MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

New Global Temperature Data Reanalysis Confirms Warming, Blames CO2

Richard Muller, the head of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, will publish an op/ed next week in the New York Times summarizing his group's findings with regard to global temperature trends. From a copy of the op/ed, Converted Skeptic, circulating on the web:

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified scientific issues that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Now, after organizing an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I’ve concluded that global warming is real, that the prior estimates of the rate were correct, and that cause is human.

My turnaround is the result of the careful and objective analysis by the “Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature” team, founded by me and my daughter Elizabeth. 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, and one and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase is due to 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 its 2007 report, the IPCC concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the IPCC consensus statement, that the warming before to 1956 could be due to changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.


Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophistical statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist Robert Rohde, and which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), data selection (prior groups selected less than 20% of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100%), 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. ...

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect – extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does carbon dioxide. ...

What about the future?  As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise.  With a simple model (no tipping points, no sudden increase in cloud cover, a response to gases that is “logarithmic”) I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about 1.5 degree F over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included.  But if China continues its rapid growth (it has averaged 10% per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (typically adding one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.

Muller writes that all of their findings and statistical techniques will be available online for everyone to see and critique. More on this next week.

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Finally, that's settled.

  • Poptech||

    Muller is absolutely dishonest. He was never a skeptic,

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

    "I was never a skeptic" - Richard Muller, 2011

    "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, 2006

    "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

  • jnol44||

    It's you who are dishonest.

    You quote-mined Richard Muller saying "I was never a skeptic"

    The full quote is "I was never a skeptic -- only a scientific skeptic"

    Interesting how you left that inconvenient last person off. Back into the shadows with you.

  • Xenocles||

    Any idea what the difference is? I'm scratching my head here.

  • Poptech||

    You are joking right? That is exactly what he said as he was explicitly stating he was not an skeptic like Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts ect...

  • Longtorso||

    ‘I have committed intellectual blasphemy’
    ...One way in which critics are silenced is through the accusation that they are ignoring ‘peer-reviewed science’. Yet oftentimes, peer review is a nonsense. As anyone who has ever put his nose inside a university will know, peer review is usually a mode of excluding the unexpected, the unpredictable and the unrespectable, and forming a mutually back-scratching circle. The history of peer review and how it developed is not a pretty sight. Through the process of peer review, of certain papers being nodded through by experts and other papers being given a red cross, the controllers of the major scientific journals can include what they like and exclude what they don’t like. Peer review is frequently a way of controlling debate, even curtailing it. Many people who fall back on peer-reviewed science seem afraid to have out the intellectual argument.....

  • T o n y||

    Intellectual argument being superior to science? What form and amount of data would it take to convince you? I'm guessing none.

  • Longtorso||

    I believe his point is that "peer review" can be as much politics as science.

  • ||

    What form and amount of data would it take to convince you?

    An explanation of past natural warming/cooling that is not active today and/or demonstration that today's warming is greater and/or faster then past warming/cooling.

    CO2 probably does contribute to today's temperatures but without the ability to control against any natural warming/cooling it is impossible to know to what degree current warming is solely caused by humans.

    Anyway what is the point Tony? You recently acknowledged that CO2 emissions in the US are dropping...What would be the point in doing anything the left wing is proposing to do?

  • margolin||

    US CO2 emissions are not dropping: they are up 10% since 1990, though down 5% from 2005 (to 2010). Not nearly enough.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I'd ask you to define 'enough', but I already know it means 'crush civilization'.

  • margolin||

    Not enough to stabilize the climate. I'm well aware that our civilization runs on fossil fuels, and I don't want anyone to go without the energy they need. That's the whole crux of the problem. If you're just looking to score points, look elsewhere.

  • ||

    You keep saying not enough.

    What level is enough?

    1980s levels?

    1970s levels?

    cuz at current trends of natural gas supplanting coal we will hit 1980s and 1970s levels within a couple of years.

  • ||

    CO2 peaked in 2007 at 6020 million metric tons and at the end of 2011 were at 5471. That is a 9% drop.

    The first 4 months of 2012 are 7.4% lower then the first 4 months of 2011.

    If that trend holds through 2012 or drops further emission will be at 1990 levels.

    http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy.....ec12_3.pdf

    If you say that is not nearly enough then how come that drop is faster and further then any projected drops that has been predicted for any CO2 taxes or cap and trade programs?

    Let me say that again. The current drop in CO2 is faster and further then any proposed government solution on the table could have ever accomplish.

  • margolin||

    There are other greenhouse gases besides CO2. Total emissions in 2007 were 7252.8 Mt CO2e, and in 2010 were 6821.8 Mt CO2e, according to the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Inventory. That's a decline of 2.0 t CO2e per person, some of which is due to the economic slowdown. (Per capita 2010 emissions were higher than 2009's.)

  • Cytotoxic||

    You know what would be awesome? Going after those other GHGs instead of the one we can't avoid producing.

  • ||

    Per capita 2010 emissions were higher than 2009's.

    Who could have guessed spending stimulus money on having the government dig holes and filling them up again was energy inefficient.

    Nice try buddy.

  • Sam Grove||

    Tony, I noticed how you ignored his qualifier. You changed "peer-reviewed science" to "science" thereby implying he was opposed to science.

  • Bill||

    In fields that aren't politicized, peer review usually works very well.

    But even in fields that are not politicized in the normal sense, you can and do have camps that develop and are hostile to each other. They are often competing for the same funding.
    Since you are allowed to ask that several people NOT be allowed to review your work and suggest a few that they might choose, you can avoid people you know may reject it and get at least one reviewer more likely to approve. But reviews are usually thorough and can be harsh (which is a good thing). And in many fields you do get a piling on, often to use a phrase that is hot at the time or to try to help your funding.

    In the climate field it has become very politicized in addition to the normal problems, so you do get some bias in the literature. This will correct itself with time if the newer climate data do not show the predicted warming. The MSM effect though is unprecedented and unfair and there are a number of researchers that make extreme statements to the media that are not very scientific.

  • Longtorso||

    In other words, the 'debate' about this article will be based in claims about the wonderfulness of what they "will publish", and once that's settled it will be released and we can see its flaws.

    Just like economic stats that are released, reported to show how wonderful the govt is, then quietly revised downward later.

  • ||

    I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about 1.5 degree F over land in the next 50 years

    .75 degrees Celsius

    or 1.4 degrees Celsius per century.

    I shudder to think of the billions of people, everyone on the planet who will be completely unaffected by this catastrophic increase in global temperatures.

  • ||

    To quote Richard Lewis, "Is it my imagination, or is that incredibly stable?"

  • margolin||

    No, it is not very stable; historically 0.14 C/decade is a large change.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No it is not. Stop lying.

  • jnol44||

    0.14C/decade for many decades is a larger change. Look at the BEST results

  • Cytotoxic||

    "For many decades" -Any change can be net large over enough time. STREEEEEEETCH

  • margolin||

    There are a few climate changes in the historical record that are on this scale, but they occur very infrequently, less than once per millenia -- the Younger Dryas, the PETM, Dansgaard oscillations, Heinrich events.

    The current rate is large.

