Greeny News

Search

Professor Richard Muller, showing the world is warming and humans are largely responsible is rejected by climate skeptics

So that's it then. Climate wars are over. Skeptics have accepted the basic principles of climate science - that the world is warming and that humans are largely responsible - and now we can all discuss the real question: what, in all case, what we do about it?

If only. Yesterday's announcement by Professor Richard Muller of that due to the surface temperature of the Earth Berkeley (Best) research project had been a "total change" in their views on climate science and accepted now that Earth has warmed by 1.5 ° C over the last 250 years, and that "human beings are almost entirely due to" could be seen by many as a key moment in this long debate, often bitter., but not, apparently, for climate skeptics - the same people who designed the project for

Instead of joining Muller on the road to Damascus, climate skeptics have been tempted to wait until the neon lights that lead to replacing. Muller, because of his "conversion" is portrayed as a character of mistrust and contempt, in the same way that many climatologists have seen in recent years. Research methods and results are mocked and criticized for being simplistic and "agenda-driven".

climate skeptics know better, of course, and announced (in the first instance, through an overview bizarrely histrionic) a suitably programmed piece of research itself, which, they say, "devastating "undermines any other known work in this area. Hubris boxes R 'Us were certainly ringing strongly these days.

The power of their conclusions is the path it took to reach its conclusions. We tried to address the main concerns of climate skeptics on temperature reconstructions (many of whom had) and find out why the world has warmed as it has in the last two centuries. In fact, he challenged the climate skeptics (which, I admit, come in many flavors) to arrive at a theory that the best evidence shows that mankind is the main reason why temperatures increased. As he says: "To be taken seriously, another explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does."

The key question for me whether climate change skeptics that

want
to address this important issue. What evidence is needed to convince them? Are they still intend to continue to say that "it is not enough for us"? When the balance extreme risk in their favor by accepting pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere increasing is not a good thing to do?