Uncategorized

Koch-funded climate skeptic changes his mind

ICYMI, the head of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study — a previous font of global warming skepticism whose single largest grant comes from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation — has changed his mind. This is from an op-ed he wrote for the New York Times over the weekend:

“Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with 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, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”

You can read the entire NYT piece by clicking here.

 

9 Comments


  1. Frank Burns

    July 30, 2012 at 11:42 am

    I have some problems with this NY Times story, it happens a lot.

    1. It is incorrect to label Muller a skeptic. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/mulling-over-muller.php

    2. Anthony Watts released his study the same day which shows that the US temperatures have been spuriously doubled from 1979 to 2008 by NOAA. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/
    Since there is no comment from Muller regarding the NOAA adjustments, I wonder if he didn’t see that or did but chose to ignore it.

  2. david esmay

    July 30, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    3. Anthony Watts is not a scientist, but a former tv meteorologist, who has stated, but it has never been confirmed that he attended Purdue Univ..
    4. Watts is a huckster who makes money on the denier speaking circuit and has no credibility wattsoever, wattsupwiththat?

  3. david esmay

    July 30, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    5. thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/03/11/205610/wattergate-tamino-debunks-anthony-watts-wattsupwiththat/?mobile=nc

  4. david esmay

    July 30, 2012 at 12:56 pm

  5. Frank Burns

    July 30, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    Why would NOAA feel the need to adjust actual recorded temperatures upward? That is the question, not whether or not you like Anthony Watts. Anthony Watts is qualified to address climate issues just like any other scientist.

  6. Frank Burns

    July 30, 2012 at 1:27 pm

  7. gregflynn

    July 30, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    Here’s a more reasoned response from Jason Samenow at the Washington Post’s “Capital Weather Gang”:
    So-called blockbuster climate change studies prove little

    Samenow criticizes both Muller and Watts for going high-profile before peer-review. Samenow is a meteorologist by training, with degrees from the University of Virginia and the University of Wisconsin. It is not known if Watts has any degree.

    If it seems surprising Pielke Sr. would offer such unqualified praise before this work had been peer reviewed, it turns out he was not an impartial player. Watts acknowledges Pielke Sr. for help “with edits and citations.”

    this new effort by these scientists to grab attention for studies that have not yet been vetted by other, independent scientists is disturbing and unproductive. It’s a disingenuous attempt to score points on a highly polarized scientific issue.

    My advice? Ignore these publicity stunts and pay no attention to these studies until they have passed peer review.

  8. Frank Burns

    July 30, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    Ok both reports have not been peer reviewed, so why did the NY Times trumpet Muller’s results and this blog trumpet the NY Times article? Why did the NY Times lie and call Muller a skeptic?

    Muller could not get his report peer reviewed, it was poorly done and yes he is a publicity hound. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/why-the-best-papers-failed-to-pass-peer-review/

  9. david esmay

    July 30, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    It has nothing to do with whether I like anthony watts, or not. He is not a scientist, period. He is not someone to be taken as an authority on anything, unless it is how to make money as an anti-scientist.

Check Also

The best editorial of the weekend

There have been a lot of editorials lamenting ...

Top Stories from NCPW

  • News
  • Commentary

A pivotal legislative task force may be just beginning its dive into North Carolina’s school funding [...]

The controversy over “Silent Sam,” the Confederate monument on UNC’s Chapel Hill campus, has been ra [...]

North Carolina tries to mine its swine and deal with a poop problem that keeps piling up A blanket o [...]

This story is part of "Peak Pig," an examination of the hog industry co-published with Env [...]

Republicans in Congress are rushing to advance a tax reform bill that balloons the federal deficit s [...]

The post Charitable donations and the GOP’s chopping block appeared first on NC Policy Watch. [...]

13---percentage of households in the U.S. that were food insecure on average from 2014-2016. Meaning [...]

Five years ago, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a jaw-dropping civil rights lawsuit again [...]

Spotlight on Journalism

We invite you to join a special celebration of investigative journalism! The evening will feature Mike Rezendes, a member of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Boston Globe Spotlight Team known for their coverage of the cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

Tickets available NOW!

Spotlight On Journalism

This event will benefit NC Policy Watch, a project of the North Carolina Justice Center. Sponsorship opportunities available now!

Featured | Special Projects

NC Budget 2017
The maze of the NC Budget is complex. Follow the stories to follow the money.
Read more


NC Redistricting 2017
New map, new districts, new lawmakers. Here’s what you need to know about gerrymandering in NC.
Read more