  • jnol44||

    That takes the planet to temperatures it hasn't been at for hundreds of thousands of years

  • mr simple||

    Not for a few centuries and only if it continues uninterrupted. I've been adding 5 lbs. to my squat every workout uninterrupted for the past couple months. By your logic, pretty soon I'll be able to squat 2000 lbs.

  • margolin||

    Business as usual means it continues uninterrupted -- BAU is on track for +3 C warming by 2100, with more over land, and more over the northern hemisphere land than southern hemisphere land.

  • mr simple||

    So you're attempting to explain away a logical fallacy with the same logical fallacy. Nice try.

  • margolin||

    Sorry -- that's 3 C of total warming by 2050 (cumulative emissions of about 2000 GtC). BAU gives 6 C of warming by 2100 (cumulative emissions of about 4000 GtC).

  • ||

    http://westinstenv.org/wp-cont.....000yrs.jpg

    By hundreds of thousands of years you mean 1300 BC

  • ||

    Or maybe you mean 2000 years ago:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.w.....89-f21.jpg

  • ||

    Then again maybe you mean 1000 years ago

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com.....970d-800wi

  • jnol44||

    Your first graph is wrong. Here is the GISP2 temperature data with *actual* instrumental data from central greenland appended:
    http://www.skepticalscience.co.....chart7.png

    You see we are already at highs of 10,000 years. More global warming will, as I said, take us to highs of hundreds of thousands of years (even millions).

  • Xenocles||

    11,000 years is nothing in evolutionary time. Our own species is at least ten times that old. All I see in the temperature graph is an upward noise spike in an exceptionally noisy pattern.

  • Xenocles||

    On further consideration, there appears to be almost no correlation between CO2 level and temperature. Despite what might be considered a roughly linear rise in CO2 we see huge noise swings about a constant (if not declining) signal. I don't see how you can even begin to infer causation from these data.

  • robc||

    250 years?

    Why so short term, whats the 2500 or 250,000 year trend?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: robc,

    Why so short term, whats the 2500 or 250,000 year trend?


    Why bother? The pre-Medieval warming clearly never happened, the Little Ice Age was just the figment of Bruegel's imagination.

  • Longtorso||

    Bailey, the ethical thing to do would to have waited until the paper was published and available for evaluation before trumpeting it as proof you're "right". As it is, you're trying to get this paper established as The Ultimate Answer before anyone is in a position to see if it is BS or not.

    That's politics, not science.

  • ||

    Where does Bailey "trumpet it" as right? Where does Bailey even imply this? Calm the fuck down.

  • Longtorso||

    Sorry, Bailey unethically quoted someone else at length - about work his daughter was involved in - trumpeting it as "right" when said work wasn't available for others to examine.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Hmm, all I read was a blog entry quoting an editorial by the lead scientist. No trumpet.

  • ||

    I don't even know "unethically quoted" means. And you haven't shown where Bailey says that he agrees with the op/ed.

    Again, take a chill pill.

  • Longtorso||

  • Longtorso||

  • jnol44||

    typical climate denier pseudo-science

    First it claims it's testing whether global warming is unprecedented and then cuts to a graph from high altitude *central greenland*.

    Central Greenland is not The Globe. Shouldn't that be obvious?

    Even worse the graph has a red line attached marked "instrumental record". But this isn't the instrumental record for central greenland, which has seen far more warming in the past century.

    No it's the instrumental record for the globe. Tacked onto the end of a graph of central greenland temperature.

    Utter rubbish. And then from this the climate deniers draw a completely false and reckless conclusion that leads everyone astray.

    1) No-one claims global temperatures are currently unprecedented in the past 10,000 years.

    2) This is all a nice deniery dodge of the actual issue, which is where temperatures are projected to be headed, which is far higher than the past 10,000 years.

  • Generic Stranger||

    jnol44|7.28.12 @ 7:27PM|#
    1) No-one claims global temperatures are currently unprecedented in the past 10,000 years.
    jnol44|7.28.12 @ 7:01PM|#

    That takes the planet to temperatures it hasn't been at for hundreds of thousands of years

    Gotta be a sockpuppet. No one is stupid enough to outright contradict themselves in just two posts....right?

  • jnol44||

    The first quote is talking about the present. The second is talking about the future.

  • Marshall Gill||

    It was one degree hotter today than it was yesterday. If this trend continues temperatures will reach the 200's by winter!!!!!

  • margolin||

    By this logic an ice age -- a difference of 5-6 C in global average temperature -- is no big deal.

    Do you really think the diurnal cycle is a bigger change than an ice age?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Nice try, but no. It still demonstrates quite nicely that past warming has been much greater than what is seen now.

  • jnol44||

    No it doesn't. Here's the actual graph, not the fake one, which shows temperature levels are already near highs of the past 10,000 years:
    http://www.skepticalscience.co.....chart7.png

  • Cytotoxic||

    Funny it also shows no correlation between CO2 and temps. Oops!

  • TheZeitgeist||

    Do informed people argue the earth is not warmer than a hundred and fifty years ago? That is news to me.

  • ||

    Some informed people argue that the Earth is NOT warmer than it was 500 years ago. Cycles, how does that work?

  • margolin||

    Cycles work when there are cyclical factors that cause them. And yours is?

  • sticks||

    Is this the big news that Watts decided to shut down WUWT till Sunday over?

  • Longtorso||

    No - he said he was working on something, but not ClimateGate/FOIA related. Not a health or family issue or anything.

  • sticks||

    sorry. how is this news climategate or foia related? this is just a new study right?

  • ||

    Probably related.

    Watts is all about bias in the instrumental record and it is what he has been working on for years...and his site does say it is about something he has been working on.

  • Fluffy||

    But if China continues its rapid growth (it has averaged 10% per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (typically adding one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.

    Since I think we all know that China will, indeed, continue its rapid growth over the next 20 years, and that there is no political development and no treaty that will come along quickly enough to change that, does this mean that if global temperatures do not rise 1.5 degrees in the next 20 years, this guy will say, "Never mind!" and shut up about this issue forever?

    Because that actually would give me something to look forward to - that at least ONE guy would shut up in my lifetime.

    A 20 year prediction is dangerous for AGW hawks, because 20 years is a blink of the eye. When you make 100 year predictions your career will be over long before it's clear you were wrong, but a 20 year prediction sets you up to be a failure while you're still looking for ongoing work, like Paul Ehrlich.

  • Fluffy||

    After all, if an AGW hawk had made a 20 year prediction 14 years ago, right after the 1998 data, they'd be on track for a pretty severe humiliation.

  • ||

    After all, if an AGW hawk had made a 20 year prediction 14 years ago, right after the 1998 data, they'd be on track for a pretty severe humiliation.

    I see what you did there

    +1

  • Longtorso||

    Would that AGW hawk have had his wins vacated?

  • ||

    Since I think we all know that China will, indeed, continue its rapid growth over the next 20 years

    If it didn't it would be a far bigger catastrophe then anything the IPCC or Muller predict would happen from global warming.

    Anyway I have said before US CO2 emissions have dropped to below 1995 levels and will probably continue to drop. The left will soon enter the despicable stance of saying poor brown people need to stay poor to save the planet from AGW.

  • Bill||

    Is this because you think (no matter who is elected) that the economy will continue to tank?

    I know the natural gas produces less CO2 but IF the economy recovers I don't see US CO2 emissions continuing to go down.

  • ||

    I know the natural gas produces less CO2

    What you do not realize is that natural gas produces a shit load less CO2 then coal and that natural gas power plants because they can scale to smaller sizes are far more efficient when it comes to electrical transmission and become they can be turned up or down are far more efficient at accommodating changes in power load.

    furthermore per capita CO2 emissions have been steadily dropping in the US for 20 years. Well before fracking began to effect the cost of natural gas.

    It was only a matter of time before CO2 emissions began to fall....natural gas and the tanking economy just sped up the process by about 10 to 20 years.

    To quote Seinfeld the drop in CO2 emissions are real and they are magnificent.

  • margolin||

    Per capita emissions rose in the latest year (2010) for which there is data, to 22.0 t CO2e per person. 2009's number was 21.5, 2005: 24.3, 1990: 24.7. This is not nearly the drop required to stabilize climate, and some of it was due to the economic slowdown.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Anyway I have said before US CO2 emissions have dropped to below 1995 levels and will probably continue to drop. The left will soon enter the despicable stance of saying poor brown people need to stay poor to save the planet from AGW.

    They already do.

    I was recently watching a show on some river in Africa on Animal Planet which stated "We have been fortunate to avoid economic growth in this region, and more policy of the kind here is desperately needed if we're to save our precious ecosystems."

    I just about shit my pants when I heard the nice British guy tell me that we need to actively keep poor people poor so that good white folks can have their playground in the Serengeti.

    Greenies are the scum of the earth.

  • Bill||

    Exactly my thought when I read it. 20 years is very short. And if you don't have half of the predicted increase in ten years, people start to ask questions.

  • Bill||

    I think Mueller is honest and does good work, but in the back of my mind, I still wonder if he has some 5 year grants up for renewal and wants to make a few statements now that will get him some props with the folks who will review his grants.

  • Old Mexican||

    But if China continues its rapid growth (it has averaged 10% per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (typically adding one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.


    More proof that these so-called "skeptical" scientists believe that humanity follows a static model, and if Muller believes this (and the above is prima facie evidence that he does,) then there isn't a reason to think he would not believe that climate is a static model as well, with and increase in A representing an increase in X.

    they [Muller's findings] raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does carbon dioxide[...]


    Despite the obvious fact the Earth was warmer before, no SUVs.

  • ||

    It's not a given that the Chinese economy will continue to grow at the same fast pace. The recent growth was due to economic liberalization -- if you go from really unfree to just sorta unfree, you can have rapid economic growth. If your government switches back to really unfree, process can reverse. Continued rapid growth will be contingent upon further economic liberalization, which is not a slam dunk with a uniparty communist dictatorship.

  • Longtorso||

    My turnaround is the result of the careful and objective analysis by the “Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature” team, founded by me and my daughter Elizabeth

    As long as this isn't a biased email about the forthcoming article or anything....

  • Ken Shultz||

    Ultimately, the important question is what, if anything, to do about it anyway.

    Libertarian solutions acknowledge all sort of problems. Some of the deniers among us have become so tied to their denial, I'm not sure they can conceive of what a libertarian solution to the problems of global warming would even look like!

    And that is not a good thing for the cause of the libertarianism.

    Libertarians have solutions to global warming poverty. We don't just deny the existence of global warming poverty because the prevailing solutions on offer are socialistic.

    We can do the same thing with global warming. Some of us have been doing so for a long time. All you deniers out there, time to expand your horizons, already.

    If global warming turns out not to be a problem after all, then that'll be great. But we're leaving libertarian solutions in a really vulnerable position if we continue to ignore them and just keep insisting that the problem doesn't exist.

  • sticks||

    What is your solution to a warmer planet?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: sticks,

    What is your solution to a warmer planet?


    Who said a warmer planet is a problem? During the wonderful times of a true GREEN Greenland, higher crop production and yields ushered in a Renaissance in Europe between 1100 and 1350. Why would it be a detriment today for humanity?

  • sticks||

    I didn't say a warmer planet was a problem. Ken thinks it might be and wants a libertarian solutions to it. SO i asked what his solution was.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Well, for one thing? We need massive economic growth.

    There's a place in the world where the forests are expanding (rather than disappearing); the CO2 levels are falling (rather than rising); and people pay a premium to drive hybrid cars, etc--just because they care.

    That environmentalist dream world? Is called the United States of America.

    If we want the rest of the world to behave like we do environmentally, then we need to get them as rich as we are--and quick.

    Incidentally, the birth rate drops below replacement level when women have more economic opportunities outside of the home. ...and when people can afford better medical care so that the infant mortality rate drops.

    Both of those things--economic opportunities for women and lower infant mortality rates--are associated directly with economic growth.

    So, economic growth is one of the most important long term solutions to global warming, and promoting free trade and low levels of taxation should be the ultimate goals of every environmentalist.

    That's just one example.

    If people are hearing the opposite; that economic growth is the cause of global warming? Then that's our fault. Instead of denialism, maybe we should have been countering their false narrative.

  • Bill||

    Good post, Ken.

  • margolin||

    Sorry, but the US is hardly leading the way to environmental bliss.

    US GHG emissions are up 10% from 1990 to 2010. Per capita emissions are down only 10% over that period, to a world leading 22.0 Mt CO2e/person.

    We would have to do *enormously* better in order to solve the climate problem -- it can't be done while remaining on fossil fuels, and certainly while on fossil fuels at current rates of decline.

  • Cytotoxic||

    We would have to do *enormously* better in order to solve the climate problem -- it can't be done while remaining on fossil fuels, and certainly while on fossil fuels at current rates of decline.

    Let me be clear: FUCK YOU. This is as good as it gets and what do you want? Mass civilization-ending changes to our lifestyles because you get the vapors over climate change. NO. We are not indulging your insanity.

  • margolin||

    Stop being rude. No one wants civilization to end, and everyone recognizes that it takes energy to run civilization -- lots of it. The question is thus, where will the energy come from. It can come from noncarbon sources, if we have the will to make that happen. But it's a huge problem, and any solution will be difficult. But 3-6 C of globally averaged surface warming is also a very big problem.

    Problems should not be dismissed because their solutions are difficult.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I didn't say we've solved all our problems. I gave some examples of things that are going our way...

    Our forests are growing, not disappearing. If you're comparing our CO2 levels to where they were in the '90s, then that means we're moving in the right direction.

    You make moving in the right direction sound like it's a bad thing!

    Oh, and it's also a fact that the wealthier people are, the more likely they are to want to help protect the environment. Peasants in China's countryside, day laborers in India, et. al., don't give a crap about the environment.

    Anyway, I'm not saying we've solved our problems--to really solve the problem, we're going to have to do much more than we're doing now.

  • margolin||

    Moving in the right direction is not a bad thing -- it's just that the rate is not close to a solution. And it's not consistent: 2010 per capita emissions were 0.5 t CO2e/person higher than 2009's, which shows part of the decrease was due to the slower economy. Even if all our coal use was replaced by natural gas, it would still not come close to being a solution to the carbon problem.

