One of the few remaining credible climate change skeptics changes views

[IdiotsOpposite]

A conversion, that sounds like a religion.

Conversion, software version 7.0

 

[Murky]

I imagine the climate-change conspiracy theorist have already labeled Dr. Muller as a co-conspirator. They probably don't believe he was ever a true climate change skeptic to begin with.

 

[peter grimes]

I imagine the climate-change conspiracy theorist have already labeled Dr. Mueller as a co-conspirator. They probably don't believe he was ever a true climate change skeptic to begin with.

I took a look over at WattsUpWithThat. Yep, you hit the nail on the head!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/30/muller-on-msnbc-what-he-didnt-say-was-interesting/#more-68417

"Muller sure looks like a deranged whack job though in the still. I’m sick of all these people."

"When Muller says now “Call me a converted skeptic”, we can say that this is a False Flag operation, since he has earlier said...."

"If anything the man had to say was legitimate, he wouldn’t have to lie about who he is."

"Ohhhhh, now I see. He’s in the pocket of the natural gas industry."

"He can’t be a skeptic if he believes in scientific concensus. Since he seems to support the oxymoron “scientific concensus” he must be just what he says, no longer a skeptic."

And, like clockwork, the post is quickly superceded by a massive graphics-heavy post titled "U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments."
Look! There's still controversy!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Except that surely if you think humans aren't responsible for climate change, that means you think that reversing human actions which are supposed to contribute to climate change won't have any impact?

To completely reverse human actions that cause global warming would be folly, IMO. However, I don't see why steps gradually changing our actions are bad. Even taking mitigating actions, like still burning coal but trying to bury the CO2 are better than doing nothing. As for the cost of such changes - well a big chunk of that costs goes to the workers implementing the fixes and the research done on finding solutions. Those are good ways to spend money, IMO.

Schemes like carbon taxation are also good, IMO. It's directly analogous to taxing undesirable behaviors. As a chain smoker, I don't mind paying higher taxes for my bad habit. The taxes usually go to health programs or funding education.

How much energy doesn't take to overcome an extended drought or extreme flooding? How much energy does it take to combat sea level rise or ocean acidity?

If, and it's a big if, you have abundant clean energy - you can overcome drought via desalinisation. In fact, many other problems could be fixed if energy costs were not a factor. Flooding, sea level rise and ocean acidity - well I'll leave those problems to someone smarter than me to comment on.

 

[Flying Pig]

To completely reverse human actions that cause global warming would be folly, IMO. However, I don't see why steps gradually changing our actions are bad. Even taking mitigating actions, like still burning coal but trying to bury the CO2 are better than doing nothing. As for the cost of such changes - well a big chunk of that costs goes to the workers implementing the fixes and the research done on finding solutions. Those are good ways to spend money, IMO.

People who don't believe that humans are the problem would tell you that this is an awful lot of effort, but won't change anything. You see the problem?

Yes I do. But science says it is a problem, whereas people can have any wrong opinion they wish.

The problem comes when those people are placed into a democracy. It's not just for moral reasons that our governments can't just do things against large-scale opposition, it's also almost impossible to continue doing them over an election cycle, because the original dissenters will be voting against the government (bear in mind that eco-friendly initiatives forced upon us by the state tend to fly directly in the face of economic growth and our own comfort, because otherwise the private sector would be doing them anyway and making money from them) as well as people who are alarmed that the government is just flagrantly disregarding the wishes of its people. We need to convince people that climate change is a problem, that it is our problem, and that we can do something about it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

People who don't believe that humans are the problem would tell you that this is an awful lot of effort, but won't change anything. You see the problem?

Yes I do. But science says it is a problem, whereas people can have any wrong opinion they wish.

 

[Hygro]

Yes I do. But science says it is a problem, whereas people can have any wrong opinion they wish.

Well that's kind of the point. Now imagine those people have enough political power to hold the world's environment hostage.

