saying "man did it because of his insatiable greed!"

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Given that fossil fuel usage will stagnate and begin to fall within the next two decades, as I suspect global warming will be a crisis we wish for rather than one that will actually force our hand. The lurching rise and fall (with an overall cost increase) of energy is what we will really need to worry about in the next 50 years.

  • Longtorso||

  • ||

    No?

  • Longtorso||

  • Ron Bailey||

    L: Just reporting what is going on. Waiting to read the scientific papers before commenting.

  • Longtorso||

    I stand by my earlier comment that the attempt to culturally bull rush these results as "final proof of AGW" before they're published and can be evaluated, so people only hear what the warmists want them to hear, are politics, not science.

  • Bill||

    Ron,

    I know you have the link to the article but it might be worth adding a few sentences or paragraph(s) to your summary noting that Muller is still skeptical of many alarmist claims and adds what I see as a dig about how all his work is online and available.

  • Poptech||

    Why are you dishonestly reporting that he is no longer skeptical when he was never skeptical?

    http://www.populartechnology.n.....uller.html

    "If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants."
    - Richard Muller, 2008

    "There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." - Richard Muller, 2008

    "Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." - Richard Muller, 2003

  • ||

    Why are you dishonestly reporting that he is no longer skeptical when he was never skeptical?

    Where does Bailey say this?

  • Tulpa the White||

    The first three words of the post title. Jesus, man, learn to read.

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    You are already leper outcast unclean for not pretending it is all a hoax from day one, Ron. You can't allay the paranoia of the tinfoilers.

  • Cytotoxic||

    This is thin grewl Longtorso.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant.

    Statistically significant is a phrase that can't be used when your data (credible and not) only extends back a tiny fraction of relevant history. Anyway, I'm waiting for the op-ed from the Bristol Earth Science Temperature Extrapolation Solutions Team.

  • Rob||

    I saw what you did there.

  • juris imprudent||

    In the meantime you might want to look at the Brisbane Earth Science Temperature Emerging Results Review.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Again, the BEST team has looked at the global temperature record and concluded that the average temperature has increased 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1750s.

    He's a freaking liar: 1750 was in the middle of the Little Ice Age!

  • Mensan||

    He's not really lying; just neglecting to stress that the temperature has only increased by 2.5° F since the middle of the little ice age. Although he does admit that the temperature was still cooling until about 1850.

  • Bill||

    It looks like about 1 F was from 1900 to 1940 when there was much less CO2, so why does he say virtually all of the post-1950 comes from CO2? I would expect that 30-50% could be due to the same things that caused the 1900-40 changes.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    He's not really lying; just neglecting to stress that the temperature has only increased by 2.5° F since the middle of the little ice age.

    Yeah, like I didn't lie to that girl when I told her I would like to get married. I just neglected to stress not to her.
    I wonder if that statement got him laid the last day before he moved out of town?

  • wareagle||

    for argument's sake, let's say he is not lying, that the temp has increased 2.5 degrees in 350 years. That is evidence of man-made change? Bullshit. On steroids.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Bullshit. On steroids.
    Big time!
    He chose his starting point as the coldest point in the Little Ice Age, a known, world-wide, anomaly. That's like screaming "We're all going to die in space!" based on measuring the altitude of a 727 for the first 30 minutes after take-off.
    A casual glance at a temperature chart of the last half-million shows we're following a repeating pattern:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....rature.png

  • Mensan||

    Yeah, like that.

  • Longtorso||

    The Truth about Richard Muller
    Richard Muller has never been a skeptic, at best he had a moment of intellectual honesty towards skeptics when he acknowledged Steve McIntyre's debunking of Mann's Hockey Stick, only to later dismiss this as irrelevant to the global warming debate, "This result should not affect any of our thinking on global warming". Hardly surprising, as Muller considers the carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels to be, "the greatest pollutant in human history" and likely to have, "severe and detrimental effects on global climate". The future outlook for global warming according to Muller is that, "it’s going to get much, much worse" and thus advocates that the United States immediately pay China and India hundreds of billions of dollars to cut back their carbon emissions or, "it'll be too late". No wonder he endorsed "The Earth is the Great Ship Titanic", Steven Chu as "perfect" for U.S. Energy Secretary and Al Gore's hypocritical alarmism...