  • Ken Shultz||

    ...and, certainly, the sorts of strategies people on the economic left are proposing that are big enough to actually solve the problem? Are so egregious, so devastating to the economy, that even IF IF IF they could get them implemented, it would devastate the economy so badly, that their constituents would drive them out of office as soon as their environmental programs kicked in.

    ...which reenforces the point, once again, that economic growth is the most important environmental issue facing the world today. There is no real solution to global warming that doesn't involve slashing taxation levels on things like profits, capital gains, and income.

    If you want to get rid of those growth killing taxes and replace them with a sales tax on carbon intensive activity? You have my full support. But we don't start solving the problem until greens start recognizing that if the carbon tax is high enough to solve the problem--it will also be so big that it will crush the economy unless we eliminate almost every other form of taxation.

    Which is another way of saying that the American people will never support it long enough to make a difference.

  • margolin||

    A carbon tax can be structured to be revenue neutral, through equal per capita rebates. That provides incentive to get off carbon, while costing nothing (net).

  • Ken Shultz||

    There's no way rebates will make up for the carbon tax--not if the carbon tax is big enough to solve the problem.

    We would need to replace ALL tax revenue with a carbon tax--that's how big the solution needs to be.

    If the carbon tax is big enough to solve the problem--in addition to the taxes we already pay? There's no way rebates would make up for the added costs people would be paying...

    The reason taxes aren't significantly higher than they are right now is because right now that's more or less as high as the American people will tolerate them. If our politicians raised taxes significantly higher than they are--right now--the American people would throw them out on their ass.

    You don't dictate to the market what you want--you just take what the market will give you. And right now? The level of taxation we have, more or less, that's what the market will give you...

    If you want a solution to global warming, you must operate within the confines of what the American people will tolerate in terms of the level of taxation. Anything else will either never be implemented--or lose all support on implementation.

    So, if you really want to solve the problem, then you need to work within the confines of what we're paying in taxes right now. My proposal does that. Yours will never even get off the ground, but maybe it makes you feel good or something? To have all these good intentions?

    Good intentions won't save the environment. Time to get serious.

  • free2booze||

    Well, there is this

    Total energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide in the United States remain below their 2005 level through 2035: Energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions grow slowly in the AEO2012 Reference case, due to a combination of modest economic growth, growing use of renewable technologies and fuels, efficiency improvements, slow growth in electricity demand, and increased use of natural gas, which is less carbon-intensive than other fossil fuels. In the Reference case, which assumes no explicit Federal regulations to limit GHG emissions beyond vehicle GHG standards (although State programs and renewable portfolio standards are included), energy-related CO2 emissions grow by just over 2 percent from 2010 to 2035, to a total of 5,758 million metric tons in 2035
  • ||

    to a world leading 22.0 Mt CO2e/person.

    Actually it is more like 16...What are you looking at 1995 levels?

    and Australia just passed us and Canada will soon.

    US GHG emissions are up 10% from 1990 to 2010.

    From 1990 to 2011 they are only up 7.8%

    Also the first 4 months of 2012 are 7.5% lower then the first 4 months of 2011. If the trend continues or lowers we will be at 1990 levels of CO2 emissions.

  • margolin||

    According to the latest EPA inventory of greenhouse gases, US 2010 emissions were 6821.8 Mt CO2e, which is 22.0 t CO2e/person. CO2 emissions alone were 5706.4 Mt CO2, or 18.4 t CO2/person. Even if you include sinks, net 2010 emissions were 18.5 t CO2e/person, down 12% from 1990, down 10% from 2005, but up 2.8% from 2009.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Keep moving the goalposts. Remember to lift with your knees, and no, you are not getting a carbon tax. SAD FOR YOU.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, in case it still hasn't clicked for you there, margolin, environmentalists will never get a carbon tax so long as they refuse to offset it with huge tax cuts elsewhere.

    And the tax cuts are going to have to be big--at least as big as the carbon tax. ...or, otherwise, we'll NEVER get the solution. Nobody wants a rebate--I don't want a rebate.

    And what's the problem with eliminating the income tax, the corporate tax and the capital gains tax anyway? Any "environmentalist" who isn't willing to do what's necessary to save the environment--so long as it means we can no longer redistribute other people's income?

    Should start calling themselves socialists and stop calling themselves environmentalists. It's as simple as that.

  • margolin||

    A warmer planet also has a more volatile hydrological cycle. The MWP saw large droughts in North America, that led to the collapse of some indigenous civilizations.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Define 'volatile'.

  • ||

    So far the only solutions - if you want to call it that - put forth by The Alliance is to reduce carbon emissions. But they can't even show what kind of effect it will have on temperatures, probably because there won't be any.

  • ||

    The libertarian solution is to do nothing. Here is why: US CO2 emissions are dropping and fast...in fact so fast that every scenario to do somehting in the US to lower CO2 all projected slower rates of lowing CO2.

    All increases in CO2 emissions in the future will come from the third world as they transition out of the third world. To try to force them on a different course would guarantee either war or prolonged poverty for the people in those countries or both.

    Better to let the world get 1 or 2 degrees hotter....something the world has already done over the passed 100 years and has caused exactly zero negative effects.

  • margolin||

    US emissions are rising, not dropping: +10% from 1990 to 2010. Per capita emissions have only dropped by 10% over that time period -- not *nearly* enough to solve the carbon problem.

  • Cytotoxic||

    US CO2 EMISSION HAVE BEEN DROPPING FOR SEVERAL YEARS. YOU JUST CHOSE A DIFFERENT TIME FRAME YOU MENDACIOUS FUCK.

  • ||

    You are wrong:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.w.....12_eia.png

    9% drop from 2007 to 2011.

    7.4% drop in first 4 months of 2012 compared to 2011.

  • margolin||

    2012 numbers are guesses only -- the real numbers come about two years after the fact. Total GHG emission sre down 7% from 2005 to 2010, partly due to the US economic collapse. 2010 per capita emissions were higher than 2009's: 22.0 to 21.5 t CO2e per person. GHG intensity was higher too: 522 g CO2e/$_2005, up from 518 in 2009.

  • Cytotoxic||

    THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE DECREASE IN CO2 EMISSIONS IN AMERICA IS FROM FRACKING AND THE USE OF NATGAS.

    Fossil fuels own the future. We just need to tear down the windmills and melt them into parts for Natgas plants.

  • ||

    2012 numbers are guesses only -- the real numbers come about two years after the fact.

    So your point is everything you wrote after this in an attempt to counter me is bullshit?

    Brilliant.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Some of the deniers among us have become so tied to their denial, I'm not sure they can conceive of what a libertarian solution to the problems of global warming would even look like!

    I told you this yesterday, Ken.

    The libertarian solution is to 1) acknowledge that economies around the world are NOT going to say "aw, fuck it. Lets shut down all of our energy sources";
    2) Acknowledge that even if there are problems that need to be dealt with, that all of these problems are going to be localized and specific (I.e., I, in central KY will not face the same issues that a poor farmer in Bangladesh will face - if we face any issues at all);
    3) Help localities come up with local solutions to their localized problems (and by help I mean voluntarily).

    If you're facing flooding in the South Pacific, help devise a dyke system a la Amsterdam. If we have a drought problem, help affected localities acquire crop plant varieties that have been developed to resist drought. Etc.

    Problems are local. Deal with them locally.

  • margolin||

    Dikes do not work on South Pacific islands, since the rocks on which they sit are porous. Saltwater intrusion runs the soil and vegetation....

    And it is far from clear that plants can be varied enough to withstand droughts like are begin seen in the US this year.

  • Cytotoxic||

    South Pacific Islands are doing fine aside from the ones that abuse their freshwater.

  • margolin||

    proof?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Maldives show no sign of inundation. None whatsoever.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Dikes do not work on South Pacific islands, since the rocks on which they sit are porous. Saltwater intrusion runs the soil and vegetation....

    So then you figure some other fucking way. Are you always this dense?

    Varied enough? I can go buy a pack of "drought resistant" tomato seeds in the store now.

  • Jesse Fell||

    Of course, the Earth has been warmer before before, "without SUVs". But are the forces that made the Earth warmer then, causing the Earth to be warming now? There is no identifiable cause for the current warmer, other than the obvious, plausible, and documented one: the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere that results from the burning of fossil fuel. Simply to repeat, "It's been warm before" does not speak to the current situation, unless it can be shown that the former causes of warming are responsible for the current warming.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Jesse Fell,

    But are the forces that made the Earth warmer then, causing the Earth to be warming now?


    So far we have only been bombarded with causality models from the camp of the warmists, as if the only possible culprit is an increase in so-called "greenhouse" gases (a scientifically-inaccurate name, as the gases they refer to do not trap heat the same way a greenhouse does.)

    Still, alternative explanations have been proposed, and these have been shown to correlate as well with the alleged increase in temperatures. It is possible that the answer is a combination of all effects.

    The point is that the previous periods of warming did not create the doom scenarios that Warmists would like us to think will happen if the Earth's atmosphere heats up. There's NO evidence that the previous warming periods created the upheavals that the Chicken Littles describe.

  • jnol44||

    "The point is that the previous periods of warming did not create the doom scenarios that Warmists would like us to think will happen if the Earth's atmosphere heats up. There's NO evidence that the previous warming periods created the upheavals that the Chicken Littles describe."

    Because no-one was around back then to record it. There were no cities at sea level because there were no cities full stop. There was no agricultural land because there was no agriculture. There were no extreme weather events because humans weren't around to class events as "extreme".

    "Still, alternative explanations have been proposed, and these have been shown to correlate as well with the alleged increase in temperatures."

    Your own link points out that the correlations break down in the last 50 years. This is why we aren't "bombarded" with these other ideas. They don't pass the smell test.

  • free2booze||

    Because no-one was around back then to record it. There were no cities at sea level because there were no cities full stop.

    There were no people, or cities, 1000 years ago?

  • jnol44||

    1000 years ago was much cooler than where the planet is heading. Temperatures of Earth are headed towards levels not seen for ten million years.

  • Cytotoxic||

    'Headed to'

    VERY SLOWLY. So sorry to take away the catastrophe porn.

  • margolin||

    No other factors than CO2 are known that can explain today's warming -- none even come close.

    And the enhanced greenhouse effect has been measured by satellites.

  • DAV||

    The keyword is "known". It's a logical fallacy to conclude a cause must be among only those imagined.

  • margolin||

    If a hypothesis explains the data, it is considered a good hypothesis. Waiting around until someone, someday, *might* explain the data another way is not science, nor is it prudent if you're trying to run a civilization. Scientists have looked at (and are still looking at) many factors. None come close to explaining modern warming -- only an enhanced greenhouse effect does. (And that's been measured, at least for clear-sky conditions.)

  • DAV||

    It's only a likely cause. You still can't claim it as THE cause. Even Muller recognizes this (sort of): "These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism ..." see above.

    Gutting the economy on the off-chance doing so might help is no way to run a civilization either.

  • PS||

    Richard Muller, the head of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, will publish an op/ed next week in the New York Times summarizing his group's findings with regard to global temperature trends.

    Well, if there's one thing Berkeley is known for, it's being politically unbiased. I look forward to seeing some objective views on this subject at last.

  • ||

    No shit. Next I look for an objective report from Paul Krugman on the effects of "austerity" on the European economy.

  • PS||

    *duh* don't you mean negative effects? There are no positive effects of austerity. Don't look at over there at Estonia, damnit, I told you not to look!

  • TheZeitgeist||

    To be objective here, this Muller guy has done an analysis of temperature data that answers many criticisms of such analyses done in years past: Cherry-picking weather stations, urban hot spots, poor control of poor inputs (weather station by HVAC A/C unit for instance). Which is to say, this is a temp analysis done competently, at least relative to most 'consensus' examples.

    So the earth is getting statistically warmer over past hundred-and-fifty years. But I don't think that's particularly a revelation to anyone who pays attention - Denier or Warmer. Snows of Kilimanjaro receding, glaciers receding, etc. are all damn-my-lying eyes proof of a warming Earth.

    Indeed, anybody who setup a weather station on Manhattan for past fifteen thousand years would have to agree the Earth is warming after recording the kilometer-tall ice sheet melt away in that time.

    This is news?

  • PS||

    Yes, you are probably right, and I don't know enough to really agree or disagree.

  • jnol44||

    well this "this is news?" is the defense skeptics make when they have to face facts.

    But bear in mind that not so long ago prominent skeptics released a report - paraded on the media - in which they claimed global warming over the 20th century wasn't credible.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    Global temps have changed on net less than a tenth of a degree centigrade over the past hundred-and-fifty years. That is what Muller's temp-data says.

    Like Dr. Muller stresses - that's all it says. No tree-ring, no proxy data, indeed he's not claiming per se how warm the earth has become.

    He's saying our current data-set spits this number out after a proper analysis (the best we'll get from a professional competence-POV).

    And that is all the report says.

  • margolin||

    The news is that the factors influencing climate today are very different from the ones that caused the ice sheets to recede. Climate changes, but not always for the same reason(s).

  • TheZeitgeist||

    The news is that the factors influencing climate today are very different from the ones that caused the ice sheets to recede.

    They could be, or maybe not. We grope at an understanding of all the processes involved in real-time weather; we are far from understanding it (with utmost precision within tenths of a degree Centigrade if you take this stuff at face value) over eons.

  • margolin||

    Weather is not climate. The factors that control large-scale climate, then and well, are fairly well known to science. In particular, it's definitely known that greenhouse gases cause our atmosphere to warm.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Weather is not climate.

    Not until it becomes advantageous to warmists anyways.

    The factors that control large-scale climate, then and well, are fairly well known to science.

    Bull. Shit.

    Is this why the models run have been horrifically wrong and absolutely NONE of what has been predicted to happen by now has happened?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Weather most certainly IS climate. It is the atom that the 'matter' that is climate is built from. Without weather, there is no climate. Without weather there is geography.

    Sometimes the utter simplicity of you hairless apes astounds me. 'Stabilize clinate'. You are blind worms groping in your own dung while believing you've found gold.

