I can muster a sliver of respect for the arguments of those who remain skeptical that warming is caused by humans -- the case for anthropogenic warming has certainly become harder and harder to dispute over the last couple decades, but it's not a settled matter.
However, what we have in this Berkley study is noted climate skeptic Richard Muller validating the findings of the pro-AGW scientific concensus. Despite the email hacking, the personal attacks, and generally unprofessional manner in which the skeptics have attacked good, hard-working scientists, this independent testing, partially funded by sources hostile to the AGW hypothesis, confirms their models were right, and their methods and conclusions sound.
Quoth Muller:
"Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," said Prof Muller.
"This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."
Furthermore, the study doesn't just confirm that temperatures are rising, it specifically undermines many of the lines of attacks coming from skeptics in recent years, including the bogus idea that the urban heat island effect was in any large way responsible for measured temperature changes.
In other words, the arguments of skeptics worldwide have been demonstrated to be lacking merit by a prominent skeptic.
Again, I won't argue that we should accept as gospel that human activities are the main cause of global warming, but the case for it is far, far stronger than the case against it. You can hold out as a skeptic, but any of your fellow travelers who say that temperatures aren't rising, or who try to write it off as a temporary pattern are on thin ice. (No pun intended.)
Previous Topic
Index