  • NotSure||

    These guys advocating for America to pay China and India billions of dollars, it sounds like they are in 1960's or something, how exactly is America going to be able to dole out those amounts when it is struggling to pay for even itself ?

  • ||

    Easy we barrow it from China.

  • Marshall Gill||

    I see what you did there.

  • ||

    borrow

    =P

  • Marshall Gill||

    Oh, by the time that Obama is finished with the economy we will have to barrow money, as in wheelbarrow.

  • o3||

    so we're gonna pay china even moar than when they swap their paper dollars for our gold reserves after the libertarian takeover !11!!1!!3

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Triple asshole,

    so we're gonna pay china even moar than when they swap their paper dollars for our gold reserves after the libertarian takeover


    There won't be a libertarian takeover any time soon, statist.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the “Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes.

    Ron, you think you could explain this to me? If temperatures have been increasing for 250 years how can it be attributable to the industrial age which is less than 200 years old? Also, if man started warming before the industrial age, wouldn't the warming be exponential by this time? It was just cyclical warming (which can never occur again) before man's poisoning?

  • NotSure||

    It gets worse than that, I once read an article saying that since the start of agriculture the earths average temperature have been inexorably going up. I guess we need to go be to the hunter gathering ways.

  • Longtorso||

    Can we still gambol?

  • Suki||

    Only across plain and forest.

  • Mensan||

    Also, if the temperature was cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, and it has been warming for the past 250 years, then from 1750 to 1850 average global temperature was simultaneously warming and cooling. I'm no physicist, but I'm pretty sure that's not possible.

  • Longtorso||

    Bailey sez teh science iz settled, bitch.

  • Suki||

    Anything is possible in the science of redistribution of wealth.

  • Tulpa the White||

    I'm not sure what he's doing with the 1750 thing. Perhaps trying to make it seem more long-term.

    It's actually warmed by more than 2.5 F if he started at 1850 rather than 1750, so it's perplexing why he's stating the results that way.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Because he needed the biggest spread he could find, and 2.5F was it.

  • wef||

    Note the use of the words "unduly " in In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.

    So the troublesome effects duly biased the conclusions, but - come on, we're Top Men! - what's a du here or there.

    The feint about solar activity is annoying - a banal talking point for the npr types to parrot - but the physics types will shrug.

    But more important is the bait-and-switch game here. The real question is whether or not there is ongoing catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and - if so - does it rationalize even more buttinski-ism.

  • o3||

    "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming"
    _
    didnt know hot air could melt the goalposts like ice!

  • wef||

    It's a waste of typing, but...

    Muller et alia are fighting just one more rearguard action to protect the funding train as the climatology raiders retreat from the field. The power brokers have had their way with global warming. GE got its light bulbs promoted. The farm lobby got their ethanol subsidies and high corn prices. Thousands of bureaucrats got their junkets to Bali and Rio and other long jet flights. Solyndra and the rest. After blowing the smoke of Climate Change to confuse the middlebrow nytimes and npr listeners, nevertheless the retreat continues because the science just is not there to support the hysterics. This nytimes opinion piece is more evidence of the rule, don't screw with nerds: the physicists and the statisticians have pushed back against the apocalyptic doomsayers arguing for more power. So the political class is moving on to some other excuse for their power. Suckers and suckups will follow with a delay, just as they did with global warming after the collapse of the church of international socialism. Muller is simply trying to give some face-saving cover.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Oh come now. Either actually criticize Muller's work or just stop embarrassing yourself!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    We're DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!

