The Koch brothers are climate change skeptics, Their business is chemicals, coal and transportation- three areas likely to be hit hard by any moves to a low carbon economy.
They have respect for science, though, and decided to partly fund a new study at Berkeley run by a climate skeptic Professor, Prof Richard Muller .
Unfortunately. after studying temperature data in more detail than has ever been done before, the said Professor has been converted. The data showed temperature rising more sharply than previous studies.
Further analysis convinced him that only human activity could possibly be responsible.
He said: "We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds." He now considers himself a "converted sceptic" and his views had undergone a "total turnaround" in a short space of time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ … hange-mind
This is what in the UK would be called a 'Koch Up'. Shame it is all a bit late.
Sorry kids n Cats Manmade global warming is as fake as Dolly Partons boobs, sure all the data looks interesting but it has been found out the warmers cooked the numbers based studies on 2 or3 of 35 data points- http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scient … arming.htm
Secondly t\http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.htm -SO fake RESULTS AGAIN.... I think I shall start with a bit of history; I am talking about Chris Berman “wayyy BACk Back Back all the way to the mid Cretaceous that’s approximately 100 million years ago for you non-geologic folks. It was estimated by a collaboration of Professors (1) in the Applied Science Department at NYU (Rampino et al) that Carbon-dioxide releases associated with a mid-Cretaceous super plume and mountain building activities in the Ontong-Java Plateau have been suggested as a principal cause of the mid-Cretaceous global warming. CO2 emissions resulting from super-plume tectonics could have produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm (that’s1100 to 4000 ppm). Based on the temperature sensitivity to CO2 increases used in the weathering-rate formulations, this would cause a global warming of from 2.8 to 7.7 degrees Celsius that is 37-44 degrees Fahrenheit (toasty) over today's global mean temperature. =o its volcanoes that have historically had a major impact 35-45 degrees ...so I dont buy what Al gore is selling and i dont believe global-warming is manmade or occuring today...
You need to read up a bit more on the subject. Nobody is denying the effect of natural forces, today and in the past. However, the effect of anthropomorphic factors has been scientifically measured and is undeniable. The climate at any given time is the product of natural and man made forces. Why is it so hard for you to grasp that climate change is not an either/or matter? (either man made or natural). You need a checkup to make sure you're not a victim of the Tea Party syndrome! http://ralphdeeds.hubpages.com/hub/The- … ou-have-it
Prof Muller concluded after his study that there was no evidence that variations in the solar cycle had any part in the warming trend neither did volcanic activity.
He asserts a 95 per cent correlation between rising CO2 levels and global temperature. In other words, he now believes that there are no natural cycles involved whatsoever (part of his previous position). It is all down to man made emissions.
There is nothing new in his findings.It just backs up all the other major studies.
The fun part is that the Kochs paid $150,000 for this. They would have done better funding more disinformation websites.
That's ironic. I wasn't aware that the Kochs funded Muller.
I haven't read any scientists who rule out the effect of solar cycles or other natural phenomena at times in the past nor in the future. My understanding is that for any given period natural forces may have no effect on climate, may cancel the effect of greenhouse gases or accelerate the effect of greenhouse gases. All considered, the most likely outcome in the next century or half-century sufficiently to result in disruptions which will require some rather costly and inconvenient, to put it mildly, adjustments in many parts of the world.
Muller was only looking at a 250 year period.
He concluded that the solar cycles had no noticeable impact in that period. Volcanic activity was probably responsible for some short term cooling but the underlying trend was upwards as a result of increasing CO2.
Thanks. I'll try to read Muller's report or more about it at least.
Thats the problem with Muller he didn't do the research looking al the way back - maybe he didn't have the resources or some of the data... you have to look over a longer cycle than 250 years when the earth is 5 billion years old thats like looking at today and saying i am very ealthy when in fact i was dead a one time or say that you are sickly if you have a cold today but have never had a day in the hospital or missed a day of work. So if muller would have checked further back he may have changed his view. I wonder who was giving him funding
If you are looking at the impact of human beings on climate, the last 250 years is what matters.
Muller tried to account for the observed temp changes in that period by reference to solar and volcanic activity, he was, after all, a climate skeptic.
The data would only support an explanation based on greenhouse gas emissions from human activity, so being an honest man, he revised his opinions.
Also, there are studies of Antarctic ice sheets cores that allow temp changes to be quantified over the last 750.000 years. The last 200 years has seen the sharpest temp changes.
