October 28, 2011


The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism: There were good reasons for doubt, until now. (RICHARD A. MULLER, 10/21/11, WSJ)

Over the last two years, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project has looked deeply at all the issues raised above. I chaired our group, which just submitted four detailed papers on our results to peer-reviewed journals. We have now posted these papers online at www.BerkeleyEarth.org to solicit even more scrutiny. [...]

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.

Maybe they should have studied the skeptics instead of the temperatures.  Our own skepticism is of a rather simple sort, consisting of three parts: (1) the notion that in the absence of humankind the global climate would be absolutely static is anti-scientific and anti-historical; (2) given, then, the recognition that climate change is a normal process, where is the evidence that humankind is influencing current changes to any significant degree?; and, (3) where is the evidence that current changes, natural or man-made, are likely to have bnegative consequences for humankind?  As Mr. Muller notes, all this study did is observe that climate is changing in various ways in various places. Duh? 

Posted by at October 28, 2011 6:37 AM

blog comments powered by Disqus