Perhaps most interesting of all is foxnews.com, for a search of the site of this story (which dominated liberal sites) revealed two links: one was to a video, and the other went to an interview with AGW-skeptic Anthony Watts. Of course, the fact that Watts' qualifications (he is a relatively lowly meteorologist who once worked for a Fox News affiliate) don't come close to approaching Richard Muller's qualifications (or those of the climatologists) didn't seem to matter. What did matter, apparently, was for Fox News to put up something, anything at all to keep its readers from thinking that AGW might be real, or if it is, that it just isn't that bad (as Watts claims in the foxnews article).
It looks like Muller's conversion, non-event that it surely was, will change few if any minds among America's conservatives. That's truly sad, particularly considering that the current historic drought has resulted in over half of all counties in America being declared disaster areas. AGW is not responsible for that drought, but climatologists point out that AGW not only played a definite role in making the drought significantly worse than it would have been otherwise, but also makes such events more likely. Every scientific organization of note, including NASA, NOAA, and every national science academy in the developed world, has stated unequivocally the reality of AGW. But arrayed against the scientists of the world are the deep pockets of Big Oil and America's conservatives. Note that I didn't say the world's conservatives, because most of the conservatives in the world don't have a problem with listening to a united front of scientists. It's pretty much only in America that the conservatives have stood up for "freedom"' against the scientific community.
Muller's op-ed in The New York Times won't get the attention of the everyday AGW-denying conservative. Perhaps the worst drought in America's history will, but I doubt it. Personally, I suspect that no matter how much scientific evidence is brought forth, and no matter how great the consensus among the world's scientific community, and no matter how bad the weather gets thanks to AGW, America's conservatives will not accept the reality of AGW. And we're all going to pay the price.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - bicfj
Richard Muller is the same guy who promoted cigarettes as not being the cause of cancer. He did this while employed at the George C Marshall Institute. So now he has two strikes against him. It is time for him to retire.
2 - Bill Holland
Small observation: AGW stands for anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming not anthropomorphic (manlike)global warming.
3 - Igor
Any person with an ounce of sense, looking around at the universe and the solar system, must realise that we humans are a rare and lucky organism living in a near paradise.
It's also clear that our Garden Of Eden is fragile. Indeed, it is because of the long-term stability of this Eden that we have been allowed to exist and flourish. Looking at the tumult and storms of other worlds we see the tremendous contrast between our Eden and the unfriendly worlds.
We must draw the lesson that a great part of our duty is to keep our Garden pleasant and comfortable so that other people and our own children may enjoy the fruits of this lovely place.
We know that it can't last forever, that eventually some wayward asteroid will crash into the garden, poison all the air and destroy us. But in the meantime we have it within our power, as never before in human history, to lead pleasant lives and, through our knowledge and science, to share with our fellow creatures.
One of the problems we must deal with is bad weather. Small as atmospheric effects are, they still have profound influence over life, so it behooves us to not compound problems with unnecessary overloads and abuses.
There IS a general natural warming of the climate and we will have to learn to deal with it's consequences. There IS also a large component of warming caused by ourselves: we poop in our own nest. We CAN do something about that and we must.
4 - Glenn Contrarian
Now, now, Igor, you know very well that the Earth is too big for us lowly humans to have any real effect on the climate, never mind that there's significantly less plant biomass than there was 150 years ago (deforestation, farming, 'progress') and a billion cars pumping out 20 pounds of non-naturally-caused CO2 per gallon of gas used. Besides, since the Bible doesn't say that humans would cause global warming, it's impossible that we could do so, right?
The biggest proof of all against global warming is the simple fact that liberals believe the scientists are right about AGW...and you know as well as I do that if the liberals believe something, It Must Not Be True, which is why the conservatives suddenly no longer support grand conservative ideals like cap-and-trade and the individual mandate. Besides, if it costs Big Oil even one dollar of profit, well, THAT's socialism, proof positive that liberals are godless traitors who are out to destroy America!