Ralph (Ithink)- as a geologist environmental science major and working in the environmental field for 15- yearsI ave forgotten more than others know... secondly your undeniable items are very denible considering as I have said before when 2 of 36 data points are used to conclude something and in other cases the methodology is so flawed that I don't need to check my view you and many many others have to realize why the media and scholastics have an agenda to destroy certain industries and push their ridiculous zealotry such as global warming I went through Al Gores an "inconvenient (miss)-truth in that movie alone there were at least 50 lies...I have checked MY sources and the global warmers sources and it all comes back to the lefty liar media is putting forth thr garbage conclusions based on garbage data- more people are coming over to the correct side of truth its only the big highly visible folks caving to popular misconceptions known as " man made global warming" the biggest LIE is that there is a consesus about GWarming....
As for why we know global warming is occurring it's simple, the outer atmosphere of our planet is not heating up at all but our lower atmosphere and surface is because of the greenhouse effect, you can also replicate the greenhouse effect in a literal greenhouse to see the facts., there have been other high CO2 periods in history and those too were marked by heating it really is that simple but obviously it's all a conspiracy, tell me do you drink only rainwater?
Your example of the outer vs inner atmosphere like global warming is flawed and ignores general physics and Natural history and general scientific principals.. First off why isnt thwe outer atmosphere heating up ... same reason we put things in a fridge- ... and that is.... you guessed it it colder in the freezer- if we put a heater in the freezer- the freezer will keep the area cold and I tink near absolute zero is a great freezer for the outer atmosphere that is heated by ... say it with me- the Sun.. thats good Jo- the suns energy heats all the earth and therefore keeps the earth from turning ice cubic. if the sun suddenly got dimmer as it periodically has what happens to the earth does it warm? No it got colder too if notr what caused the ice ages....go ahead try and answer it without saying the sun???? Or saying the earths tilt eliptical orbit or distance... what are you left withj...thats right "bubkiss"...
A few of the articles from Prisonplanet
Federally-Funded Street Lights Capable of “Recording Conversations”
Foundations are in place for martial law in the US
US planning to recruit one in 24 Americans as citizen spies
Pentagon Developing Tool To Monitor Your Life
Did Terrorist Pilots Train at U.S. Military Schools?
I don't think anymore needs to be said, lol.
So said Muller..........but then he actually did the research...
Prove him wrong...
Well, just chalk it up to the evidence pile, which is massive. Not sure people who have predetermined that God will save us will ever change their mind though.
Well, I guess we've settled that! The deniers have taken cover.
Unfortunately, they seem to have taken over the public debate, but the intellectual one has already been won. Winning though, what does it matter if no action is taken?!?!?!?
Sorry- As a geologist and a denier- i ask you global warming -wits to answer me this if CO2 is not a natural global cycle then how were the mid-Cretaceous global warming. CO2 emissions resulting from super-plume tectonics could have easily produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the MODERN pre-industrial value of 285 ppm (that’s1100 to 4000 ppm). Based on the temperature sensitivity to CO2 increases used in the weathering-rate formulations, this would cause a global warming of from 2.8 to 7.7 degrees Celsius that is 37-44 degrees Fahrenheit (toasty) over today's global mean temperature. SO WARMERS WHAT CAUSED real global WARMING? OH YEA VOLCANOES ETC.. not man... THEN WE GO TO THE RECENT DATA. So let me tell you guys about a little known "thing" called the Milankovitch cycle.This cycle postulated variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth. Eccentricity being the “ovalness” of the earth’s orbit. Axial tilt is the degree the earth tilts toward and away from the sun averages approximately 23 degrees and precession – it means wobble on the axis wobble of the axial tilt. SO I ask you what do YOU really think will effect the earth? Where and how the earth faces the sun or how many cars are on the road? If you said the sun you’re correct. If you didnt then there is probably nothing that will convince you what really does the warming on earth. Every hour, enough sunlight energy reaches the Earth to meet the world’s energy demand for a whole year. Shttp://www.makeitsolar.com/solar-energy-information/04-sun-energy.htmource. I got more but i'll wait on it...
