FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Gore writes: "With the evidence reconfirmed (again), I would hope that skeptics would rethink their position and join me in pushing our government, and governments around the world, to take steps to solve the climate crisis."

Former Vice President Gore reacts to the defection of a notable climate-change skeptic. (photo: AP)
Former Vice President Gore reacts to the defection of a notable climate-change skeptic. (photo: AP)



Koch-Funded Study Confirms Climate Data

By Al Gore, Reader Supported News

26 October 11

 

limate skeptics were hoping this study would debunk data proving the existence of the climate crisis - instead it reaffirmed the science:

Back in 2010, Richard Muller, a Berkeley physicist and self-proclaimed climate skeptic, decided to launch the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project to review the temperature data that underpinned global-warming claims. Remember, this was not long after the Climategate affair had erupted, at a time when skeptics were griping that climatologists had based their claims on faulty temperature data.

Muller's stated aims were simple. He and his team would scour and re-analyze the climate data, putting all their calculations and methods online. Skeptics cheered the effort. "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong," wrote Anthony Watts, a blogger who has criticized the quality of the weather stations in the United States that provide temperature data. The Charles G. Koch Foundation even gave Muller's project $150,000 - and the Koch brothers, recall, are hardly fans of mainstream climate science.

So what are the end results? Muller's team appears to have confirmed the basic tenets of climate science.

With the evidence reconfirmed (again), I would hope that skeptics would rethink their position and join me in pushing our government, and governments around the world, to take steps to solve the climate crisis.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+25 # nice2blucky 2011-10-26 18:06
Science has never been the issue, except for the willfully blind and the perpetually ignorant.

The question is how to get politicians to base public policies and decisions upon facts, rather than simply doing the bidding of the energy industry and other moneyed interests.

Besides politicians, corporate media are the true villains.

They've done their energy-industry compatriots bidding by obfuscating the truth by giving voice to any prostitute "scientist" with the vociferous gall to stand on a stage play smart on tv.

Unfortunately for reality, smart, which is ambition and self-preservati on based, is different than intelligent, which requires objectivity.
 
 
+21 # PatriotPaul 2011-10-26 21:22
I'm sure this will be top news on the Fox "News" channel indeed. Yeah, that'll be the day.

Paul Harris
Author, "Diary From the Dome, Reflections on Fear and Privilege During Katrina"
 
 
+21 # Regina 2011-10-26 21:44
We can't fool Mother Nature. Maybe now, with Koch blessing the results, we'll quit trying to fool ourselves.
 
 
+9 # readerz 2011-10-27 07:25
My tired eyes read, "We can't find Mother Nature." I just had to share. In the 1980s, visiting my husband (who worked in the World Trade Center), I stood in the Wall Street area, and looked up and down, all around 360 degrees, and I couldn't see one single green plant. Lower Manhattan was turned into a desert by people. It was certainly a commentary on Wall Street and climate. We have to change this.
 
 
+23 # Smiley 2011-10-26 22:00
Fat chance! With tar sands and fracking and sending our troops all over the world (now even in Africa because of new oil discoveries), the Oil Corporations with Obama in tow are doing all they can to get the last of the sequestered carbon out of the ground and into the atmosphere. Emissions control is a joke.
 
 
+5 # readerz 2011-10-27 07:28
Yes, goodbye Florida and all the coastal cities (most of the cities in the world). People do not realize just how horrifying this is. It is very difficult for me to believe that there are any "true believers" that don't want to save the environment, for humanity's sake.
 
 
+3 # Observer 47 2011-10-27 08:56
"True believers" in what? The true believers in money and greed would gladly see the 99% of the planet in ruins, as long as there would be one tiny area left for they and their families.
 
 
+2 # Regina 2011-10-27 09:54
...and their mansions, surrounded by the only gardens remaining on the fouled planet.
 
 
+27 # grouchy 2011-10-26 22:08
Come on folks, the reason behind the "doubters" is simply the fact that there are out there "persons" who will profit greatly if the lies about global warming not being true are given validity. Guess how much money the Koch brothers will pocket as long as their industry gets away with polluting the environment for just one day. Climate denial IS PROFITABLE!
 
 
+10 # readerz 2011-10-27 07:31
No, they know VERY WELL that there is global warming because they are laughing all the way to the bank: the open north sea routes now allow them to make more money shipping; that was the intention all along. Read the book version of "A Beautiful Mind;" there is a footnote about DARPA wanting to darken the arctic slightly so that the cap could melt and there could be more shipping. No kidding. That was in the 1950s or early 1960s.
 