 

[Core Imposter]

I am skeptical of this.

 

[Murky]

If, and it's a big if, you have abundant clean energy - you can overcome drought via desalinisation. In fact, many other problems could be fixed if energy costs were not a factor. Flooding, sea level rise and ocean acidity - well I'll leave those problems to someone smarter than me to comment on.

The optimist in me says yes, with enough effort and innovation we can overcome these problems in time to save most of humanity. Realistically, we first have to come up with a way to replace fossil fuels for everyday use to maintain our current level of productivity. Then we have to come up with even more to fix the problems caused by the previous decades of emitting Co2 and other green house gases. We are way behind the curve because of decades of inaction. Then you still have all these wackos who still want to debate if the issue is even a serious problem to begin with.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well that's kind of the point. Now imagine those people have enough political power to hold the world's environment hostage.

I don't have to imagine it, this is already true. We didn't even sign the Kyoto protocol, and many of the countries who did didn't live up to it. As for further agreements for the world to work together on this - I don't see that happening until things get much worse.

The problem comes when those people are placed into a democracy. It's not just for moral reasons that our governments can't just do things against large-scale opposition, it's also almost impossible to continue doing them over an election cycle, because the original dissenters will be voting against the government (bear in mind that eco-friendly initiatives forced upon us by the state tend to fly directly in the face of economic growth and our own comfort, because otherwise the private sector would be doing them anyway and making money from them) as well as people who are alarmed that the government is just flagrantly disregarding the wishes of its people. We need to convince people that climate change is a problem, that it is our problem, and that we can do something about it.

I disagree that eco-friendly initiatives fly directly in the face of economic growth. I'm not saying they can't, but often times they redirect economic output to other more desirable areas. Governments do this all the time. For example (this is an american example, sorry if you are unfamiliar with it):

Our government passed a 'cash for clunkers' initiative. Basically, the owners of old, inefficient vehicles could trade them in for new, more efficient ones and get a nice cash subsidy from the government for doing so. One major thrust of the initiative was to stimulate the economy, especially the car sector. It did that.

But another major thrust was to help curb unwanted emissions. It did that as well.

Again, poorly crafted eco-friendly legislation can be both costly and unpopular. That does not mean that any eco-friendly legislation must be this way.

Edit: It was a very popular piece of legislation.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The optimist in me says yes, with enough effort and innovation we can overcome these problems in time to save most of humanity. Realistically, we first have to come up with a way to replace fossil fuels for everyday use to maintain our current level of productivity. Then we have to come up with even more to fix the problems caused by the previous decades of emitting Co2 and other green house gases. We are way behind the curve because of decades of inaction. Then you still have all these wackos who still want to debate the if the issue is even a serious problem to begin with.

Actually, with our ever-increasing level of expertise in fields like nanotechnology and genetic engineering, I think we actually are on the cusp of solving problems like scrubbing the atmosphere of excess CO2. But your point on having to deal with the wackos first is well put.

 

[Core Imposter]

The optimist in me says yes, with enough effort and innovation we can overcome these problems in time to save most of humanity. Realistically, we first have to come up with a way to replace fossil fuels for everyday use to maintain our current level of productivity. Then we have to come up with even more to fix the problems caused by the previous decades of emitting Co2 and other green house gases. We are way behind the curve because of decades of inaction. Then you still have all these wackos who still want to debate the if the issue is even a serious problem to begin with.

But we know that Jesus is coming back and with Him energy isn't an issue. Therefore, its clear that when the earth was created that there were created an abundance of energy resources to last until then.

I can't say of course that its impossible that the human population will be sharply curtailed by that time, in fact, if you read Revelation you will see that it is likely that the wrath of God is already being poured out on the Earth. God's will is God's will.

We must live as if Jesus is coming in the next instant while living also as if He isn't coming back for a million years. And we must not deny free will, as God denied it not to us.