Is there a translation available for this?
ok I'll dumb it down for you since you believers- need help with real science, in the mid cretaceous- (many millions of years ago)- super-plume tectonics could have easily produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the MODERN pre-industrial value of 285 ppm (that’s1100 to 4000 ppm). translation- alot of volcanoes go "boom "make alot of CO2 fly into the in the air. so that there was 3.7 to 14% times more in the air - (thats allot more in the air).... with me so far? Im not going to fast? that rise in CO2 this would cause a global warming of from 2.8 to 7.7 degrees Celsius that is 37-44 degrees Fahrenheit (toasty) over today's global mean temperature. mean means average... so - there is the history lesson. that boils down to CO2 can rise from NATURAL means since no people were there so long ago... now- on to today/ or more recent stuff...or maybe not since its been going on for a long time.. The Milankovitch cycle, this is a cycle that the earth ( the planet we are on) goes around the Sun (the big bright thing in the sky during the day ( dont look directly into it guys). So the way the sun doe not move but the earth goes around the sun....it does not travel in a perfect circle or even a constant elipse there are variations- in how it becomes more or less circular-the less circular the farther away it will travel from the sun, i have already defined tilt and precession. Doesn't that make sense... If something is farther away it gets less heat if land masses are tilted away from the sun- they get less heat, And these 3 factors have not been constant forever since the earth was created... So yet again howfar the earth is away from the sun what part gets the most sun. So I guess this goble-de -gook- or as most people call this REAL SCIENCE...REAL SCIENCE i CAN GO ON ONCE YOU HAVE DIGESTED THIS ..yours pal TH
Why can't you grasp that man made factors affect climate as well as natural forces? The people who worry about climate change agree that natural forces affect climate. Seems to me logical that climate is determined by natural forces AND recent greenhouse gas emissions. It's not an EITHER/OR matter.
tHE REASON i DONT BELIEVE THE wARMERS PROPAGANDA IS -The earth is amazingly self sufficient CO2 absorber it has kept the balance for Billions of years through times of 500-1000x greater CO2 and we were not around and the earth didn't turn into Venus so who are we to be so self important to say we could even effect such a system- thats been higher and lower multiple times in the geologic past. but the warmers refuse to respect the past and how the earth takes care of itself...
It's not propaganda. It's information measured and analyzed by scientists.
You remind me of my uncle, who didn't "believe" the doctors who told him he needed medicine to control his brain seizures. He was able to find all kinds of fringe documentation for why he didn't need medicine. Never mind that 4 different specialists from three different cities told him he did. He went with the nonexperts. He's dead now.
Frimge reasons have you read anything or paid attention to anything written here... Leyt me YET AGAIN SUMMARIZE IT
1. The studies of alleged warming werwe too short its like looking at today and yesterday and saying your a very sickly person because you happened to have a cold, 250 years is NOTHING compare to billions of years...
2. The data has beem manipulated and misrepresented by the warmers-2 of 40 data points showed warming??? how is that even plausible
3 If CO2 emmisions are our fault? why were the levels in the past - Pre humans as much as 100s and 1000s of % higher?? (those damn dino cart racers right?)
4. What is the biggest effect heating our planets surface? people or the Sun if you said people.. your an idiot... since the average light we recieve is not constant due to the way the earth is traveling through space around the sun.....yes the sun that gives us 99.99e energy to the planet
5 what happened after Mt St Helens and Pinitubo blew? the ash blotted out radiation and temps fell so that was 20+ and 30 yrs ago we are only now getting the ash out of the way...so what does that mean??? more light more warmth higher temps.
6. this talk of consensus is not even close in fact
7. l the articles about warming are written why ? thats where 95% of research money goes but they never really get "god data" nothing definitive....why else dont you see more GW Denying material? even if there was funding the kleft wing news dopes wouldn't run it
8. O Remember few years before any of us were born.. All te scientists were sure the earth was flat...
there was a consensus there too ust like many of the scientists blame humans for alleged warming activity.
9. Sunspot activity has increased over the past 100 years solar activity has risen systematically through the past 100 years, as recorded in the number of sunspots. More sunspots more energy to the earth- more heat to earth....
Sorry Tom, this is still pretty much incomprehensible.
I will say one thing: geophysical studies of volcanic emissions (or degassing from the earths crust) suggest that these natural additions to atmospheric CO2 have been minimal in the last couple of hundred years.
Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.
Volcanic eruptions into the atmosphere (as opposed to sub-sea) tend to cause cooling because of the dust and ash particles they emit. These reflect solar energy.