  • Generic Stranger||

    DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
    OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
    OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED

  • Gweskoyen||

    If you continue to deny anthropogenic climate change snarkily, dear fellow commenters, nobody will take you seriously, and you will be lumped together with moon landing conspiracy theorists - justified, I might add. People like climate change deniers are responsible for the regrettable public image of libertarians as tinfoil-wearing lunatics. This makes me sad, because I often defend libertarianism from charges of being a fringe ideology. C'mon, accept scientific consensus you anti-intellectualist weirdos.

  • o3||

    i blame radio entertainment being taken as anything but poor comedy.

    next-up - why corporate officers can only be [INCENTIVIZED] into malfeasence.

  • Marshall Gill||

    I blame the public school system for producing people who are simply unable to think.

    Is there really anything funnier than people who believe that the weatherman has predicted future global temperatures hundreds of years in the future and any who disagree don't believe in "science"?

  • Gweskoyen||

    The weatherman? Climatology is NOT meteorology.

    Also, I went to a private Catholic school.

  • wareagle||

    consensus is NOT a part of science. Science does not rely on what folks believe or think or opine; it relies on what is provable. Even if someone can prove a 2.5 degree uptick in 350 years, that hardly demonstrates a correlation between the increase and human activity. Then again, you are trolling, not to mention condescending toward people who live with a healthy degree of skepticism regarding most things that their govt minders tell them. You can go back to the herd now.

  • Gweskoyen||

    This is the second time this week I was accused of trolling when I, in fact, did not troll. I wonder why that is?

    If you actually read the damn op/ed, you'd know that they tested several hypotheses for their explanatory power, and the only one who won out was the anthropogenic hypothesis.

    Why are you talking about the government? It has nothing to do with it. Apparently you did not get the fact that I am libertarian myself, and that I defend this ideology from people who talk about "herds" or "sheeple", i.e. clueless conspiracy theorists like you who believe to have secret knowledge that scientists don't have. Fuck off.

  • Tonio||

    You've been given a clue, Gwes. What you do with it is up to you.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    accept scientific consensus you anti-intellectualist weirdos.

    Yes, of course.

    Concern troll is concerned.

  • Gweskoyen||

    I. Am. Not. A. Troll.
    Yeah, I am concerned. Why? Because of shit like climate change denial which makes us look like clowns. This why we are not taken seriously.

  • Tonio||

    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

  • Gweskoyen||

    You know, this Shakespeare quote means the opposite of what most people think. The word "protest" meant something different in Shakespeare's times.

  • Mike M.||

    The globe is so freaking unbearably hot that our women's Olympic beach volleyball team has to wear long sleeved sweatshirts during their games. Daily highs in London of like 70 degrees, ZOMG we're all gonna melt to death!!!

  • o3||

    mike - the weather channel believes AGW

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Triple asshole,

    mike - the weather channel believes AGW


    Who is this Weather Channel person you talk about, and how do you know what he believes?

  • shiningcat||

    Uh, you do realize that long sleeved shirts are actually cooler because they absorb the sweat? And you do realize that the average temperature in London in summer is 64F?

  • Mike M.||

    They don't normally wear those thing. Just give me a break with this bullshit.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Uh, do you understand the physics of wearing a sweater in hot weather, uh? And do you realize that the purpose for doing so is not to "absorb" sweat? Uh?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Yes, but the average high is 72F.

  • Suki||

    More evidence of climate change. Weather is not climate change. I forgot the rest of the stupid excuses . . .

  • Gweskoyen||

    Yes, weather is not climate. Climatology is not meteorology. That's not an excuse, that's a basic fact.