  • PapayaSF||

    Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophistical statistical methods

    That certainly gives me confidence regarding their attention to detail.

    I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about 1.5 degree F over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included.

    Umm, what? Don't we have to "include oceans"?

  • Marshall Gill||

    Oceans? You mean the gigantic heat sinks that cover much of the planet? Why bother? They already knew the results before they even started the study.

    I suppose next you will want them to actually consider solar output?!

  • margolin||

    In fact, the best sign of global warming comes from the oceans (Levitus et al, GRL 2012). That warming is steady, and large....

  • Cytotoxic||

    Most data shows that the oceans are not getting warmer or much warmer.

  • margolin||

    Proof? You're wrong -- read any of the papers on oceanic warming, especially the series by Levitus over the years. You can't explain sea level rise without oceanic warming.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You can't demonstrate a significant sea level rise because the rate of rise is slowing.

  • Longtorso||

    Foreign Policy Experts Discuss Ways to Avert Future Genocide
    ...Climate change acts as a “multiplier of other resource crises,” according to Timothy Snyder, a professor of history at Yale University, causing uncertainty about resources, leading to “the ecological panic that I’m afraid will lead to mass killings in the decades to come,” Mr. Snyder told the symposium.

    “We’ve entered into this moment of ecological panic,” he said. “Global warming will itself almost certainly directly cause mass killing, but it will likely indirectly cause it” as major states like China and the United States seek to feed their citizens, possibly touching off shortages elsewhere, in places that would then be at risk. China has already begun to act and, in a potential harbinger of future problems, has been investing in farmland in Ukraine and in parts of Africa for a few years.

    But even though the political will to address problems stemming from climate change is finite, Mr. Snyder said, foreign policy in general often works against war, “for the rule of law, for globalization” and therefore “the gap between sound foreign policy and genocide prevention might be rather small.”

  • thirtyandseven||

    sophistical statistical methods

    so·phis·tic (s-fstk) or so·phis·ti·cal (-t-kl)
    adj.
    1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of sophists.
    2. Apparently sound but really fallacious; specious: sophistic refutations.
    so·phisti·cal·ly adv.

    Well, he said so himself, in his own op ed.

  • ||

    Awesome. I read that as "sophisticated" when I first read it.

    Can we make this Muller's carbon law?

    "Attempting sophistication through sophisticated words will make you sound sophistical."

  • thirtyandseven||

    I am praying to Buddha, Allah, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster that Times publishes it that way.

    Karma's a bitch, Richard.

  • ||

    In all fairness I think Muller is one of the good guys.

    Or at least not one of full on lie through his teeth, suppress conflicting studies, hide data, and manipulate findings kind of bad guys, like say Mann, Hanson, and Jones are.

  • ||

    Ha ha, how did Bailey miss that?

  • ||

    awesome job by some local cops to catch this guy. alert cop at transit center recognizes the suspect in the stabbing, calls for backup and they take the guy, who is still armed btw with the weapon he stabbed the guard with, into custody

    no muss, no fuss, just like the 97% of arrests that are made without use of force, and remember only a tiny percentage of 1% of arrests by cops use deadly force

    good officer safety/tactics and no harm to anybody, while a dangerous guy is taken off the street - as happens numerous times throughout the country every day, usually with no media notice whatsoever.

    http://www.komonews.com/news/l.....13096.html

  • Longtorso||

    Yay! Dunphy found an example of a handful of cops in a nation of 300 million who got thru the day w/o killing an innocent 'civilian' and/or his dog!!!!

    Yay!!!!

  • ||

    um, no. as i have extensively posted in articles supported by statistics, the VAST majority of arrests, to include arrests of extremely violent and armed felons occur with NO force whatsoever, and deadly force is used in a tiny percentage (about 1/10 of 1% of arrests)

    that's fact, not rhetoric.

    cops in the US use deadly force extremely rarely, even when arresting some very bad and dangerous dudes, and that is again - a statistical reality

    i don't have to find *A* example.

    again, 97% of arrests are made with no UOF and 99 9/10% are made w/o deadly force.

    the statistics show that american cops are very restrained.

    the idea that they are trigger happy thugs is laughable when you look at the extreme rarity of UOF's and especially deadly force

    hth

  • SIV||

    He fixed it

  • sticks||

    97 percent is not good enough. Also what about abuse of power by police when an arrest is not made?

  • ||

    97 percent is EXCELLENT.

    i suggest you do a ridealong and see the excellent tactics and officer safety skills cops use to help take people into custody w/o force.

    by far, the most important skillz cops have is communications skills. much like an ER doc/nurse, it's not just about the knowledge base (law and medicine respectively) it's about knowing how to talk to people and gaining compliance.

    most people do not want to get arrested. naturally so

    and yet, we are able to take the VAST majority we do arrest into custody without using force.

    97% is a laudable statistic by any REASONable person

    what i was amazed by, when i entered law enforcement was how good cops (especially seasoned streetwise cops) are at avoiding force, or using quick deception/swarm techniques to quickly get the habeas grabbus :l on somebody so greater force isn't necessary down the line.

    imo, especially cops that often work isolated areas and.or without backup get VERY good at verbal persuasion but also very good at picking up the subtle physical cues that signal an imminent attack.

    and the good ones are "like water" to borrow a bruce lee'ism and don't meet force head on, but redirect it to help defuse and direct a suspect into handcuffs.

    especially now that we got so many guys competing in and training in mma, specifically judo and jiu jitsu, i've seen these force redirection skills get even better over the years

  • sticks||

    You missed my point I think. 97 percent might be great but cops should always be striving to do better (think more perfect union).

    Also what about abuses that occur without making an arrest?

  • ||

    i'm not going to devolve into tangents, sticks because then it gets unwieldy. what ABOUT the abuses that occur w.o making an arrest? they should be dealt with. with due process. and that['s why i strongly support people videotaping cops at every opportunity and cops videotaping ourselves.

    cops DO strive to do better. i know a lot of cops who attend training classes on their own dime and time for just that reason.

    i am just saying 97% is damn good.

    as an analogy, the overall traffic fatality rate is only 20% what it was at its peak.

    better emergency medicine, DUI enforcement, DUI cultural shifts, better vehicle crumple technology, better road design, etc. etc. are all to credit.

    that is a very excellent stat, much like the 97% stat but we should still strive to improve it. as for the DUI's, the science of FST's, the near perfect accuracy of breathalyzers, etc. etc. has made a huge difference.

    regardless, i agree - cops should always be striving to do better.

    we can agree there.

    my point is that cops currently are doing excellent

  • SIV||

    C+

    Needs more acronyms and random words in ALL CAPS.

  • ||

    usually with no media notice whatsoever.

    Please to not imply that main stream media is biased against cops.

    It is unsightly.

