

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic - dandelany
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all

======
anthonyb
I'm amazed that he even considers himself a skeptic. Everything in here has
already been said by other scientists already, eg. his analysis apparently
consists essentially of fitting temperature to CO2 levels:

    
    
      "Our result is based simply on the close agreement
       between the shape of the observed temperature rise
       and the known greenhouse gas increase. "
    

About the only reason that this is newsworthy is that he's a notable climate
skeptic, and he's funding comes from Koch, a coal based lobbying organisation.

~~~
nl
As expected, "skeptics" are now denying that Muller ever was a skeptic[1]. It
is unfortunate - everyone should be skeptical, but when people start pulling
out new, highly speculative theories (eg, the latest one - which I saw on HN -
is that _cosmic rays_ are responsible for climate change) to attempt to
explain climate change it's hard not to think they are just denying for the
sake of denying.

[1] [http://www.climatedepot.com/a/13375/Befuddled-Warmist-
Richar...](http://www.climatedepot.com/a/13375/Befuddled-Warmist-Richard-
Muller-Declares-Skeptics-Should-Convert-to-Believers-Because-His-Study-Shows-
the-Earth-Has-Warmed-Since-the-1950s--Climate-Depot-Responds)

------
Vivtek
The exciting thing about this for me is that they published their analysis
code as well. [<http://berkeleyearth.org/our-code/>]

Now that's _science_!