  • Longtorso||

    Has Gaia Betrayed The Greens?
    Again, for people who base their claim to world leadership on their superior understanding of the dynamics of complex systems, greens prove over and over again that they are surprisingly naive and crude in their ability to model and to shape the behavior of the political and economic systems they seek to control. If their understanding of the future of the earth’s climate is anything like as wish-driven, fact-averse and intellectually crude as their approach to international affairs, democratic politics and the energy market, the greens are in trouble indeed. And as I’ve written in the past, the contrast between green claims to understand climate and to be able to manage the largest and most complex set of policy changes ever undertaken, and the evident incompetence of greens at managing small (Solyndra) and large (Kyoto, EU cap and trade, global climate treaty) political projects today has more to do with climate skepticism than greens have yet understood. Many people aren’t rejecting science; they are rejecting green claims of policy competence. In doing so, they are entirely justified by the record.

  • PapayaSF||

    Linked article is by Walter Russell Mead and very good, as usual.

  • Silly ol' Bear||

    Humm, amazing, sounds political to me...Berkeley, = liberal = let's help Obama.

  • Drake||

    I was thinking the same thing - don't put "Berkeley" in your title, then tell me how you are non-partisan.

  • Longtorso||

    Slashdot got the same JournaList memo Bailey is pimping:

    Koch Bros Study Finds Global Warming Is Real And Man-Made

  • wef||

    This is funny. Michael Mann has such an ego:

    My view is that Muller's efforts to promote himself by belittling the collective efforts of the entire atmospheric/climate research community over several decades, though, really does the scientific community a disservice. Its great that he's reaffirmed what we already knew. But for him to pretend that we couldn't trust this entire scientific field until Richard Muller put his personal stamp of approval on their conclusions is, in my view, a very dangerously misguided philosophical take on how science works. It seems, in the end--quite sadly--that this is all really about Richard Muller's self-aggrandizement :(

    http://www.facebook.com/Michae.....omments=21

    What would Mann know of self-aggrandizement?

    Projection. It explains so much.

  • ||

    My view is that Muller's efforts to promote himself by belittling the collective efforts of the entire atmospheric/climate research community.

    I like how Mann thinks of himself as the entire atmospheric/climate research community.

    Muller's specific distrust had everything to do with Mann's hockey stick graph.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Better questions is does Mann know how science works?

    Cause it ain't no popularity contest.

  • Longtorso||

  • T o n y||

    So Koch funded Reason magazine posts a story about a Koch funded climate scientist who, despite all the money spent by the Kochs to convince us otherwise, now believes in something close to the mainstream consensus on climate science, and the Reason readership is still not convinced. Do I have it about right?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Consensus, eh?

  • Cytotoxic||

    KOCH KOCH KOCH KOCH KOCH

  • ||

    I will probably agree with Muller's temperature graph...It would be nice to see it.

    I don't think there are many here who disagree that the earth's atmosphere is warmer then it was 100 years ago.

    The question has always been why.

    Nothing in Muller's work attempts to answer that question.

  • ||

    Call me an optimist, but I believe Tony has just complimented Reason readers for being independent thinkers...and possibly just admitted that he himself IS influenced by whoever funds his left-wing news sources.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Yes, and he also just admitted that the Kochs don't try to influence research results.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    So Koch funded Reason magazine posts a story about a Koch funded climate scientist who, despite all the money spent by the Kochs to convince us otherwise, now believes in something close to the mainstream consensus on climate science, and the Reason readership is still not convinced.


    Yes, what a bunch of stubborn morons we must be. The world is such a simpler and blissful place when you march at the tune of your masters' drums with supine obedience. Doesn't it, Tony?

  • T o n y||

    The world is a much more understandable place when you appreciate reliable sources and defer to smarter people than yourself on subjects they know more about than you. The claim that you know better than virtually all reliable authorities on this matter is absurd.

  • Sam Grove||

    A little (or a lot of) perspective is in order: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ture=share

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    That pretty-well backed up my rant. Cool.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I find some of the attempts to discredit Muller and his finding to be...desperate and even distasteful. This is pretty solid.

