Y'know.. I could care less about Koch.. or even Al Gore..
But for the record, supposed "Skeptic" (which he never really was), Dr. Richard Muller was financed by the Koch brothers..
democracynow.org
But just because he took issue with Michael Mann over his shoddy climate modeling doesn't mean he was a skeptic. He's made plenty of statements in the past about his belief in Global Warming.. And STILL Koch funded him..
"If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants." - Richard Muller, 2008
"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." - Richard Muller, 2008
"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate." - Richard Muller, 2003 populartechnology.net
I remember when Muller came out which is conclusions that there has been a 1deg C change in global warming last year. My uncle, who's a "true believer" like yourself, in AGW, wasted no time in pronouncing how this supposedly "former Skeptic" now was firmly in the camp of the AGW acolytes.
Some wonderful propaganda you guys put there.. Truly awesome!!
The scientific debate on AGW is settled; ikt's real, and happening
You may believe so, but you still can't explain how the depletion of oceanic flora is impacting atmospheric CO2 levels and why that flora isn't sopping up every available bit of CO2 that the oceans can absorb..
This is critical step that the "Mainstream Climatologists" don't seem to want to integrate into their climate models. They don't want to integrate modeling data that would seek to include what CO2 levels would actually be were Phytoplankton populations restored to 1950's levels, before they declined 40%. And this is not just about how much CO2 they consume, but also how phytoplanktonic production of DMS influences the production of clouds, which reduce the Albedo of the planet, reflecting solar energy back into space.
saga.pmel.noaa.gov
jameslovelock.org
link.springer.com
So the "Science" of climate change is still "un-settled" until the role of phytoplankton is properly addressed in climate models.
Again, whether CO2 increases are human caused, or purely natural, Phytoplankton do not care. They will consume as much as the surrounding ocean waters can dissolve if they have all the other elements necessary to produce Chorophyll (Iron.. etc)..
They fact that there has been a 40% decrease in phytoplankton populations at the same time there has been a 30% increase in CO2 is something that cannot be ignored, no matter how hard you try. It's the 800 pound gorilla sitting in the middle of the whole climate change argument.
Hawk |
