Conquer Club

In a bizarre twist, Richard Muller, one of the individuals on whom Tea Partiers rely for ideas to spout, has actually put on his big boy pants and done some science. In a NYT Op-Ed that reads like every response to a climate skeptic ever written ever, Muller gives a summary of his research, and its implications toward every single talking point a denialist has parroted. Though he is still unsold on any prediction anyone could realistically or hypothetically make, this could be considered a victory for science, except that this entire spectacle is absurd.

Some of you may have seen something similar in the past: his results from a year ago served for a few days as the most recent validation of modern climate science, until whatever other paper did it next. Muller is back in the news because he is claiming that humans are almost 100% responsible for global warming, a stronger claim than what is even made by the IPCC. Though, according to Muller, we have no reason to do anything with this information, he has managed to regain some of his scientific credibility.

Conservatives everywhere weep, because for some reason, the ideas of outlier scientists, though useful, are more reliable than statistics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opini ... wanted=all

I read his OP Ed a day or so ago. Some of the questions he says he had going in were legitimate questions, and the fact that he thinks he sufficiently answered them was interesting. Anyways, I like that he had concerns, and went and did the science, and made some conclusions based on that science. +1.


--Andy

Clearly he was a sleeper agent running a long con and has now flipped to give fodder to the scaremongers in election season.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Clearly he was a sleeper agent running a long con and has now flipped to give fodder to the scaremongers in election season.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE

Awake! (They are either sheep, or clouds, or cotton balls.)




--Andy

I was thinking more in the lines of:

Meh, they'll just say he was pretending to be a skeptic, or that the study they once approved of was flawed in some new way that they only realised when the results were published.

It gets predictable.