    There is one part of the op-ed that bugs me a lot. The bit about how satellites have found that the sun's brightness doesn't vary a lot. True, but that is not the proposed mechanism for how the sun's variability affects climate. The hypothesis is that as the sun becomes more active, the sun's magnetic field screens out more cosmic radiation and cosmic radiation seeds clouds which cools the planet. When the sun calms down, fewer clouds and more warmth. I don't know if this mechanism is true but it doesn't seem to be addressed by anybody except CERN.

  • ||

    Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the “Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes.

    Also how the hell does he know what the brightness of the sun was from the 1500s to 1850?

    I don't know if this mechanism is true but it doesn't seem to be addressed by anybody except CERN.

    yeah Muller also says his work does not account for any potential negative feedbacks from clouds.

    Basically he made a graph, similar to what we already have, checked it with already disproved causes and found CO2 is the most plausible.

    The only one that he really nailed would be the urban heat theory. Watts I am sure is fuming....of course his site went dark Friday for a special announcement which is due in like an hour.

    Should be interesting.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Yep, they over-adjusted, shocking!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.....more-68286

  • Jason S.||

    Hmmm, this is interesting. Can somebody please translate into plain English what this means?

    The temperature station measurements were of dubious veracity?

    This SurfaceStations project is fascinating exercise in volunteer and crowdsource information gathering, I guess. Very fascinating, by jove.

  • Canman||

    With Bill Gates and the Koch's spending their own money, I think we're getting better science from Richard Muller than we were from Michael Mann and Jim Hansen.

  • califernian||

    As always, everyone focuses on the wrong thing.

    The question of whether and why the earth is warming is practically irrelevant.

    It appears we are in warming period, due to one reason or another. But what does it mean for us? It means very little.

    Wine producers in washington get richer and some beach homes get washed away. Big deal.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Don't forget that cold kills 3X as many people as heat. Global warming equals less human death, which is why it must be stopped.

  • ||

    and some beach homes get washed away.

    I am still unsure as to weather that is a problem.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.w.....mation.gif

    Should note that over the span of the gifs time line sea level rose 1 meter.

  • ||

    weather = whether

    i am having a bad day

  • Apparently a 'statist'||

    You read WUWT; you are having a bad adulthood.

  • ||

    Joe,

    Muller reads him also.

  • John||

    The other issue is even if you buy everything they are selling, so what? The greens and their fellow travelers like Bailey have never offered any sensible or practical solution to the problem. The world is not going to agree to carbon taxes. And China and India are not going to agree to give up economic growth. In short, nothing is going to stop human CO2 production. So it is utterly pointless and stupid to debate its effects.

  • Tulpa the White||

    To be fair, Bailey has written about possible techniques to mitigate the effects of global warming.

  • ||

    Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde,

    Damn he corrected it.

    Would have been funny if he stuck with the original "sophistical".

  • ||

    the average temperature has increased 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1750s. More than half the increase (1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) has occurred since the 1950s.

    Why the hell is a physicist doing climate studies using Fahrenheit?

  • Coeus||

    They switched from celcius in hopes you wouldn't notice that there has been basically no increase while co2 levels continue to rise. The average person is supposed to think, "see, it was like 1.5 last decade. It's really going up fast.". I would expect all future press releases to use Fahrenheit.

  • ||

    Funny what you find when you actually read he article:

    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.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Dammit Joshua as if I already didn't want these fucks to die.

    What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population.

    World population?!!!!1!ONE!! They fucking know that it simply must be mankind and they will prove it no matter how much bullshit they have to shovel?

    Fucking piece of shit. Scientists my ass.

  • ||

    and even to rising functions like world population.

    Sounds like a simple control to me. he knew population has risen and he knew temperatures have risen.

    So he used it to show that CO2 was more correlated with temperature then some other rise.

    I don't think he is being malicious on this. My problem is he says this:

    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.

    after he said this:

    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.

    He has no idea why it was warmer in the past so how can he make the claim that whatever happened in the past to cause higher temperatures is not happening now?

    There is a known unknown there. Something caused the past to be warmer. Show me what it is and how it is not the cause of what is happening now.