 
+4 # TJclyde 2011-10-26 22:37
THIS IS,ALSO WHAT PEOPLE, NEED TO BE DEMONSTRATING ABOUT! FOR MORE INFO READ, TIM FLANNERY'S "WEATHER MAKERS,How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth". AUSTRALIAN MAMMALOGIST, FLANNERY, AT FIRST A SKEPTIC, RETRACED EARLY CAREER RESEARCH REGIONS, THEN WROTE THIS EASY TO UNDERSTAND BOOK. A MUST READ FOR ALL. TJ
 
 
-59 # badbenski 2011-10-27 00:49
Bah! Mere temperature data doesn't take into account the massive gas volume of the planet and its' ability to cleanse itself, most recently demonstrated in the planet hoovering up Saddam's oil fire hell, which could be seen from space. The predicted it would soil our nest for years, circling the Earth with poisonous effect. Nope, Mother Earth sucked it up and dispersed it... Of course, our puny pollutants, as nasty as they are in the short term, are not large enough to make a global impact, I'm sorry. Greenhouse effect my ass, we just don't pump out enough filthy volume to do what some scientists fear. The ozone layers will be just fine thank you, just you watch. Having said all that, we really do need to quit crapping where we eat because we know that even the short term effects make people ill, even kill some. We have to do better but let's not think of ourselves to highly, our atmospheric envelope is just massive. Why don't our vaunted climatologiests discuss matters relative to the overall gas volume? Easy answers; Their figures get real shaky when they do. Let us, by all means, be more responsible tenants, but let's not panic.
 
 
+21 # brianf 2011-10-27 06:31
Nice job making up "facts". A typical tactic of someone in deep denial. Excess CO2 is not a short term problem, it's the complete opposite. The fact is that CO2 does not get "cleansed" from the atmosphere the way smoke particles and some other gases do. The process is extremely slow, taking many thousands of years to finish completely. And we won't even feel the full effects of the CO2 we are emitting now for about 50 years. CO2 doesn't directly make people ill, unless the concentrations get extremely high. But indirectly, it's already killing thousands per year via more extreme weather, droughts, food shortages, spread of disease,etc. And we ain't seen nothing yet. Just you watch (if you can pull your head out of the sand).
 
 
+9 # Texas Aggie 2011-10-27 19:09
It isn't the sand he needs to pull his head out of.
 
 
+4 # readerz 2011-10-27 07:36
And you probably have stock in the shipping companies now making billions on the northern sea routes. You don't believe your non-belief. But if you are too short-sighted to buy the shipping stock, then at least read the recent National Geographic article about the PETM, the thermal maximum that made a swamp out of what was northern Canada. I would say Florida-like, but Florida was under water. Maybe you can call it Noah's flood, although there weren't any people yet. There was so much carbon dioxide that it turned the oceans into acid and killed most of the single-celled creatures there.
 
 
+4 # Midwestgeezer 2011-10-27 01:45
Facts? You rely on FACTS? It's HOW YOU FEEL about science and all that crap that counts. Cheeez...
 
 
+9 # Urbancurmudgeon 2011-10-27 03:39
Considering that the far Right Koch brothers financed the study it's kind of like their own God came down and said Bugga Bugga!
 
 
0 # readerz 2011-10-27 07:40
I think they woke up and realized that they would finally make more money on the shipping routes in the northern seas, and that they wouldn't have to worry about pollution because they could always find some place to build a factory, because America would never put tariffs on goods made in pollution-causi ng factories in other countries. I think that the Koch brothers are laughing all the way to the bank.
 
 
+10 # bluescat48 2011-10-27 04:02
I doubt that this will change the minds of the deniers. They will claim that the data is fraudulent. Deniers do nothing more thatn deny.
 
 
-45 # rsb1 2011-10-27 04:03
Mr. Gore, you are so transparent. Were you so concerned about oil-based fuel creating havoc with the World's climate, you should be seeking an alternative rather than fleecing the sheeple. You should be PUSHING for the release of the thousands of alternative energy patents being 'held' by your cronies because these patents threaten the current oil monopoly.

You have founded the 'casino' that you call 'CXX' where these certificates funded on the back of ordinary people will be traded like poker chips by the Elite - including your Koch Brother financeers.

You are nothing more than a high-profile Panderer, an opportunist - seeking yet more ways to separate ordinary citizens from their small amounts of 'wealth'.
 
