That giddy squeal that echoed across America this weekend was from environmentalists who’d opened up The New York Times and read an opinion piece by Richard Muller. (Well, opened the website, anyway; it wasn’t in the actual paper.) Muller, a professor at UC-Berkeley, had long argued against human-caused climate change. His piece in the Times? “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic.

Call me a converted skeptic.

Okay, you are a converted skeptic.

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.

Muller argues that the results from his research are…

View original post 547 more words

2 thoughts on “(Koch-funded) scientist changes opinion, finds warming due to humans (including Kochs)

  1. Good post. Muller was asked to testify in front of a Congressional Committee last spring before the study was completed and released. He surprised his GOP hosts by saying he changed his mind based on the study, largely funded by the Koch Bros. Muller was the GOP poster child for skepticism on global warming and when he changed his mind, that was very telling and now the GOP distances themselves from him. It is kind of like the 13 year boy who was on conservative radio and sent Gingrich and Limbaugh to the moon they were so giddy. As the boy aged, he changed his mind and is now more progressive and he is being disowned by Gingrich, Limbaigh and others as a turncoat. The guy was 13.

    Your earlier post scared me regarding the proposal on a fossil fuel led energy strategy. If that goes through, it will be very bad news for our environment and country. I have been noticed the “clean coal” commercials on TV now. There is no such thing as clean coal – it burns and causes ash that is stored beside water sources to keep it wet so it does not blow into the air. It does anyway and leeches into the water. Thanks for doing your post. We need more boat rocking on this.

    1. Any new data that endangers the bottom line for the energy industry will be fervently discredited by so-called experts. Why people continue to believe the opinions of politicians over scientists on a matter of science is beyond comprehension.

      A friend and I were debating about energy policy. Of course he brought up Solyndra and all the usual stuff. He seemed particularly scornful of wind energy. When I asked him why, he said all those turbines were “ugly.” Really? When they blow off the tops of mountains, put great smoke-stacks & power plants in the middle of lakes, oil spills coat wildlife and beaches…and turbines are too ugly? I just sigh.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s