  • ||

    i didn't imply that

    try some reading comphrehension

    the media is naturally biased towards "if it bleeds, it leads".

    a cop making arrest without same, is quite unlikely to get media attention

    here, the article was about the guy getting stabbed (if it bleeds, it leads), with a little throwaway sentence about the arrest.

    we had some roll call review of this arrest (the arresting agencies shared a lot of info) because it was a good example of multiagency cooperation, good use of officer safety, good use of officers employing both less lethal AND lethal weapons for backup in case shit went awry etc. and it took place in a transit center, but with ultimate consideration towards bystander safety

    it was a very well executed arrest

    but again, i never said the media is biased against cops. some are, some aren't, but on the whole i think they are biased towards sensationalism and advocacy journalism

    it's pretty clear that some journalists have a raging hard-on for cops and we can do no wrong, and others are instinctively anti-cop

    i think, on the balance, most metro newspapers and news channels give cops a pretty fair shake.

    so, no i did not imply what you claim

    hth

    (try reading for comprehension)

  • ||

    Usually something makes the news because it is a rare occurrence.

    hth

  • ||

    no, it's more often a "if it bleeds, it leads" whether rare or not.

    i've arrested numerous people in situations where it very well could have escalated to deadly force but due to combination of 1) good officer safety 2) good verbal skills 3) luck 4) proper tools available etc. it didn't.

    none of those arrests, even the foot pursuit and near shooting we had of the violent murder suspect who was in town to kill a witness did not make the media.

    but EVERY time we shoot somebody, it will make the media

    which is fine, but for the ignorati, they only see "cop shoots guy with knife". they do not see "cop does not shoot guy with knife and persuades him to drop it" or "cop, at great risk to self tackles guy with knife and takes him into custody with nary a scratch" etc.

    since only ONE type of incident is reported the ignorati could naturally (but wrongly) conclude that cops sure do shoot guys with knives a lot.

    when, in fact, the opposite is true

  • ||

    cops in Seattle getting federal training to not stomp on people at traffic stops makes news

    no bleeding just boot marks on the neck

    maybe golf shoes would keep the perps quiet

    hth

  • ||

    have you read the DOJ report?

    i am well aware the feds subjective analysis is that SPD has a force problem. i am also aware, and i have posted stats on this before, that SPD uses force less per capita than other similar sized agencies.

    if and when i can review the actual DOJ report , i will be able to conclude whether their subjective analysis is correct

    what is ironic is that when DOJ makes subjective analysis of most other issues - whether the dangers of evul marijuana, the terrorist threat, etc. reasonoids will kneejerk naturally skeptical of the DOJ's analysis of a "problem"

    but when the DOJ analysis fits their metanarrative "cops bad derp derp" it doesn't get questioned at all

    i am perfectly willing to accept that SPD has a force problem, but the evidence i need is to READ their report.

    because the few examples i have seen cited FROM that report were problematic

    if the report is well done and uses good logic etc than i'll be the first to tell SPD to clean up its act

    but i haven['t read the actual report. have you?

  • ||

    Troll-o-meter .001

    stick the landing next time and you might qualify

    hth

  • BakedPenguin||

    Shooting a guy in the back and killing him - just because he's whittling - is a problem. Fullerton, Chicago and NYPD are probably worse. That doesn't mean SPD doesn't need supplementary instruction in not beating and shooting people who are not a threat. hth

  • TheZeitgeist||

    It is important to add that every time a cop gets assaulted or shot in these altercations it makes big news.

    Then the police and politicians play the same 'ignorati' crowd about cops laying it on the line every day all day and the pseudo-military cult of sacrifice that is creepy in any civilian outfit (why do cops call citizens 'civilians?' Cops are no army).

    And those events are much rarer than the other way around.

  • ||

    cops being injured (vs. killed) is quite common. it's rare when SOMEBODY from ym squad is not out on some duty related injury (we had two sgts in the course of a week struck and injured by drunk drivers recently)

    officer DEATHS aren't particularly high for a # of reasons - primary being bullet proof vest. second chance ALONE has registered well over 1000 saves.

    how many of your coworkers have been - shot, stabbed, punched, kicked, bludgeoned, struck by a motor vehicle?

    i can count quite a lot. heck, three guys from my unit were shot on ONE warrant. none died, but two MIGHT HAVE if not for the bullet proof vests. and thank god for that.

    and of course, the reason why we have (roughly) 150 or so cops die line of duty each year, and not metric assloads more is because we DO use proper officer safety. the kind of stuff that gets reasonoids all in a flutter. like if i am arresting an armed robber, i'm doing it at gunpoint, and if he reaches for his waistband he very well may get shot

    good, vigilant officer safety practices, as well as bullet proof vest, means that our risks aren't that bad vis a vis death, and our risk of injury while substantial isn't atrocious

    good

    and of course it's much rarer for a cop to get shot than a cop to shoot somebody. goddamn right. that's how it's supposed to be.

    and in the overwhelming vast majority of those shootings, they are justified.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    how many of your coworkers have been - shot, stabbed, punched, kicked, bludgeoned, struck by a motor vehicle?

    I was involved in a vehicular assault on a Taco Bell that ended in several people gunned down (all wounded as most shootings end up) and all kinds of fucking bonkers-mayhem.

    My job? I was the guy working the drive-thru when the 'vehicular assault on the Taco Bell' part started.

    I worked at a convenience store too. Got robbed once. Got in a fight with a bum that ended in a lightsaber-inspired beating using a fucking broom. Got hosed down with fuel and nearly lit on fire by someone doing a gas-in-dash. I hated that job.

    I did all that stuff working through high school. When you face the public, you see a pretty ugly side that just like your comparison to the news, stick out in your mind.

  • ||

    there was that time the cop injured his foot kicking the handcuffed teenage girl in the holding cell

    he's lucky to be alive

  • SIV||

    "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions."

    Wait, I thought he was a global warming "skeptic"?

  • dougal||

    Muller writes: "How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect – extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does carbon dioxide. ..."

    In other words, there is nothing new here. It's the same old "correlation equals causation" argument. The problem is this: how does he explain the dramatic increase in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period? How about the decline in temperatures during the Little Ice Age?

    Fewer and fewer people these days are buying into that argument. Mr. Muller seems not to have been reading the latest scholarship in the field.

    I'm also highly skeptical that their new formulas fully account for the UHI effect.

    Anthony Watts has announced a release of his own "project" and although no one knows what it will be about, I suspect it might be related to the BEST findings. He will reveal what it is that caused him to shut down WUWT for two days tomorrow at 12 pm Pacific time.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    The Medieval Warm Period could be from an entirely different effect than why the planet is warming now.

    Again, causation/correlation is something to intellectually watch out for in making that comparison.

  • DAV||

    Even more interesting, quoting from the op/ed above: "I’ve concluded ... cause is human" then later "These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism ..."

    If the facts don't prove causality, what was his conclusion based upon?

    Some time ago, I downloaded the BEST data for the preliminary analysis. The data are not without problems. There are discontinuities from gaps in the record and sudden temperature jumps. Even assuming he properly corrected for these, the data don't cover 70+% of the Earth so, at best, the study only applies to localities albeit large ones.

  • caerbannog||

    For those who have taken a serious shot at crunching the global temperature data themselves, the BEST results should not come as a surprise at all.

    In my experimentation with the data, I found that it was surprisingly easy to confirm the officially-published NASA/NOAA/etc. global-average temperature results. I did it by running *raw* temperature data through a very straightforward averaging procedure that does not involve any data adjustments/homogenization.