 
+1 # readerz 2011-10-27 07:42
I hit agree, but it came up disagree. I'm sorry, but it's time that wealthy people who are not right-wing take the energy crisis into their own hands and fund solar energy. I'm glad that Mr. Gore has pointed the way, but so much more is needed. Spain has a huge solar energy plant. Spain. Can't we do it?
 
 
+6 # ABen 2011-10-27 08:12
rsb1; so how does that kool-aid taste and are you aware that you have started to hallucinate?
 
 
0 # Glen 2011-10-27 13:12
Are you the old RSB? Your comments certainly sound as if you are. Your comments have a ring of truth, but are so extreme that you lose your audience.
 
 
+4 # Glen 2011-10-27 04:11
Real science always comes back to bite the hollow efforts of illegitimate science and those who promote same.

However. We should all demand independent funding from those who have no agenda other than wanting results from field work rather than all computer data.
 
 
+3 # handmjones 2011-10-27 04:12
There have been a few grandiose numbers published about the cost of going off fossil fuel but never a rough plan.
We have bred up the population to 7 bn based on fuels with EROEI of 5 to 100. How many can we keep alive at 1.5 like the US ethanol project?
If the change-over is done in say 15 years there will be increased fossil fuel use as we use it to build out the alternatives. Will this push us over some threshhold?
Do we already have so much positive feedback from methane degassing of tundra and seafloor so that all our efforts will simply delay the inevitable and if so by how long?
I agree we must go off fossil fuel and save it for the petrochemical industry but we need at least a very rough plan.
 
 
+2 # wcandler1 2011-10-27 05:58
You start by taxing fossil carbon (and giving the revenue back to consumers on an equal per capita basis). Like the 20 page Fee and Dividend Bill introduced by Chris Van Hollen in the last Congress; only the fee/tax rate should be higher, enough to double the price of coal based electricity. See my 2007 "Global Warming: The Answer" available from Amazon, or from me as a free pdf file. wcandler1@gmail.com. Peace.
 
 
+8 # brianf 2011-10-27 06:39
There are plans. Go visit the Union of Concerned Scientists website for one example. Joseph Romm's book "Hell and High Water" is mainly about the specific changes we need to make. Lester Brown's "World on the Edge" is another example. Just because the mainstream media doesn't talk about these plans doesn't mean they don't exist.
 
 
0 # handmjones 2011-10-27 14:56
I understand the changes that will eliminate fossil fuel use, but none of that answers the questions I put above.
Everything we do is energy intensive. With a fraction of the EROEI what population can we support? 1 bn maybe 2?
Similarly because of the large up-front investment in energy in wind and solar we would inevitably put much more carbon into the atmosphere during the construction period. With very rough data it seemed to me that if we built it out in 20 years we would put 20% more carbon into the atmosphere during that period.
Has anyone properly accounted for the positive feedback from the methane that is being liberated by the present rise in temperature? Is this sufficient to continue the warming without anthropogenic emissions?
Agriculture gives off methane from rice paddies, from deforestation, from animal husbandry and from simple cultivation thus cutting fossil fuel use only cuts about half of the anthropogenic carbon.
There is no plan that takes all these factors into consideration and if there was it would almost certainly indicate that we should go slow and concentrate on humane reduction of the vast over-population .
 
 
+6 # sandyclaws 2011-10-27 04:51
I'm glad that's done. Now we can concentrate on more important things like proving the earth round and evolution. Seriously, it seems to me that maybe the deniers have finally come up with a reason to stop denying climate change. Have they started investing in renewable energy? If so, I applaud them for finally pulling their head out of their greedy asses! Then again, maybe the Kochs' have found a way to control the wind!
 
 
+1 # readerz 2011-10-27 07:45
No, they've found a way to make money shipping over the north pole. Do you think they really care?
 
 
+8 # futhark 2011-10-27 05:06
I deeply appreciate Dr. Muller's commitment to science in drawing the logical conclusions from his research that contradict the preconceived and ultimately catastrophic prejudices of his sponsors. I'm sure that he will now have to look elsewhere for research grants, but has shown the rest of the scientific community and the world a commitment to the highest ethical standards.
 
 
+11 # brianf 2011-10-27 06:46
I agree. Dr. Muller is a true scientist - a seeker of truth about the physical world. He really was skeptical (not in denial, as most self-described skeptics are). He (and his team) did the hard work of objectively analyzing the raw data. And when he came up with pretty much the same results as NASA and Hadley had before him, he fully admitted it. This is so rare from the denier/skeptic side of the debate - I think it may be a first.
 