OK lets try it again-the real reason for heating n cooling on the earth is how it travels around the sun-how it is tilted how it wobbles and the shape of the orbit. REAL EARTH CHANGES -THAT REALLY AFFECT THE PLANET. SINCE CURRENT LEVELS OF co2 ARENT EVEN CLOSE TO THE LEVELS IN THE PAST-how dare we say its what is warming the planet- besides there has not been any REAL DATA OR STUDIES (well none using real data points or having a real scientific background or accepted sample dataset) saying the planet is warmer because someone remembers things were worse-is BSAs such I remember summers 20 yrs ago that was worse than this one in my area...As for the volcanic data back in the cretaceous- (a long time before people) there were 1000s of volcanoes pumping out gasses and guess what it took 1000s of years for the earth to cool - killing the dinos so yes the volcanoes heat up the planet with CO2 until the sun gets blotted out freezing it Ice age anyone?.... So yes the volcanoes now a days aren't as numerous or volumetrically close to those of the Cretaceous. As for human emmissions-
Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id). The only reason why people are on the Wraming wagon is thats where the money is in controlling us bt limiting what we can buy and do based on fraudulent claims and vodoo science-
Why on Earth do you imagine that there is money to be made from pointing out the inescapable fact of global warming? Nobody wants this to be true. Unfortunately, all the reliable data suggests that it is.
Finally, someone who can put it into terms that the average person could understand if they cared to be open-minded. Of course, the people here are never open-minded because the only reason they read this thread is to respond with their opinion, which is already formed and unchanging.
I, for one, am more convinced, ok totally convinced, by the geologist viewpoint. I am untrained in this field and know only what I read, so am not qualified to make any assertions about who's right. Only that I tend to think that the sun and earth are in charge of these things, not us. We are nothing in comparison to the power of the sun or the earth's forces. Besides the fact that history, the really old stuff, tells us that things were a lot more turbulent in the past, before humans were ruining everything.
As for the money to be made; agreed completely. There is also power to be had by those who would control what we can drive, eat, build, etc. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just about as crazy as us non-believers!
You must realize that the established energy companies have a lot to lose from a move to sustainable energy.
Academics only have a lot to lose if they present poor quality work or dubious data (the opposite is often true for lobbyists or opinion makers in the media).
If the sustainable energy industry was big enough and there was enough money involved they would probably get up to the same dirty tricks as the Koch Brothers and their friends. That is just the way vested interests work. It might even happen in the future. But not right now.
Also what exactly is the geologist view?
As the geologist my view is Global Warming is the biggest most lucrative Hoax out there, I dont trust the liberal orgs out there to crush "traditional energy companies" in order to supplant them with a technology that AT THIS TIME CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS "at this time", maybe in the future but not anytime soon. the green lifestyle should NOT be pushed - forced on anyone. my main issue is that the historical geology and the current studies pushed by lefty "green extremists". as a result real science is bastardized.
"Finally, someone who can put it into terms that the average person could understand if they cared to be open-minded. "
Whaaat? I guess I'm not an average person.
Coal and oil aren't profitable at all......Also from NASA.
"It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.
Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.
But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:
Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases."
To the comment coal is not profitable...yet it is funny, icoal is very abundant easy to find easy to locate and extract- granted its not the prettiest method to get an energy source but getting methane is a similar process- I think alot more care should be taken when you use the "new thing" Hydro-fracing.... there are ways to do it safer but the price increases in 5 years fracing will be better I already have a solution for fracking issues.... its not free n cheap but it will keep people off the energy co's back...
The suns radiation is only PART of the equation.. you admit the sun does not really change the second and more important part is that the earths journey around the sun. As I previously stated the earth goes around the sun (revolution) tilt toward or away from the sun (changing what areas et the sun -the tilt is now 23 degrees give or take.. and p recession- how far the sun is from the earth, these three factors are the REAL reason the suns rays variability and why the suns rays are not constant because of these three factors have THEY have NEVER been constant over time. Also- The continents have moved around into multiple super continent (Pangea)- it has been surmised there have been at least 3 or4 Pangeas-where all continents have stuck together. that has to change how the weather is on the planet. The earths magnetic field is also inconsistent the mag field- can change the outer core -heating the mantle adding heat to the oceans oceans..and an increase in volcanic this sub oceanic and off gassing of green house gasses a statistic not measured but estimated yet it happens but is not measured....
Ancient geological history is all very well and can teach us about climate change. But it really is the present and the last very, very short period of the Earths history- since the beginning of the industrial revolution- that matters in this debate.
Tectonic plates move too slowly to be of any consequence in the last 250 years, same for shifting orbit and magnetic fields.
You are obscuring the real issues.
Will ignorance of the very far past climate conditions in the CLIMATE CYCLE is like saying i DONT CARE THAT Charles Manson was a lil crazy I'd still let him babysitter. You can't ignore history when deciding what is happening now or in the future. Global warming is a natural phenomenon there is no credible data saying that humans have any effect on the climate is even negligible no credible study has ever proved it EVER.