5 - gerald wilhite
The New York Times's Andrew Revkin politely called Muller's antics "P.T. Barnum showmanship." Perhaps pathological hucksterism would be more appropriate. Muller has NEVER been a skeptic.
The outlook for global warming according to Muller in 2008 is that, "it's going to get much, much worse"
6 - Dan
A study that was published in the journal Nature Climate Change found that people who have a higher level of scientific knowledge tend to be more skeptical of AWG.
""As respondents’ science literacy scores increased, their concern with climate change decreased," the paper, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, notes."
This has been my experience as well. Typically alarmists tend to rely on appeals to authority and bogus characterizations of skeptics such as Glenns hilariously transparent 'they don't believe it because it's not in the bible' bit.
Thankfully, some of the more radical alarmists have had their underlying political opportunism exposed, even if their scientifically illiterate hive minded ideologues haven't caught on yet.
7 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan -
A study that was published in the journal Nature Climate Change found that people who have a higher level of scientific knowledge tend to be more skeptical of AWG.
Funny how you appeal to authority and then you accuse me of the same.
But I'll do you a favor, Dan - HERE is the study in question...and one wonders if you actually read it and, if you did read it, whether you really understood its overarching goals and the breadth of its conclusions. I say that because if you understood it as well as you think you do, you certainly wouldn't be using it as 'proof' of the failure of liberal minds - it's anything but. The website of your boy Glenn Beck thinks they understand it...but upon reading their article, it's obvious they don't. They cherry-picked a couple observations therein and drew their own conclusions, and by doing so completely missed the warning given in the conclusions of the study.
8 - Zingzing
Dan, that study didn't touch on a person's knowledge of climate sciences. The questions used to determine scientific knowledge were pretty much middle school level, and none of them focused on climate. Also, the skeptics scored just 1 percentage point higher than the believers (and this on a true/false and multiple choice test, where one could easily pick the correct answer without knowing what the correct answer was). The study also found that political beliefs far outweighed scientific knowledge on how much it impacts the layman's beliefs on agw. But the right wing conveniently forgot to mention all that stuff when they wrote their headlines.
And then, of course, it seems to me that climate scientists (who have a high degree of scientific knowledge in the field of climate sciences) seem rather concerned about agw.
"Typically alarmists tend to rely on appeals to authority and bogus characterizations of skeptics..."
Funny. You cite a scientific journal (appeal to authority), then totally bungle what they have to say (bogus characterization)... And speaking of a hive mind... Look around you! The evidence for agw is everywhere and yet the right closes its eyes and yells about nonsensical conspiracy theories. It's embarrassing.
9 - Dan(Miller)
Off topic, of course, but none of the links in this article published at BC today work. That includes the link to go from page one to page two. Nor is it possible to post a comment.
I trust this is no vast left-wing conspiracy and that it is merely a strange technical glitch.
Perhaps one of the esteemed comment editors can fix the problem.
10 - Dr Dreadful
Hmm... something peculiar going on there, Dan(Panama), and it doesn't appear to have anything to do with The Obnoxious American deciding to be especially obnoxious. I'll see if I can fix it, though I may of course instead make it worse. Thanks for the heads-up!
11 - Dr Dreadful
Article in question and all clickables therein now seem to be working correctly, Dan. If your computer decides to spontaneously combust, the culprit is more likely therefore to be the climate in Panama than anything I did.
12 - Dr Dreadful
The evidence for agw is everywhere and yet the right closes its eyes and yells about nonsensical conspiracy theories.
Because the alternative is too awful for them to contemplate.
If a conservative accepts that human activity is responsible for the current potentially catastrophic warming, he must then contemplate the particular human activity that is causing it. That activity is, of course, the release by combustion of massive amounts of fossil carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. Having accepted that, he must address the question of what drove mankind to combust in so extravagant a fashion. Answer: global industrialization. And why did mankind feel the need to globally industrialize? Profit-driven capitalism.