Therefore, given the undeniable fact that there is no possibility that you can get the entire population to work together on any sort of strict conservation plan, the obvious path forward is for the United States to immediately launch a crash Mars project. This would enable us to diversify our presence in the firmament of Creation but would also drive technological progress which would solve many short term problems.

 

[Core Imposter]

I disagree that eco-friendly initiatives fly directly in the face of economic growth. I'm not saying they can't, but often times they redirect economic output to other more desirable areas. Governments do this all the time. For example (this is an american example, sorry if you are unfamiliar with it):

Our government passed a 'cash for clunkers' initiative. Basically, the owners of old, inefficient vehicles could trade them in for new, more efficient ones and get a nice cash subsidy from the government for doing so. One major thrust of the initiative was to stimulate the economy, especially the car sector. It did that.

But another major thrust was to help curb unwanted emissions. It did that as well.

Again, poorly crafted eco-friendly legislation can be both costly and unpopular. That does not mean that any eco-friendly legislation must be this way.

Edit: It was a very popular piece of legislation.

That program was a perfect example of the epic failure of liberal policies. Any sensible sort of cost benefit analysis would show that. The idea that this program had any sort of significant impact on emissions is a hoot.

The program was popular in the sense that all Free Pony programs are. Nice cash subsidy indeed.

 

[Leoreth]

A conversion, that sounds like a religion.

I searched the first page, you were the first person to use that word

 

[classical_hero]

It is part of the link. Look at the link and it says "A conversion of a sceptic."

BTW, I thought all science was based on scepticism, since we have seen so many times the standard view been thrown away when new evidence comes to light.

 

[El_Machinae]

Actually, with our ever-increasing level of expertise in fields like nanotechnology and genetic engineering, I think we actually are on the cusp of solving problems like scrubbing the atmosphere of excess CO2. But your point on having to deal with the wackos first is well put.

It really is a race between 'excessive environmental degradation' (and/or energy shortages) and 'sufficient R&D'. People can help either way, because slowing the degradation OR speeding R&D increases the likelihood of eventual success.

 

[peter grimes]

But we know that Jesus is coming back

[snip]

if you read Revelation you will see that it is likely that the wrath of God is already being poured out on the Earth.

BTW, I thought all science was based on scepticism, since we have seen so many times the standard view been thrown away when new evidence comes to light.

Please show me evidence that proves 'jesus is coming back'. If you're relying on a supposed prophecy from 2kya you'll have to provide corroborating evidence. Prophesies have an annoying tendency to not come true.

Also, could you explain why the wrath of god you're seeing today is any different from the wrath of god people have been pointing out every year since that book first came out? Why do you think today is any different than all of the other times people claimed "it's the end times!" - yet it wasn't?

@Classical - Do we have to do this again? I'd expect you to know by now that healthy skepticism doesn't mean continually doubting that you have a nose in the middle of your face.

 

[Murky]

But we know that Jesus is coming back and with Him energy isn't an issue. Therefore, its clear that when the earth was created that there were created an abundance of energy resources to last until then.

I can't say of course that its impossible that the human population will be sharply curtailed by that time, in fact, if you read Revelation you will see that it is likely that the wrath of God is already being poured out on the Earth. God's will is God's will.

We must live as if Jesus is coming in the next instant while living also as if He isn't coming back for a million years. And we must not deny free will, as God denied it not to us.

Therefore, given the undeniable fact that there is no possibility that you can get the entire population to work together on any sort of strict conservation plan, the obvious path forward is for the United States to immediately launch a crash Mars project. This would enable us to diversify our presence in the firmament of Creation but would also drive technological progress which would solve many short term problems.

I hope you're joking.

 

[Hygro]

God's wrath of course is in response to human free will, so if environmental collapse leading to mass death is God's wrath, it's because we didn't take care of the environment God provided for us. So let's take of the the environment

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Remember the key word here is "credible", and some folks participating in the discussion would rather discuss things that are decidedly incredible, and off-topic.