What has been "happening now" has been measured and scientifically documented from what I've been reading. Climate is a product of the same things that have changed it in the past PLUS anthropomorphic factors, primarily burning of coal and oil. Your view is one held by a tiny minority.
Why would we be looking for liveable planets if ours was not in trouble? The Meadow report says a lot as for our future. It is not my future that bothers me but my niece's and nephews' and the rest of the children of the earth that worries me.
@maxoxam41, I've been interested in "liveable planets" for the last 57 years (since I was 5 years old) and it has nothing to do with the state of politics, technology, climate or the economy on Earth.
Certainly, we need to be concerned about the future, but other Earth-like planets are meaningless unless we can get to them. The closest possible Earth-like planet (if one were found in Alpha Centauri system, our closest neighbor) would be an astounding 26 Trillion miles away. If we spent a few trillion dollars, we might be able to build a ship to send a few hundred people to that world in about 25-30 years, but they would have to sleep most of the way. I'm afraid we don't have the technology for suspended animation.
What caused us to come out of the last ice age? You know, the one where there was no industrial revolution yet, no SUVs, no evil Conservatives trying to kiil polar bears...???
And, why was the SAME arguement, using the same "facts" given in the 70's to support global cooling?
The kinds of cycles that cause cooling of the planet have a 20,000 year frequency and are related to shifts in the Earths orbit. So, yes, ices age come and go.
The science behind this was explored in the seventies and although the scientific community was not expecting an ice age any time soon the popular press picked up on it and came to some strange conclusions.
Those conclusions are still useful to climate skeptics who enjoy muddying the waters of debate.
The data on global warming covers a 250 year period when global temperatures have risen by 1.5 C. Most of that rise has happened in the last few decades.
Why not take a look at Muller's results?: http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/
Incidentally, you also get cooling of the earth after major volcanic eruptions (dust in the atmosphere). These don't cause ice ages.
lone77star, then once more where is the point to know if and where those exoplanets exist?
I've always believed in climate change. I know humans are having some effect on the climate. How much is debatable. Natural changes may account for the lion's share. I don't know.
But a far more worrisome fact is that the globalists (New World Order) want to take advantage of this by adding a carbon tax. It's just a ploy to add more control and to gain more funding for their world takeover.
If you don't wake up to this pattern soon enough, you may not be able to do anything about it.
Just look at all of the Jews and other "undesirables" who let Normalcy Bias blind them to the actions of Hitler in 1933 Germany. When they finally woke up, it was too late to do anything about it. A few years later, 70 million people had died because of World War II.
If the Globalists get their way, they will slaughter 6 Billion people! Monsters? You better believe it. And they sincerely think they're doing humanity a favor. No surprise that they intend to be the ruling class, and those who are left will remain the serfs to their new feudal system.
Time to get right with God. The signs of Revelation have already started to manifest -- re-establishment of Israel (49), the fall of the great star wormwood (Chernobyl, 86), the assault on the whore of Babylon (2001) and the mark of the beast (embedded microchips, 2013?).
lone77star, the introduction of god ruins your rationale! Given that most of the people are idiots, who are you asking to wake up? Aren't they voting against their own interests? Aren't they numerally superior? What is our option? Where is the exit? Please don't refer to god!
Here's an article from today's Wall Street Journal which notes that a number of climate change skeptics are changing their views, e.g. Republicans John Kasich and Chris Christie, Rex Tillerson EXXON ceo, Rupert Murdoch and Richard Muller, University of California skeptical scientist financed by the Koch brothers who now says "You should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer." Krupp argues that the time has come for a dialog between conservatives and liberals about what can reasonably be done to deal with climate change.
http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB1 … reno64-wsj
Stop using evidence to discredit my imaginary world where humans can pollute with impunity!
Sorry until i see a study that is real science I will not have a reason to believe anyone just because they identify yesterday and today as a trend- I believe in the first Law of models and studies garbage in garbage out. just like a liberal will not trust the Kochs i dont trust any global warming study funded by leftists or Al freakin gore...they have faked and misrepresented data before and i woudn't trust the greenhouse zealots to cheat the numbers again....
by Holle Abee7 months ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/
by ThunderKeys5 years ago
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please...
by My Esoteric6 months ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the...
by Sychophantastic2 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not...
by theirishobserver.7 years ago
Many European commentators are laughing at the Global Warming Thesis - is it a myth?
by SparklingJewel7 months ago
from the patriotpost:::a new study out of England, where scientists are relying not on computer-generated models of the Earth, but the real thing.Wolfgang Knorr of the University of Bristol's Department of Earth...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.