Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;276534]Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html[/url][/QUOTE]

So much for that next grant from the Koch brothers...

Yes, but given a choice...total loss of scientific credibility, or more grants, the credibility won out. It might also relate closely to his employability; a prominent UVA skeptic has run into all kinds of political hassles.

Or instead, could it be that his integrity and careful scientific methodology won out over funding/employment issues, political pressure, and his own prejudgment?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;276563]Or instead, could it be that his integrity and careful scientific methodology won out over funding/employment issues, political pressure, and his own prejudgment?[/QUOTE]

So we hope... but the presence of such pressures (even if we don't know which way employment, and possibly even external funding went) is undeniable.

[QUOTE=Christenson;276544]<snip>It might also relate closely to his employability; a prominent UVA skeptic has run into all kinds of political hassles.[/QUOTE]There are at least two different UVA folks who've prominently stated (opposing) global warming views, then have "run into all kinds of political hassles".

I presume that by "a prominent UVA skeptic" you mean Patrick J. Michaels, an anti-AGWer who may have been illegitimately collecting a government paycheck for 26 years. See [URL]http://cvillenews.com/2006/08/10/state-climatologist/[/URL]

Michael Mann, also at UVa, but on the other side of the AGW issue from Patrick J. Michaels, has been facing legal pressures from conservative anti-AGW folks, including Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, for quite a while. [URL]http://mediamatters.org/blog/201101210015[/URL]

Nothing quite like having someone know the details of my back yard better than I do..thanks for proving the point, cheesehead!

[QUOTE=Christenson;276772]Nothing quite like having someone know the details of my back yard better than I do..thanks for proving the point, cheesehead![/QUOTE]
Yes, but what point exactly?
If all you're saying is that climatology scientists (and other scientists) in the USA are subject to pressures to compromise their scientific impartiality, then I think we can all agree. It's appalling that that is so, but there it is. And that is indeed all you say in post #929.
I took issue however with the way you phrased post #927 where you seemed to be implying that Richard Muller was actually influenced by some of these pressures (maintaining personal credibility and future employment) in reaching his conclusions. If you actually meant that, you really ought to justify it with some evidence. If you didn't, it would be nice to know.:smile:

Note that while Muller now agrees that the Earth is warming at rates consistent with those generally accepted by the bulk of scientists whose work forms the basis of the IPCC report, he still maintains - and I agrre with him on this point - that the attribution of all or most of the observed warming to human activity is far from as "generally accepted" as the IPCC claims.

OTOH, he also shares my view that even if the case for anthropogenic GW is far from clinched, it is utter foolishness to not try to significantly reduce mankind's GW-footprint until the evidence is overwhelming, because by then, it will likely be too late to avert catastrophe.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;276777]Yes, but what point exactly?[/QUOTE]We've had so many anonymous references and cross-streams that it's confusing to figure out the pronoun antecedents. Please, let's all be more specific.

[quote]If all you're saying is that climatology scientists (and other scientists) in the USA are subject to pressures to compromise their scientific impartiality, then I think we can all agree. It's appalling that that is so, but there it is. And that is indeed all you say in post #929.[/quote]I think that's going too far beyond the very unspecific statement in post #929.

[quote]I took issue however with the way you phrased post #927 where you seemed to be implying[/quote]Again, your speculation on a specific attribution to post #927 goes too far beyond what is stated.

Please, let's all continue by making our comments specific enough to be unambiguous ... and refraining from speculation on specific attributions to vague statements without first getting a clarification of the vague statement.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;276777]Yes, but what point exactly?
If all you're saying is that climatology scientists (and other scientists) in the USA are subject to pressures to compromise their scientific impartiality, then I think we can all agree. It's appalling that that is so, but there it is. And that is indeed all you say in post #929.
I took issue however with the way you phrased post #927 where you seemed to be implying that Richard Muller was actually influenced by some of these pressures (maintaining personal credibility and future employment) in reaching his conclusions. If you actually meant that, you really ought to justify it with some evidence. If you didn't, it would be nice to know.:smile:[/QUOTE]

The point was the strength of direct and indirect political and economic pressures surrounding "climate science"....pushing in both directions.

I certainly hope integrity (difficult to differentiate from maintaining personal credibility) won out here. But we would be foolish to ignore the presence of pressure in both directions, and not to catalog some of its very likely effects, which was what I had started with.