    In summary, I have been able to confirm the following:

    Rural and urban stations produce similar results.
    Raw and homogenized data produces similar results.
    You can literally throw away 99 percent of the stations and still get results that confirm the official NASA/etc. results -- that's right: raw data from fewer than 70 rural stations will produce results very similar to the results NASA publishes.

    The "raw data from 70 rural stations" results can be viewed here: tinyurl.com/globaltemperatureresultsV2

  • TheZeitgeist||

    Wait, I thought he was a global warming "skeptic"?

    I think Muller is a skeptic, but a skeptic of the hysterical, intellectually fraudulent 'consensus' camp personified by likes of James 'Hockey' Hanson and Peter 'Grapenuts' Gleick.

    The Carbon Clowns know the past, know the future, and know how to fix it all while flying in a Carbon Bird's first class on somebody else's carbon-pilfered dime.

    There are shades of skeptic, and I think Muller is more skeptical of that crowd than anything.

  • Poptech||

  • ||

    i must say as somebody who has NO opinion about global warming (as to whether manmade or not etc.), i enjoy reading these threads. the rhythm, the rhetorical tricks, the structure and also in many cases - the ideological blindness (on both sides) is pretty typical.

  • sticks||

    "
    Is it time now to end global warming skepticism?

    Our study addressed only one area of the concerns: was the temperature rise on land improperly affected by the four key biases (station quality, homogenization, urban heat island, and station selection)? The answer turned out to be no � but they were questions worthy of investigation. Berkeley Earth has not addressed issues of the tree ring and proxy data, climate model accuracy, or human attribution. "

    http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#skepticism

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Three years ago I identified scientific issues that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.

    There's no con like the long con.

  • MSimon||

    Look if this is so important can we have a war with the Chinese? Or make sure they contract industrial disease. Maybe a spanner in the hole? Something.

  • MSimon||

    I've got it. We cut off all energy supplies at once and kill off 6 or 7 billion people in under a year. That should save the planet. Maybe set up some kind of industrial process on a very vast scale. In the US we will need to off a million a day. China and India 4 million a day each. We must start at once. The planet is in danger.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Don't joke. The greens are totally down with that.

  • Cytotoxic||

    This does seem to be a powerful splurge of evidence in favor of AGW, although there is the correlation =/= causation problem as Muller admits. Still, this isn't the main doosy. Catastrophic AGW is still discredited utterly, and the need for regulations is ablated by the mostly-fracking induced drop in US CO2 emissions.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    That is an increasingly decisive point about CH4. America's copious bounty and skills have flooded the market with CH4. With no facilities to export it, Americans pay 1/5 the world price.

    If we could get the terminals set up, soon we'd have China on Lady Liberty's big energy titties suckling away - and getting our money back. And a lower carbon footprint to boot. Oh, and when it burns there's none of the real-time nasty shit like single oxides and soot. And it makes American jobs, blah-blah and so on.

    What is left for CH4 not being a lefty favorite? It can't be the fracking. Compared to what on a per-watt basis? Coal? Oil? Fucking wind?

    All they've got is their mystical oogah-boogah Carbon Clown to keep their visions of an all-passive energy society (lefty energy dreams never make energetic reactions, they always harvest or store).

    And they will double-down on Stupid in the coming years against CH4.

  • Cytotoxic||

    If CH4 can be used to make energy in small scale efficiently, that's huge. You could save TONS of energy by producing close to users and thus minimize the loss in transmission. In BC, the hydro damns need to trasmit power very far. Even when they up the voltage to reduce resistance, 1/3 of the energy is lost in transmission.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Isn't there pretty much a natural limit to man-made warming anyway, if we're headed toward a fossil fuel peak?

    Also, China uses coal without scrubbers or anything, right? Does that cancel out the additional CO2 to some extent?

  • ||

    Isn't there pretty much a natural limit to man-made warming anyway, if we're headed toward a fossil fuel peak?

    Yes. Problem is, the peak doesn't mean we're out. If all the proven reserves of fossil fuels that we already have are burned, we will be 6-8 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial global average. That will end human agriculture.

  • dan bloom||

    Ron, above you wrote: ''Muller will publish an op/ed next week in the New York Times summarizing his group's findings with regard to global temperature trends.'' How were you PRIVY to inside information at the NYTimes oped page, nobody should know the info but the Oped editors and Dr Muller, can you explain in transparent way how YOU know this info which should have remained private? Did Muller tell you? THen he betrayed the confidence of his NYT editors. re THE NYT Andy REvkin said that Muller, who has combined P.T. Barnum
    showmanship and science throughout his three-year project, chose to
    break the news in a NYT OpEd article. But Andy, you should know,
    Muller was ASKED to write that piece for the NYT oped page by its
    assignment editor, he did not submit it cold, as you know. All opeds
    are assigned first and commissioned. The oped team asked him to write
    that oped. There is a difference, no? Even Roger Pielke Jr made the
    same mistake, tweeting that [The bigguer issue is how NYT let itself
    be conned into running Muller's op-ed']. But in fact, RP is wrong,
    the Times oped page was not conned. The oped page assigned the article
    to Muller. Ask him. Ask the editors. I know this for a fact. No opeds
    ever come in unassigned, Period. Marc Morano is wrong, Watts is wrong,
    RP is wrong, and Andy you are wrong here to assert that he chose to
    break the news in an oped in the Times. The Times asked him to explain
    himself and Muller got paid over
    $1000

  • 74Camaro||

    I'm puzzled by the use of the word "sophistical", in "approach used sophistical statistical methods". The dictionary I checked said this means "plausible but misleading". A typo, or a joke, or?

  • dan bloom||

    Dear Mr. Bloom: What a every odd and inaccurate claim you are making about Ron Bailey's reporting, above! However else the other folks you cite characterized the origin of Muller's piece, Mr Bailey nowhere implied that he was not asked to write the op/ed (and he most likely doesn't really care how it came about). Bailey just reported his views as news. Really sir you shoild re-read what Mr Bailey wrote above, ''actually'' wrote.

    Dan Bloom replies: Will do. I stand corrected. Sorry.

  • dan bloom||

    and another poster tells me:

    "Dear Mr Bloom:

    How did the "rumor" make it multiple news outlets including Reason mag? Most likely a ''source'' (scare quotes intended) - whose accuracy Bailey most likely trusted 100 percent - obtained the information from Dr Muller about the upcoming op/ed in the NYT and probably tipped off a whole lot of people, including Mr Bailey. It was most likely supplied initially as a ''rumor'' which is how most blogs reported it. Later a draft copy of the op/ed was circulated widely around the world via email by different sources which Bailey also reported about. Nobody knows how they obtained the oped draft, but since it backed up the earlier information they all had received, most bloggers judged that it was likely accurate. They don't even know Dr. Muller and he certainly did not send the bloggers worldwide an early version of his op/ed.

    And Bloomie, With regard to Reason Mag's reporting - the BEST results are certainly newsworthy and of interest to the public. It is not a reporters job anywhere to keep news private but to report it accurately. That is what REASON MAG did here, I believe, and attempted to with the BEST results. "

    "ANd as for whetther the oped was commssioned by the NYT oped page or came in cold over the transom, who CARES?''

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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