‘Converted’ Skeptic: Humans Driving Recent Warming

Science Chic wrote: I'm not going to read his paper until it's peer-reviewed; I've got too many other higher-priority things going on at the moment to spend time reading something that might not even pass muster. That goes for Muller's work too.

Science Chic wrote: www.desmogblog.com/paul-krugmans-must-re...moral-climate-denial
Paul Krugman's Must-Read NY Times Op-Ed On Immoral Climate Denial
Jim Hoggan
4 April 11

New York Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman has a must-read piece today http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/opini ... .html?_r=1 noting the "cynical careerism" of climate deniers who won't even acknowledge the truth when one of "their own" discovers that climate science is sound. Singling out Anthony Watts as an example of this head-in-the-sand approach, Krugman notes that Watts and other climate skeptics changed their tune about the Koch-funded Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project when its lead researcher testified in front of Congress last week that climate change is real and man-made. It wasn't what the skeptics - or the anti-science GOP - wanted to hear.

UC Berkeley physicist Richard Muller - whose reputation as a climate skeptic and funding by a Koch foundation the Republicans likely assumed made him one of "theirs" - instead shocked the hearing by reporting that his group’s preliminary results find a global warming trend “very similar to that reported by the prior groups.”

Krugman notes that Anthony Watts had recently "praised the Berkeley project and piously declared himself 'prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.'"

Krugman notes that the skeptic camp's decision to ostracize Professor Muller provides further evidence of the divisiveness of the political discussion about what we must do as a society to fight global warming. This polarization, Krugman warns, "has probably ensured that we won’t do anything about climate change until catastrophe is already upon us."

The Krugman article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/opini ... .html?_r=1
The Truth, Still Inconvenient
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 3, 2011

Science Chic wrote: OK, now I'm confused. How is that different? I quoted Krugman who talked about the paper, I didn't talk about it myself, just like now. I didn't read Muller's paper back then, nor did I stand up and announce that everything was settled, I just gave some other guy's opinion of the paper. It's what I do - sharing the news. If I read the paper myself, then I don't give other people's opinion of it, I give my own, and I never claimed that I read Muller's paper back then.

So what's the question?

Science Chic wrote: And you obviously agree with the other side as evidenced by the threads that you've started against AGW...your point would be? :pop I didn't start this thread, I just contributed to it - I wouldn't post unpublished data as evidence, and don't believe that that was the point of this thread either: it's that another skeptic has come to accept AGW. The fact that someone who used to be so anti-AGW is now saying in even stronger language than the IPCC reports that global warming is mostly due to human activity is something you haven't addressed either. What do you make of that?