No doubt you've heard about the BEST study by now.
Cal Berkley professor, and former climate change skeptic, Richard Mueller's study on the validity of global temperature rises in multiple data sets confirmed what climate scientists already knew. The temperature data and science behind climate change is rock solid.
Mueller and his co-authors looked at several factors.
(Click to enlarge)
Specifically, the results of the exhaustive paper found that climate change skeptics argument about Urban Heat Island (UHI) creating a warm bias was bogus. In fact, the data showed the opposite.
After years of unsuccessful attacks on climate change science and scientists funded by big oil interests who have financial and political interest in the demise of climate change science, the science remians solid and unscathed.
Three separate data sets have reached remarkably similar conclusions on the unparalleled rise in earth's temperatures int he 20th century. The BEST study's 1.6 billion data points confirm NOAA, NASA'S Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), and UK's Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research data sets.
The great irony of BEST is that it set out to prove once and for all that climate change science is faulty, and ended up proving just the opposite.
Much to the chagrin of the flat earth climate change deniers, peer reviewed climate change science and the scientists who dedicate their lives to studying our planet remain credible and convincing.
As a meteorologist I consider myself ot be a skeptic on certain things. As a weather forecaster, you have to look at many forecast models with a skeptical eye. They often present solutions that will be in error one way or another. A good forecaster knows model biases, has a good BS detector and can filter out the bad data, and sometimes see that certain maps "just don't look right."
Skepticism is a valid and welcome part of scientific inquiry. Well meaning climate change skeptics should take Dr. Mueller's recent words to heart; "The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said in a telephone interview. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."
But for those who continue "ignore" credible science that has withstood challenge from former skeptics within their own ranks there is just one word for those who continue to ignore climate science. Ignorance. At least Dr. Mueller has looked at the facts, and admitted his skepticism was misplaced.
You may never be able to convince those who choose to ignore climate and other science about what's happening in front of their own eyes. But here's a great website for those who are open minded enough to listen to fact and reason.
"How to talk to a climate skeptic" deals with virtually every objection to climate change in a rational, no nonsense way.
My standard reply when confronted with a denier is to ask "what peer reviewed scientific journals do you use to bolster your argument?"
As they hem and haw, and cite some climatechangeisahoax.com website as their inspiration, I again ask for peer reviewed journal articles, because I would be very interested in reading those articles.
To date, nobody has been able to cite any, nor will they, because they simply do not exist.
Be skeptical about the science for sure. Skepticism drives science, but to deny is an admission of a slow mind
I'm not sure the debate is as much over climate change any more as it is about the cause, manmade or not. I don't deny change but am skeptical about cause. Especially, when many of the media reports only the issue of CO2 is mentioned. It has to be more complicated than that one gas.
Have I read the peer journals, of course not. If they deal with the changing sun, earthquakes and volcanos, decreasing magnetic fields, ocean current oscilation, water vapor, clouds, man's relative CO2 contibutions to 'normal' and on and on and on then seriously rule them out then maybe the cause can be indentified and dealt with. Although I find it hard to believe man is as powerful as as he thinks he is. I often think those who believe man is soley at fault think far too much of themselves just like those who believed Earth was special and the center of all the universe.
The skeptics found the round Earth, the skeptics found our location in the universe and the skeptics will find the cause of climate change.
Thanks for the comment and for reading the post.
Every one of the questions you raise in your comment is answered on the "How to talk to a climate skeptic" website near the bottom of my post. If you're really curious about those things please take the time to look and read and you'll find answers to your specific topics.
I have heard the specific arguments you raise by others many times, and if you look at them closely you'll find they are opinion based and free of facts. The science provides evidence based facts to the contrary.
Specifically, the notion many raise that man is far too small to affect the planet is ludicrous. Have you looked at the giant swirl of garbage in the North Pacific? Have you heard of the BP Gulf oil spill? Acid rain and water pollution? All are measureable, testable and or visible and proven in the environment.
You sound like a reasonable guy with an open mind. I think you'll find all those questions have been raised and answered there.
Thanks Paul Huttner. Now, at the risk of alienating the several climate change deniers who may be listeners to public radio (which is a great, free education), let the program hosts and newscasters actually start saying the words "climate change" on the air, just as though this were big news. Whenever I hear hosts and newscasters gushing over the weird warm weather in what used to be cold seasons, or whine piteously about how wrathful nature seems to be just randomly throwing severe weather events at us, I want to pull the car (yep, sadly, the car) over to the side of the road and bash my head on the steering wheel, overcome with despair as I'm wont to be.
"My standard reply when confronted with a denier is to ask "what peer reviewed scientific journals do you use to bolster your argument?" "" -kurt
But Kurt, by this measure you would've shot down Copernicus