So what it boils down to is the notion that capitalism, far from being, as conservatives claim, the natural and best possible economic system and a potential panacea for all that ails humanity if allowed to run unfettered, may instead end up destroying us all. Their worldview implodes if that's true.
13 - Dan(Miller)
Thanks, Doc. It works fine now.
14 - Clav
The natural and best possible economic system and a potential panacea for all that ails humanity if allowed to run unfettered, may instead end up destroying us all.
Best argument I've ever heard for imposing worldwide socialism with a central government, located anywhere but the United States (which should be dissolved, it's too great a blight on the world) immediately, -- by force, if necessary -- allowing the peasants to vote on it will delay it beyond the disaster point.
15 - pablo
Wow Clav have you been reading Carol Quigley's Tragedy and Hope finally? You almost sound like a coinspiricist! lol
Glenn lives in the world of black and white, good and bad, conservative and liberal, which
is a very very shallow belief system.
I also find it ironic that Glenn and his ilk, never talk about the true man made environmental problems facing us. Monsanto Corporation with its insidious genetically modified food comes to mind. Dioxins, PCB's, or the vast radiation pouring out of Fukishima come to mind as well. Not a peep out of Glenn on any of those real environmental threats. Its always the insidious, noxious carbon dioxide that flora so desperately loves.
Even a story about the raping of the Amazon would be welcome relief, but nooooooooooo its always about the sky falling. I have no doubt that Glenn is a big fan of Agenda 21 as well.
I rarely if ever comment on this site anymore. All you have to do is look at the comments, and the lack them. Is it that the masses are no longer interested in the political stories of the day? Hardly, the other political sites that I visit are flourishing, while this one is languishing.
In Glenn's simple world its all about the left being sensitive, caring, and oh of course intelligent (cough) and the right being greedy, selfish, un caring, ignorant, racist, sexist, and bad. He does not care or want to know that the left for all practical purposes is controlled by the Rockefeller Foundation that great bastion of democracy, equality, and goodness.
And so it goes. I suspect Glenn probably thinks that Chief Justice Roberts is a hero, for ruling that Obamacare is a tax!
Your brand of liberalism Glenn I find the most repugnant of all, and that is coming from someone that was raised a liberal in the most liberal city in America, San Francisco.
I literally can count on one hand the liberals that are in office in Washington D.C. that have ANY Substance or character. I wont even bother with the right as I can't stand any of them.
The biggest two names promoting the hoax of man made global warming caused by carbon dioxide are both oil men. Al Gore, and Maurice Strong. They in turn take their marching orders from the Rotchchilds, thats not a theory but a fact. You probably are not even aware (of course your not) that one of Gore's daughters was married to none other than Jacob Schiff's grandson. Those boys always keep it in the family. Oh I am sorry Glenn you probably dont even know who Schiff was! LOL
By the way I frequently do read your comments on here Glenn, if for no other reason than to remind myself of what I am not. Thanks for that.
16 - Glenn Contrarian
Pablo -
I also find it ironic that Glenn and his ilk, never talk about the true man made environmental problems facing us. Monsanto Corporation with its insidious genetically modified food comes to mind. Dioxins, PCB's, or the vast radiation pouring out of Fukishima come to mind as well. Not a peep out of Glenn on any of those real environmental threats. Its always the insidious, noxious carbon dioxide that flora so desperately loves.
FYI, none of those oh-so-insidious problems to which you refer even come close to what we're facing with AGW - but of course in Pablo World AGW is just a hoax, and NASA, NOAA, and every national science academy and major university in the developed world are in on it! Gee, Pablo, you've really found us all out! It's all a grand, far-left conspiracy between the Rothschilds, Al Gore, NASA, NOAA, and nearly all academia in the developed world!
Did you know that 25% of all pesticides are used in the production of cotton...and I grew up in a house surrounded by cotton fields. Our property - including ourselves and our clothes that we hung out to dry on the clothesline - were sprayed with insecticides and herbicides many times. There were many in our small rural community who died from cancer, far out of the 'normal' proportion of cancer in a community. I suspect that my exposure may explain my son's ADHD, but I have no proof of that.
We took this up with the EPA, but we were one household going up against Monsanto et al, and you can guess how far our complaints got.
So don't tell me I don't know or care about other man-made hazards - I'm simply concentrating on the greatest hazards. If you want to worry about the greatest hazards, then worry about man-made hazards, then worry about (1) a general thermonuclear exchange, (2) anthropogenic global warming, and (3) influenza (like the H1N1 flu which killed 50M humans mostly in four months in 1918). Concerning that last, if H5N1 (or the latest big worry, H3N8) ever takes off as virologists fear it will, believe me when I say that Monsanto, genetically-modified food, and radiation from the very occasional meltdown will be the least of your worries.
17 - Igor
Global warming IS aided by CO2 generation because increased CO2 tends to keep heat within the atmosphere (sunlight enters easily while generated heat escapes only with great difficulty so it's an unstable system). Flora, indeed, likes CO2, but we already have an overabundance of CO2 available to plants. We need more flora, but we are actually reducing flora with tree harvesting, etc. Adding more CO2 does nothing for plants, it is wasted.
We CAN introduce plants like algae and tule reeds, etc., that can use freshwater runoff or brackish water (mixed salt and fresh) to capture carbon and create useful cellulose for building. Right now I'm looking at a 10 acre tule marsh out my window, that provides habitat for thousands of animals, fish, birds, migratory ducks, etc., and which, if the carbon cap & trade goes thru, will net the County $100,000/acre as a carbon layoff for some polluter (who will eventually reform his processes under the economic influence of what it costs him to pollute).
See, it's really easy to understand CO2.
18 - El Bicho
Where are these flourishing political sites, Pablo? I ask because the sites I see with a lot of comments are just boring echo chambers
19 - Dr Dreadful
The biggest two names promoting the hoax of man made global warming caused by carbon dioxide are both oil men. Al Gore, and Maurice Strong. They in turn take their marching orders from the Rotchchilds, thats not a theory but a fact. You probably are not even aware (of course your not) that one of Gore's daughters was married to none other than Jacob Schiff's grandson. Those boys always keep it in the family. Oh I am sorry Glenn you probably dont even know who Schiff was! LOL
Same old Pablo.
Innuendo and guilt by association might work in a courtroom, sunshine, but not in a rational debate.
20 - pablo
Same old Dread, some things never change. Blogcritics/politics boring, no traffic, and the same old uninteresting articles day after boring day.
21 - pablo
Rational debate on blogcritics, now that is funny Dread :)
22 - Glenn Contrarian
pablo -
Reply to #16.
23 - El Bicho
Heck, he didn't even respond to something easy like #18
24 - Igor
@18-El Bicho: You are right, sir!
Those rightist sites are REALLY bad. A rightist friend persuaded me to visit a couple of his faves the last couple days and they are TERRIBLE! Nothing but constant ravings about the Great Dictator Obama. No facts, no informative citations, just references to other diatribes.
They just keep repeating their rants over and over.
25 - Dan
"Funny how you appeal to authority and then you accuse me of the same."---Glenn (and zing)
I accuse you of appealing to authority (not necesarrily a bad thing, but not as good as actually understanding the science underlying your belief system) in regard to the theory of AGW, on the other hand I simply referenced a study (not theoretical, no unknown variables) that demonstrates with a 1500+ sample size that shows correlation between scientific literacy and an attitude of AGW skepticism.
Do you understand the difference?
Now, if you would kindly provide a reference for your claim that AGW skepticism is driven in any notable way by the absence of any mention of global warming in the bible...