 
+12 # fredboy 2011-10-27 05:14
Polluters know it and yet deny it.

Southwest Florida lakes, ponds, canals, estuaries and beachfronts stream with harmful algal blooms teeming with dangerous bacteria. The reason: Excessive fertilizer sprayed too close to the water. Politicians in Collier County recently voted against moving the fertilizer back. The reason: lobbying by the region's golf courses, who dump thousands of tons--yes tons--of fertilizer where they wish.

The environmental movement needs to focus on golf course fertilizer abuse--runoff and leaching. It's killing Southwest Florida's waters, and waters throughout our nation. Many courses have signed on with the Audubon Society pledging environmental stewardship, but the pollution and dangerous results continue.

If you want to play golf, try Florida. If you want to swim, wade, or go to the beach, head for Hawai'i or North Carolina.
 
 
+9 # chizables 2011-10-27 06:04
I am sure this would have been on Fox News' Headline News if only McDonald's wouldn't have announced the return of the McRib on the very same day.
 
 
-9 # lnason@umassd.edu 2011-10-27 11:12
The study by Muller merely confirms that the earth's climate has warmed by about nine-tenths of a degree Celsius over the past 50 years. Since most skeptics have long believed that our climate is warming, this is hardly blockbuster news.

But it is a long stretch from being reassured that the climate is warming to deciding on following the recommendations of Gore and company.

How much of the warming is due to humans and how much is due to other natural factors? We have some pretty good estimates that indicate that much or most of the warming is man-made, but more research needs to be done to nail this down.

Given that warming is happening, do we know that it will be catastrophic? The evidence here is that it probably will not be. There would be some negative changes but the scientific evidence indicates that fisheries, food, clean water and biodiversity would all increase/improve.

Other Gore assumptions are also questionable but space does not allow me to document them here.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
0 # futhark 2011-10-28 01:27
I think that if you are driving and sense that you are drifting toward the cliff beside the road, good sense dictates you take your foot off the accelerator and correct the steering back toward the center of the lane. The prudent thing to do here is to minimize the potential for catastrophic error and investigate at your leisure once the immediate threat has passed.
 
 
-7 # Martintfre 2011-10-27 11:38
Correlation does not imply causation.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Pastafarians RULE!
 
 
+3 # ericlipps 2011-10-27 11:40
"Our puny pollutants . . . are not large [sic] enough to make a diffeence"? According to respected authorities (no, not Al Gore, but actual scientists) it's already happening.

The problem is, it really doesn't take that much. CO2 is a tiny percentage of the atmosphere, which makes upping that percentage easier.

And if "mere temperature data" (i.e., actual evidence) isn't enough to convince people, then we're all in trouble. After all, the controversy is *about* "temperature data" in the first place. Never mind how you think Nature *ought* to be able to clean up our messes; what counts is what really, truly is going on.
 
 
-5 # handmjones 2011-10-27 14:33
Do you even comprehend the magnitude and meaning of the temperature rise? It is neither exceptional nor, as yet particularly threatening. Please see the following to put it in perspective: http://iceagenow.info/2010/05/temperatures-were-warmer-than-today-for-most-of-the-past-10000-years/easterbrook-natural_global_warming/
 
 
-4 # handmjones 2011-10-27 15:11
Do you realize what a small fraction of the Greenhouse effect is attributable to CO2 never mind separating out the anthropogenic portion?
 
 
0 # sandyclaws 2011-10-28 05:21
All the deniers need to read "The Coming Famine by Julian Cribb". This book puts together the effects of peak oil, climate change, CO2, peak people, and it's effects on the land, fresh water, and crops. I am tired of reading these folks comments that try to negate the obvious. I know that these people are just scared shitless! They are having a hard time believing these things can be true. Folks, get over it! The things that we should be doing can do nothing but save us money and make us healthier and possibly avert a catastrophy. If we do nothing, the scientists have given us numerous scenarios on what will happen. You can't hide from Mother Nature by sticking your head in the sand.
 
 
0 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2011-11-06 12:46
I have Republican associates who stick to the Republican slogan: "keep 'm poor and stupid and We'll (the corporations) keep all the money." The mouth pieces for the Republican Party understand that the U.S. citizens, mostly the young, are not very cultured as regards math and science. Particularly when our young are contrasted to other countries like China, India, Germany, etc. The "Fix" News channel exploits these uncultured people for the corporate benefit.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN