The Waxman-Markey Circus is coming to town – Dr. Richard Muller to showcase BEST under the bigtop

You have to laugh at the dueling statements in this circus event, its almost like a fire and brimstone speech from Rep. Edward Markey, who thinks this will be the “End of Climate Change Skepticism” as if he were casting out the devil from his green vision of paradise. Plus, you gotta love how he insults about half of his constituents by calling them “climate science deniers”. How unprofessional and petty. Then again, this is politics, not science.

In the best practice of reprehensible political style that personifies Washington, the announcement comes on the eve of the three day holiday weekend, where it won’t attract much notice in time for rebuttals to be mounted. And of course, none have been scheduled. How convenient.

But here’s the joke on Markey, and it’s hilarious. Compare his fire and brimstone headline with the recent update to the FAQS on Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature BEST website, emphasis mine:

Do Judith Curry and Richard Muller disagree?

Below is a joint statement by Judith Curry and Richard Muller:

In recent days, statements we’ve made to the media and on blogs have been characterized as contradictory. They are not.

We have both said that the global temperature record of the last 13 years shows evidence suggesting that the warming has slowed. Our new analysis of the land-based data neither confirms nor denies this contention. If you look at our new land temperature estimates, you can see a flattening of the rise, or a continuation of the rise, depending on the statistical approach you take.

Continued global warming “skepticism” is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: “The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism — There were good reasons for doubt, until now.” But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were “Cooling the Warming Debate – Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why.” The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.

We do not agree with each other on every feature of climate change. We have had vigorous discussions, for example, on the proper way to analyze hurricane records. Such disagreements are an essential part of the scientific process.

Dr. Judith Curry said it “best” on her blog today:

JC comments:  The “end of skepticism about climate change” meme seems to have caught on with the warm PR groups.  I suspect that pushing this will be as successful as Gore’s 24 hours in terms of changing anyone’s mind.

It will be interesting to see if Richard Muller repeats the following statements on this topic that he has made on the BEST website:

Continued global warming “skepticism” is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process.

Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why.

Berkeley Earth has not addressed issues of the tree ring and proxy data, climate model accuracy, or human attribution.

Dr. Muller will either come off as a skeptic, and agree with what is written on his website above, or he’ll embrace the fire and brimstone of Markey. Either way, he’s in the hotseat. Buy popcorn.

Since it is impossible now for me or most anyone to attend and rebut at this hearing on such short notice, one can only hope that there will be somebody there to ask some tough questions.As I understand the rules of this meeting, public comment questions from the audience can even be asked.

On the plus side, as I said in the headline, this is circus. But more circus minimus than maximus because this is not a sanctioned committee meeting, its a sideshow put on by Waxman and Markey, who aren’t majority members, but minority members. Basically its a PR dog and pony show that has no bearing on a committee decision. Watch how much of the left media will fawn over this and repeat the headline put out by Markey, likely ignoring Muller’s own statements and what’s on his website right now.

And still, he hasn’t published anything and his papers have not passed peer review, but the political apparatchik wants to showcase the incomplete and rushed, non quality controlled, error riddled BEST science as if it were factual enough to kill off “denialism” worldwide.  That’s political desperation in my opinion.

Given the PR missteps BEST has made so far, I welcome their participation in this circus.

It will be webcast. Here’s the details:

WHAT: Congressional climate science briefing: “Undeniable Data: The Latest Research on Global Temperature and Climate Science”

WHO: Reps. Ed Markey, Henry Waxman, others

Dr. Richard Muller, Director of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project

Dr. Ben Santer, research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Dr. William Chameides, Dean of Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and ViceChair of the National Academies’ Committee on America’s Climate Choices

WHERE: 1324 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

WHEN: Monday, November 14, 2011, 2 PM

More information & live webcast of this briefing >>

About these ads

77 thoughts on “The Waxman-Markey Circus is coming to town – Dr. Richard Muller to showcase BEST under the bigtop

  1. Markey and Waxman continue Gore’s effort to demonize energy use so that they can create huge sin taxes on energy use. Gore went so far as to compare his campaign against what he calls “denialism” with MLKJr’s campaigns against racism. My guess is that if they succeed with energy the next target for sin taxes is the internet, twitter, and all related technologies.

  2. Let’s see if his testimony supports the headline. The clown Congressmen seem to be confident that it will. Surely their staff have discussed Muller’s appearance/performance with him. My guess is that Muller will be talking out of the warmista side of his mouth, when he appears before the handsome and intelligent Waxman, and friends.

  3. PS: The Republicans will control both the House and Senate next year so this little stunt is a nit. Oh, and even if Obama get’s lucky, it’s still a nit.

  4. A sentence I find really cute is that they will present the “best case yet” for the end of climate skepticism. How can he know in advance that it will be the “best case yet”? Well, the belief (or heavy corruption, which is ultimately the same thing) makes Mr Markey sure that it must be the “best case yet”.

    It will probably be another politically ordered, incoherent sequence of talking points denying basic facts about the climate debate (which may only convince those poor in the spirit who have been convinced by various 24 hours of reality and similar events) but some people apparently believe that it’s possible to arbitrarily confuse reality with a wishful thinking.

  5. Since it is impossible now for me or most anyone to attend theis hearing on such short notice, one can only hope that there will be somebody there to ask some tough questions.

    You know, Patrick Michaels lives in the area. This could be Ben Santer’s big opportunity.

  6. Since it is impossible now for me or most anyone to attend theis hearing on such short notice, one can only hope that there will be somebody there to ask some tough questions.

    This is not a ‘hearing’. It takes the consent of the majority to have ‘hearings’.

    This is a ‘briefing’…where two congressman have invited whoever they want to ‘brief them’ personally.

  7. Muller appears to be all things to all men/women. I believe he’s an alarmist who’s come up with this spiffing idea of fooling the dumb sceptics into believing he’s a scientist who will be a straight shooter.

    It comes as no surprise to anyone that the temperature rose in the last century, it did the century before. There is no doubt that humans are having an effect on the climate, the key questions are:

    1. What effect, it is not scientific to say we can identify where part of the warming comes from so it must be because of CO2 emissions for the portion we can’t identify. In any other science if the warming stopped and the CO2 emissions continued the scientists would conclude there were unknown unknowns and try to find them.

    2. The completely made up positivie feedbacks for which there is no empirical proof whatsoever, are used to bolster the temperature to catastrophic levels. Where’s the proof for this?

    3. I’m off to Thailand in a week or two, it is warm and fecund, with rich green jungles, what’s not to like about being warmer? Why are there non benefits in the IPCC AR4? Even the biggest dunderhead could figure out that the warm places are the best places to be.

  8. Is it just me, or has the trap now been camouflaged :)

    REPLY: Yes, there’s some 20/20 hindsight going on. – Anthony

  9. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were “Cooling the Warming Debate – Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why.” The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.

    Seriously? This all by itself is pretty insane. How the hell can editors change the title of a piece without asking permission of the author? I’d be trans-pissed if somebody did that with an article of mine; pissed enough to have a lawyer get involved and demand a retraction and apology, in print, in the same venue. This is especially the case when the actual title has a diametrically opposite meaning from the title that is eventually published.

  10. IMO, Muller is attempting to interject a new $ play into the climatic apocalypse circus. He missed the carbon trading and there’s no $ in outright skepticism, so enter the scientist who doesn’t deny warming but proclaims the utter uselessness of “mitigation”. Our hero shows us another way to avoid frying the planet: geo-engineering. Personally disappointing, but when it comes right down to it, I’d rather pay geo-engineers millions than carbon traders (Al Gore) billions and still have to “adjust” my standard of living downward.

  11. Let’s not forget this Quote of the Week, donated by Waxman to WUWT a couple of years ago:
    “We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/quote-of-the-week-5-waxmans-stunningly-stupid-statement/

    I doubt Waxman could even wade through the watered down and filtered content of Muller’s “Physics for future Presidents” no matter how appealing the title appears.

  12. OT slightly, to give you an idea where Gregory B. Jaczko Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission learned his politics:

    “Immediately prior to assuming the post of Commissioner, Dr. Jaczko served as appropriations director for U.S. Sen. Harry Reid and also served as the Senator’s science policy advisor. He began his Washington, D.C., career as a congressional science fellow in the office of U.S. Rep. Edward Markey.”

    Any wonder nuclear power is not going forward?

  13. We have both said that the global temperature record of the last 13 years shows evidence suggesting that the warming has slowed. Our new analysis of the land-based data neither confirms nor denies this contention.

    Say what?

    oops, of course depending on the Propaganda’s “statistical” approach needs at any particular time, CO2 = CAGW being “consistent with” everything that happens and thus nonsensical compared to the practice of real science, as well as compared to any other factual claim. But o’so meaningful compared to good old run of the mill pre-Enlightenment Evangelical Apocalypticism, where scepticism is taboo in the face of money and control needs, and elitist self-gratification? [per the Prophet, the PNAS, the IPCC, et cultists]

    And what, the ever “scientifically” vigilant Muller himself has failed to solve the “preprint” problem that killed the good old peer review system because of the suddenly evil WSJ media, and still defective and counting concerning whatever it is that BEST is alleged to show, just like Climate Science’s “statistical” methods and babbling verbiage?

    Perhaps exactly because of “Climate Scientists” like the new team of Miller and Markey’s use of the media as their scam’s personal propaganda mouth organ as “show science” = their only “science”?

    So I guess that clears up any questions, eh? “Perception being Progressivism’s reality”, and all…

    [Man, even the spell-check spells "sceptic" "skeptic".]

  14. How the hell can editors change the title of a piece without asking permission of the author?

    Because they’re the editors. That’s why they’re called “editors”: they edit things.

    In newspapers especially, there’s someone whose particular job it is to make up catchy headlines. The author has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

  15. You know if it wasn’t for show science
    If it wasn’t for real bad show science
    They wouldn’t have no science at all…
    That ain’t no lie

    h/t Albert King, “Born Under a Bad Sign”, and Stalin

  16. Wouldn’t bet on any surprises. The first rule of any Cong hearing (just like any TV interview or court proceeding) is that a witness won’t be called unless his answers are thoroughly known and predictable in advance.

    If Muller actually surprises Markey, he will be ushered out quickly and his reputation will be trashed. I’m sure Muller knows the rules.

  17. Do not expect them to allow known skeptics (e.g. Patrick Michaels) to be called upon for a question.

    Also, in order to speak or ask questions at such a venue it is often required to submit questions in advance. It might therefore be advisable to submit a question that is not necessarily the one you ask when you get the microphone.

  18. Charlie Martin says:
    November 13, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Because they’re the editors. That’s why they’re called “editors”: they edit things.

    Because that’s exactly why Muller himself said he did what he did in releasing the pre-print and at the very same time by o’so severely schooling the WSJ editors, you know, to “help” Climate Science along, Charlie.

    Seriously, Charlie, you still have time to catch up. This Climate Science hoax isn’t going to end very soon, even though it should have been over back around 2001. Try it, it even feels better once you start to engage your mind.

  19. Bloody hell – I’m really sick and tired of these Ed Markey/Al Gore et.al. slimy, snake oil salesmen…. They used to be tarred and feathered and run outta town on a rail!

    Here in the Great NorthWet (SE of Seattle WA, USA), we are colder and wetter than normal. That is no longer ‘just weather’, as it has been true for the last few years. The north face of Mt. Rainier never melted out to more than 35% exposed rock faces this summer/fall, same for last summer, where in summers for the previous decade, it was closer to 65-70% of the rock faces melted out. None of my neighbors had more than a handful of tomatoes ripened the last 2 years, with late spring frosts and cool summer temps discouraging anything but cold weather crops. Snow is falling down below 3000 feet now and forecast for much of this week. Temps approaching 32F are forecast for sea level this coming week.

    Each of the last 3 winters, I have added another half cord of firewood to the winter wood pile and needed it all. I had +5 full cords at the start of this heating season in September and have used 3/4ths of a cord already. Accompanying the increased firewood use for heating, my combined natural gas/electricity usage for heating has increased as well. The energy usage has increased, despite my installation of CFL bulbs for most lighting applications, double wrapping the natural gas water heater with insulation, and no new additions of people or ‘parasitic energy consuming devices’ to the household. I built my house in 2001, with maximum insulation and minimum energy use designed in. Although my house is +2200 sq. ft. (1100 ‘up’, 1100 ‘down’), Pacific Gas and Electric company regularly tells me that I’m using less energy than any of my nearest 100 neighbors with homes of 1350 sq. ft.! So why is my energy consumption slowly increasing year after year? I’m just supplementing the heat from the wood stove more, with local heat from a portable electric ‘space’ heater, and occasional runs of the natural gas furnace when the the wood stove has been ‘out for too long’ or can’t supply sufficient heat to sustain a warm house at ‘below freezing’ temps outside! Why? Because It Is Consistently Colder!

    The local climate trend here is to colder temperatures, later springs, cooler summers, and much deeper snow packs in the surrounding mountains. That is undeniable….. It isn’t ‘skepticism’. It’s fact.

    Now, I have to go re-stoke the wood stove, as the house temp is dropping below 65F again while the cold wind and cold rain outside slashes the last of the golden and withered leaves from the big leaf maples, willows, cottonwood, and plum trees.

    Wishing you warm thoughts, warm hearts,….. and warm toes and noses!

    MtK

  20. I don’t get how their entire platform would be “Put an end to Climate Change Skepticism.” Who would be skeptical about the ever-changing climate? This just shows that their platform is 100% ideological, and nothing about science.

  21. I don’t believe the WSJ editors “misinterpreted” Muller’s words, and if they did they should be fired. This is not a small potatoes game, economically or otherwise.

    Of course the NYT, Eugene Robinson’s, word on this matter of what BEST really shows is final – just ask his editors – as well as his analysis of the “sceptics'” stunned and ~”incoherent” reactions. But now Muller has to school him, too, no doubt with the same success as before: more gibberish = pick your favorite, er, “perception”. Just like “Climate Science” does “prn”, as needed to further its purely political agenda with all of its wonderous benefits for the CO2 = CAGW controllists and their fellow looters of as many of the world’s people as possible.

  22. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: “The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism — There were good reasons for doubt, until now.” But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were “Cooling the Warming Debate – Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why.” The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author.

    In the not so distant past, the WSJ title wouldn’t have been “corrected” by Muller in the manner in which he has.

    Perhaps in some small way this is progress for GW skepticism.

  23. Robert Brown says:
    November 13, 2011 at 11:29 am
    How the hell . . .

    Maybe because it is their newspaper.

    ————————————-
    On topic: Circuses are famous for clowns.

    I recall (maybe 3 years ago) that Ed Markey from another of these circus events was quoted as saying some dumb thing about the Arctic. I don’t have that material saved but I remember thinking that he was as full of malarkey as anyone I’ve ever known. The sense of the statement was on a par with the one from the man that thought islands can tip over. Waxman seems equally deficient in knowledge and reasoning.

    Here’s a link to one WUWT post from about that time but it doesn’t have the material in it that I remember as elevating these two gentlemen to the top of my (un-named) list along with Gore and Hansen.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/23/pushback-on-waxman-markey-now-is-the-time-for-all-good-citizens-to-come-to-the-aid-of-their-country/

  24. Anthony writes:

    “Since it is impossible now for me or most anyone to attend and rebut at this hearing on such short notice, one can only hope that there will be somebody there to ask some tough questions.As I understand the rules of this meeting, public comment questions from the audience can even be asked.”

    I hope that you are planning to post an essay that is critical of Muller’s handling of your metadata about station siting.

  25. “Mac the Knife says:
    November 13, 2011 at 12:52 pm”

    Yes, my experience in N.E. Oregon is the same, the Winters are longer and remind me more of the mid to late ’70’s. Even the year round snow is returning to the mountains over the past few years. And I should have already built up enough green credits to rule the world, simply for the sake of efficiency and another weird kind of thing, an inherent sense of responsibility, though obviously not yet perfect like Climate Science’s.

  26. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: “The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism — There were good reasons for doubt, until now.” But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were “Cooling the Warming Debate – Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why.” The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author.

    If that statement had been made by Richard Muller then I would flat out disbelieve it. RM seems to be able to say one thing to one audience and the opposite to another, in the best traditions of Taqiyya. The statement is reported as made jointly by Judith Curry and RM, which makes a difference – but only if it can be established that JC actually witnessed the claimed original rather than just accepting RM’s word for it.

    I have posted the question on JC’s Climate Etc.

  27. Over at Curry’s site, in the comments, several people have brought up the racism canard. Jst do not respond; racism is the last refuge of a political scoundrel.

  28. polistra says: November 13, 2011 at 12:39 pm
    Wouldn’t bet on any surprises. …If Muller actually surprises Markey, he will be ushered out quickly and his reputation will be trashed. I’m sure Muller knows the rules.

    I think there’s a sporting chance Muller doesn’t know the rules, at least not smartly enough by political standards. He’s been an inmate of Ivory Towers for a while, and his recent brush with media showed strain in face and language.

    Doug in Seattle says: November 13, 2011 at 12:48 pm
    …It might therefore be advisable to submit a question that is not necessarily the one you ask when you get the microphone.

    So what are the two questions that will embarrass Muller least and most?

  29. I just posted this on Dr. Curry’s website:

    Just read the Congressional Press release:

    (Quote) “Congressional Climate Briefing to Push “End of Climate Change Skepticism”

    The briefing will feature the first appearance on Capitol Hill by Dr. Richard Muller since the release of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project results. Dr. Muller was previously skeptical about many aspects of climate science, but the massive two-year study he led has validated the fact that the world is warming. His work also debunked many talking points repeated by climate science deniers that have been repeated by lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
    (EndQuote)

    Is that a fair representation of Muller’s position?

    If not, will Muller make any attempt to correct it, “for the record”?

  30. What this AGW foolishness needs is a good old fashioned series of tent or now days stadium, revival meeting. They need a Billy Sunday or perhaps a Billy Graham to call the faithful and the doubters together. They need to save the souls, is is that soles, all those sinners and wayward doubters. I know, they can conduct these meetings on twitter. Almost as good? No, to hard to lay on the hands in 160 characters.

  31. YOur commentators should be aware that it is common practice in the world of Physics to publish papers before they are submitted for peer review. But I find your responses somewhat disingenuous given that in the past so many have been critical of the peer review process itself.

  32. geronimo says: “I’m off to Thailand in a week or two…”

    If you happen to be in Bangkok, please note the daytime and night-time temperatures versus smaller cities. I think Bangkok is the perfect example of an urban heat island. Hope the flooding is done by the time you arrive. While there buy a copy of my book “Even Thai Girls Cry”. It will give you something to do on your flight home.

  33. Given the non-professional management of the BEST Project, is the Nov 14 visit to DC a funding trip to extend the BEST project because perhaps the project’s original private sponsors aren’t continuing to fund? Perhaps there are some quality issues that the original sponsors are displeased with?

    I would be displeased with BEST Project management if I was an original sponsor.

    John

  34. Hugh Pepper says:
    November 13, 2011 at 2:21 pm
    YOur commentators should be aware that it is common practice in the world of Physics to publish papers before they are submitted for peer review. But I find your responses somewhat disingenuous given that in the past so many have been critical of the peer review process itself>>>

    I’ve been watching the AGW debate for years. The constant message from the warmist community has been that any paper NOT peer reviewed has no merit. Given the giant holes that have been appearing in the peer review process, including “pal review” allowing through many deeply and obviously flawed papers, and editors being pressured into resigning for daring to publish proper peer reviewed papers (as was the case with Dr Spencer’s paper which resulted in Wolfgang Wagner’s resignation from Remote Sensing under obvious pressure from Kevin Trenberth), the peer review process has been corrupted and disgustingly so.

    If there is anything disingenuous about the debate, it is that the warmist cheer leaders have worked hard to prevent peer reviewed papers that they disagreed with from being published, then used the fact that they didn’t get published to claim they had no merit for lack of being peer reviewed, and then turn around and hold up a non peer reviewed paper in support of their cause. They claim one set of rules for themselves while imposing another set on everyone else.

    If their science had merit, they would have no need of such disingenuous tactics.

  35. Sorry not on the post’s content.
    Anyone could you tell me how the “u” of Muller pronounced?
    Like Müller in German, or like in “mull”? Thanks.

  36. Headlines in newspapers are typically written by the paper, not the author of the article. This has been common for decades and is especially appropriate for pieces pulled off the AP or UPI wire. However, if a submitted Op-Ed had the (suggested) title,

    “Cooling the Warming Debate – Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why.”

    and this was changed to,

    “The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism — There were good reasons for doubt, until now.”

    an ethical breach has occurred and they should be called out on it.

    I do join those previous commenters who wonder about the accuracy of this claim. Check this out fully. But, if it can be established that the WSJ really did this, they should get a flurry of letters demanding a full apology.

    Frankly, this doesn’t sound like something the WSJ would do. If it really did happen, I’d expect terminations to result.

  37. In science, replication of a result requires new data and/or a new method to analyse the data.

    BEST uses the same minimum and maximum dataset and the same derivation method of the average global land temperature (Tmin+Tmax/2) as the other two global land average temperature analyses, GISS and HadCRUT.

    Therefore BEST isn’t replication of the earlier results.

    In scientific terms, its hard to see to see what BEST achieved.

  38. Don Monfort says:
    November 13, 2011 at 10:42 am

    PS: The Republicans will control both the House and Senate next year so this little stunt is a nit. Oh, and even if Obama get’s lucky, it’s still a nit.
    ___________________________
    Do not bet on it.
    During the last lame Duck session they snuck through the much hated “Food Safety Modernization Act”

    Henry Waxman, Rosa DeLauro, and Dick Durbin have been pushing for this horrible “Food Safety” bill since at least June of 1999. The new law will soon regulate most farmers out of business and aid the worldwide Land Grab.

    REFERENCES:
    A Lawyer’s take on the Commerce Clause and Home gardens (2009 bill ): http://www.examiner.com/scotus-in-washington-dc/trojan-horse-law-the-food-safety-modernization-act-of-2009
    Daily Kos even hates it! http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/06/17/743564/-Henry-Waxmans-betrayal-of-our-existence-HR-2749

    The World Bank funding land grabbing in South America: http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1097:open-letter-to-ifc-pending-approval-of-the-project-calyxagro-proj-ref-29137

    African Land Grab – “Acres for a bottle of Scotch”: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/african-land-grab-acres-bottle-scotch

    Being Like Soros in Buying [USA] Farmland Reaps Annual Gains of 16%

    Investors are pouring into farmland in the U.S. and parts of Europe, Latin America and Africa as global food prices soar….

    Hedge funds Ospraie Management LLC and Passport Capital LLC as well as Harvard University’s endowment are also betting on farming. TIAA-CREF, the $466 billion financial services giant, has $2 billion invested in some 600,000 acres (240,000 hectares) of farmland in Australia, Brazil and North America and wants to double the size of its investment….

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-10/being-like-soros-in-buying-farm-land-lets-investors-reap-16-annual-gains.html

    Gee didn’t Kissinger say something about that plan in 1970???? “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people; control money and you control the world.”

    And in 1972 Maurice Strong chaired the First Earth Summit that started the whole ball rolling…

    I really do not think we are going to see the scammers giving up on such a lovely money maker after they invested decades of time and effort to set up the scam. (CAGW)

  39. polistra says:
    November 13, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    Wouldn’t bet on any surprises. The first rule of any Cong hearing (just like any TV interview or court proceeding) is that a witness won’t be called unless his answers are thoroughly known and predictable in advance.

    If Muller actually surprises Markey, he will be ushered out quickly and his reputation will be trashed. I’m sure Muller knows the rules.
    __________________________
    Of course he know the rules.

    This is what the whole thing is really about – Selling his Consulting Services.

    “…Muller & Associates provides expertise for energy challenges that deserve the best minds in the world. Our senior-level team includes Nobel Laureates, MacArthur Geniuses, and recognized global leaders with experience in over 30 countries. We integrate science with business acumen, economics, and long-term trends to ensure that our clients are making the right investments for their organization.

    We know that in order to be effective, solutions must be sustainable…
    and we know that for businesses, sustainable solutions must be profitable as well.

    GreenGov™ is a service offered by Muller & Associates for Governments, International Organizations, non profits, and other organizations that work with Government. The aim is to provide politically-neutral counsel that is broad in scope while rooted in the hard facts of state-of-the-art science and engineering. The key is to make the right patch between the best technologies and the strengths of the government. We know that to be effective the political dimension must be integrated into the technical plan from the start. “

    http://www.mullerandassociates.com/index.php
    Gack, it is enough to make you lose your dinner… Note how Muller positions himself as “Neutral” That is why he has “re-invented” himself as a “Sceptic”

    I go into detail about Muller & Assoc here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/30/the-best-whopper-ever/#comment-783396

  40. Jeff Alberts says:
    November 13, 2011 at 2:12 pm
    Typo:
    “It will be webcast. Here’s the details:”
    ==============
    If this wasn’t a family friendly website, I would tell you to go f’ yourself.
    Seeing as it is a family friendly website, I say go f’ yourself.

  41. Gotta love these ‘internationalist’ democrats pushing for economic changes in order to enrich other nations at our expense.

  42. Wouldn’t it be amusing if the REpublican House leader shut off the heat to the room and opened all the windows?

  43. You have to laugh at the dueling statements in this circus event, its almost like a fire and brimstone speech from Rep. Edward Markey, who thinks this will be the “End of Climate Change Skepticism” as if he were casting out the devil from his green vision of paradise. Plus, you gotta love how he insults about half of his constituents by calling them “climate science deniers”. How unprofessional and petty. Then again, this is politics, not science.

    It has always been about politics; not science and certainly not English. Cancel the Congressional Briefing and AGW will cease!

    ” So the world is warming at a congressional briefing “

  44. @ Noblesse Oblige
    “Rich” is not going to the Big Show, just to a side show, where he’ll find the oddities, freaks and frauds. Perhaps those will satisfy his need to be known.

  45. On air promoting the Waxman-Markey bill in a point-counter-point with James Inhofe (OK) a few years ago, Ed Markey said, “nine of the last ten years have been the warmest in the history of the planet.”

    Apparently, we are dealing with an astonishing level of ignorance guised as leadership.

  46. Hugh Pepper says:

    But I find your responses somewhat disingenuous given that in the past so many have been critical of the peer review process itself.

    Being critical of peer review, including the ridiculous idea that it produces the “given truth”, is not the same as saying that pre-publication peer review should not occur, but also especially after a study is published.

    But then perhaps you have missed why Climate Science style peer review has been criticized, in addition to the above anti-science Climate Science claim as to peer review’s omniscient authority: no release of the “materials and methods” which are the science behind the conclusions, no evidence of the materials and methods having even been checked by the peer reviewers, pal review, publication of all sorts of trash under the auspices of peer review, obstruction of other studies by the “peers”, vilification of scepticism itself, propagandistic press releases not backed by the actual “peer reviewed” study, the necessity for FOIA actions and leaks concerning the data methods and process, biased funding of “peer reviewed” papers reaching the conclusions the funder pays for?

  47. Catcracking says: November 13, 2011 at 5:21 pm

    Wouldn’t it be amusing if the REpublican House leader shut off the heat to the room and opened all the windows?

    Nice ref (to Hansen, for those who didn’t know he ensured the rooms were stiflingly hot on the day he first introduced the Global Warming nonsense to Congress).

    But Hansen must have had an insider accomplice. And Taxman / Malarkey wouldn’t know or believe that story anyway probably.

  48. Hugh Pepper says: November 13, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    YOur commentators should be aware that it is common practice in the world of Physics to publish papers before they are submitted for peer review. But I find your responses somewhat disingenuous given that in the past so many have been critical of the peer review process itself.

    davidmhoffer says: November 13, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    JPeden says: November 13, 2011 at 10:36 pm

    It seems the joke is on you Hugh m’lad. The peer-review issues have all been about omitting vital pieces of information. Like the not-noticing of Mann’s c**p statistics that weighted bristlecone pines 390 times the rest of the data, so that 500 years’ temperature records overrode decades of previously agreed interdisciplinary understanding, and declared the Medieval Warm Period null and void (key propaganda, if one is to declare present warming “unprecedented”). Like the not-noticing of the upside-down Tiljander data that was used to reinforce the bristlecone pine data… Like… Like…

    So you too have omitted vital information.

    You’ve been here long enough. Do you find it hard to face and examine the hypothesis that Climate Science has been deeply corrupted?

  49. There is some classic linguistic programming going on in this debate that all should be cautious of.

    The only people in the debate on climate that deny climate change – are the alarmists. It is essential for their argument that the world climates only change in response to anthropogenic ‘forcing’ *and* that the change is from a halcyon ideal to something much worse. The climate change deniers are the alarmists. So they call those skeptical of their arguments the climate change deniers – a classic strawman tactic.

    A similar approach is taken with Global Warming – the alarmists have attempted to conflate Anthropogenic global warming – with natural global warming. They have even their opponents using ‘global warming’ as a synonym for ‘anthropogenic global warming’ – having confused the terms they now claim rightly that if asked even skeptics accept global warming – this is *precisely* the approach now taken by Muller and ‘BEST’ who are claiming that BEST has ‘validated the fact that the world is warming’. Yet everyone agrees the world is warming – but for those convinced by the alarmists they see this as BEST has ‘validated the fact that the world is warming due to anthropogenic causes

    It is really important to use the correct terms and not be drawn by the alarmists into using their ambiguous phraseology. It is a deliberate ploy to assist them in debates. Remember, it is the alarmists that deny natural climate change and natural global warming.

  50. Judith is sitting on a fence rail. And seems to be saying that it is okay to use statistics to say anything you want to say. The process of discovery is mired in the mud because of such fence sitters. Come on Judith, your belief that playing nice will get the two groups together is just keeping your boots dry. It is not advancing the science. Get off the fence and slog through the mud.

  51. Mac the Knife says:
    November 13, 2011 at 12:52 pm
    Here in the Great NorthWet (SE of Seattle WA, USA), we are colder and wetter than normal. That is no longer ‘just weather’, as it has been true for the last few years.

    Here in BC we used to get grapes from WA for wine making. This year they are all from CA. What happened to the WA harvest?

  52. Ian W says:
    November 14, 2011 at 3:02 am
    There is some classic linguistic programming going on in this debate that all should be cautious of.


    It is really important to use the correct terms and not be drawn by the alarmists into using their ambiguous phraseology.

    I agree – we should not let the CAGW crowd define the words used within the discussion or the skeptical positions.

  53. So much for jobs and energy security in the US:

    Wall Street Journal
    Just a few days after the U.S. said it would delay approval of an oil pipeline that would boost Canadian exports to the U.S., Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Sunday the country would push to sell its crude to Asian markets instead.
    The Hill
    President Obama and other leaders at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit vowed Sunday to ease trade barriers on “green” products, but Obama emphasized that he remains frustrated with Chinese trade policies that U.S. officials call unfair.
    Zero Hedge
    In sum, the findings from this study of the U.S. House of Representatives’ common stock transactions are generally supportive of the previous study of the U.S. Senate. We find strong evidence that Members of the House have some type of nonpublic information which they use for personal gain.

  54. Apparently insider trading is only illegal for the average person. It is perfectly OK for US politicians and presidents to invest ahead of time based on the laws they intend to pass.

  55. So. The US will not import dirty oil from Canada. Instead that dirty oil will be shipped to China, where it will be turned into Green products and dirty jobs. Those dirty jobs that used to be done in the US will now be done in China, making the US much cleaner. In place of dirty jobs, these Green products will be shipped into the US with reduced tariffs, even though the US complains that Chinese trade is unfair.

    Isn’t the real green – the greenback – being shipped from the US to China? The cheese shop was also much cleaner without any cheese.

  56. Rep. Markey has been consistent —–and wrong throughout his long career of policy warp and unintended consequences without costs assigned all along the way. There should be an Oscar or Nobel for lifetime achievement in bad public policy and he above all others deserves it.

  57. Jeff_in_2012 says:
    November 13, 2011 at 3:30 pm
    Businessman and founder of krugmaniswrong.com Jeff Semon (pronounced Simone) is running to unseat Markey here in Massachusetts. Please visit http://www.jeffin2012.com to help support him.

    I have the misfortune of living in Fast Eddie Malarkey’s district. I’ll definitely be checking out Mr. Semon; thanks for the tip!

    /Mr Lynn

  58. Waxman “The North Pole is evaporating”….and all that “tundra being held down by that ice cap”.

    Embarrassing as this is to watch…it is also immortally funny:

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  59. In an earlier post here I referred to the fact that congressional Democrats, headed by Kongressman Murkey, had issued a press release immediately in the wake of Muller’s PR blitz, and speculated that Muller had given them a heads-up on his findings, and that he was working hand-in-glove with them as part of a coordinated PR venture. This confirms my suspicions.

  60. If CAGWarmists are making Dr. Muller some ultimate authority it should be made to undermine their ‘political’ case….. as I recall some of the main take-aways from his Oct. 2010 talk:

    they are (in my words not his):
    1) Michael Mann and The Team are dishonest, engaged in unacceptable practices for scientists, and Muller said he would ‘never’ trust (read) a scientific paper from any of them again;
    2) yes Muller believes there is warming and some AGW component, BUT,
    3) he regards the “catastrophic” claims as both unsubstantiated and rather tenuous,
    4) he notes (with a graph) that China and India are on such a course of rapid increase on CO2 emissions that even if one believed it were a major problem there is no possible effective action for western nations without vast reductions in planned outputs from China and India (thus his presentation made it obvious that the only choice is ‘adaptation’ since no one thinks there is any prospect of drastic reductions from China and India;
    5) he emphasized that CAGWarmists assume virtually no increase in atmospheric clouds from the “greenhouse” gases despite marked increases assumed in atmospheric vapor (he said IIRC that up to a 2% increase in clouds would have a dramatic counter-acting effect on hypothesized warming??).

    Those are just a few of the points I recall him making in that presentation linked above, so I suspect that a review of all of his public remarks and relevant papers may not be so cozy for the Waxman/Markey CAGWarmist crowd.

    Ultimately what I took from Muller in the past (before this recent brouhaha) was that “policy” is very different from “the science” — and the science itself is often being greatly distorted by the more alarmist advocates — but that even if one sees an alarmist warming picture in the emerging science there will be NO basis for drastic policy measures in “the west” so long as China and India are going to continue on a path to overwhelm any changes we could make.

  61. actually some of those words above are his, I only meant to emphasize that I was giving a free-form paraphrase from memory of some of his points…. but he definitely used ‘dishonest’ and ‘unacceptable’ and ‘would never read again’ etc. in reference to the fiasco of the “hockey stick” etc.

Comments are closed.