    Anyway that is the science front. On the political front, what we do about it, He is pretty good by knocking down all the bullshit claims that alarmists have made:

    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.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Oh, right. You mean the part that will get minimal media coverage.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Oh, right. You mean the part that will get minimal no media coverage.

    FIFY.

    Apparently not eve on a site where the journalist fucking KNEW that his readers would comb the fuck out of that report.

    I won't say that Bailey is being dishonest, but I wonder just how fucking stupid he thinks we are. Apparently stupid enough to not find the glaring inconsistencies in the report's arguments.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Sounds like he was just looking for any conceivably related statistic.

    On the other hand, I'm somewhat skeptical about the claim that CO2 levels are some sort of unique match to temperature levels, since

    1. He admits that the agreement is not perfect (due to volcanic eruptions and Los Ninos), and

    2. if you smooth out CO2 levels to get rid of those disagreements you've got a nice mathematical function which may correspond to other phenomena too.

  • TomB||

    They looked at solar activity as a potential cause, but did they look at changes in earth-sun geometry (aka Milankovitch cycles)?

  • Jim176||

    OK so the world is getting warmer. What about the offsetting benefits? Growing seasons will lengthen and move into higher latitudes. Less fuel oil will be needed to heat our homes in the winter. It is 3 times less costly to move heat out of a home in the summer than to heat it in the winter. But let's just skip right to the bottom line; all these problems in the enviroment come from one source and that is; there are too many people. All environmental problems start with that one. So lets go for a permanent fix instead of a band-aid. Thermonuclear war. It will cut the population, stop the production of greenhouse gasses and cool the planet immediately. Problem solved!

  • Tulpa the White||

    Fast warming can cause serious problems for animals and plants, which can't adjust as fast as we can. Plus you have sea level rise and a possible feedback effect with methane-trapping ice melting, and a possible disruption of the Gulf Stream (which would make European climate much colder) and ultimately glacial expansion is a possibility if it starts snowing more in the Arctic.

  • Old Mexican||

    And even roaming bands of jet ski-driving pirates attacking peaceful, floating trade posts... and giant fish whose eyeballs happen to be delicacies.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Yeah, yeah... wait till the cooling comes back.

    That's when the shit hits the fan.

  • TomB||

    Apparently I can't post more than two links at a time. I had about a dozen. Anyway, Tulpa, the "unprecedented" rate of change is one of the most pervasive climate change myths. Try: this, and this to start. And remember that "nature" survived that just fine.

  • TomB||

    Here are a couple more:
    this and this.

  • TomB||

    Okay, and here's one to get started on D-O and Heinrich events. Nature can tolerate this shit, just as it has for millions of years.

  • TomB||

    Most AGW alarmists love to move the target though, so if the argument then becomes, "well these temperatures are unprecedented" (even if we're just talking about in the past 10,000 years), I've got another dozen or more articles that disprove that myth. To start, see this and this.

  • ||

    Fast warming can cause serious problems for animals and plants, which can't adjust as fast as we can.

    Today it was 100 degrees...now (night) it is 78 degrees...in 5 months it will be zero degrees...

    but 1.5 degrees over 50 years is going to cause them serious problems..Just like it caused them problems over the past 50 years when we already saw a 1.5 degree change.

    I can see why you are voting for Romney now.

  • Sam Grove||

    Some climate history shows just how abnormal recent trends are: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ture=share

  • perfectlyGoodInk||

    Why is one's political ideology such a good predictor of whether one does or does not believe in global warming? Your ideology should only inform what you think ought to be the optimal policy response if it exists.

  • Sharpshooter||

    Well, read Anthony Watt's latest about the abysmal data coming from the Surface Stations.

  • Brett L||

    Ron:

    I read that this paper has not been accepted for publication despite being submitted twice. In fact, the first item here is a release of a reviewers reports, twice recommending it NOT be published due to significant methodological problems.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement