Muller on MSNBC – what he didn’t say was interesting

I just watched this video interview on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow show (h/t to Poptech)

Despite the tacky caption, it was what Dr. Muller didn’t talk about that was, ahem, the best part.

To my surprise, when questioned on the issue, he didn’t list station quality as one of the things he ruled out.  I think my message was delivered.

If you can get past the “genius” lead in part, its worth watching. Video here

About these ads
This entry was posted in Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

113 Responses to Muller on MSNBC – what he didn’t say was interesting

  1. Hoser says:

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/29/13020337-ex-climate-change-skeptic-humans-cause-global-warming?lite

    These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming.

    He can’t be a skeptic if he believes in scientific concensus. Since he seems to support the oxymoron “scientific concensus” he must be just what he says, no longer a skeptic.

  2. WLF15Y says:

    Ohhhhh, now I see. He’s in the pocket of the natural gas industry.

    (sarc)

  3. Justthinkin says:

    Just watching the man’s eyes and demeanor during this,I think they better increase his meds.Otherwise not bad,considering.

  4. Hoser says:

    OK, now I’ve seen the video. I caught your blank post before the link was there. The other thing not mentioned was nuclear energy. Why should we have to endure a short nasty life with less energy per capita? Automatically assuming consuming less energy per capita is a good thing is in fact quite dangerous.

  5. William Martin in NZ says:

    No sorry,couldn’t even get thru the intro BS.Aren’t we lucky to have Anthony on our side?Thanks to the team for an EXCELLENT job well done.

  6. crosspatch says:

    I don’t watch Maddow. Not even in YouTube clips. Makes my brain barf.

  7. Paul Bell says:

    I don’t get it. He admits that correlation is not causation, but then he is off to the races on CO2 reduction.

  8. JJ says:

    “Former Climate Change Denier”

    If anything the man had to say was legitimate, he wouldn’t have to lie about who he is.

  9. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    No high speed internet, missed the Monday Mirthiness video, was depressed.

    Now I see it’s a good reason to not see a Rachael Madcow video, so it’s a wash.

    Nice tagline for the show, “Lean Forward” (said the TSA agent as they slipped on a new set of bone-dry latex gloves, while smiling).

  10. rk says:

    the part about his testimony last year was pretty creepy to me. Maddow getting thrills about a skeptic confessing his sins in front of a tribunal kind of feel…but that’s just me

    Why the fear of nuclear? I mean really, here you have a genius who’s afraid to talk about what to do 50 years from now? Clean fracking? Are you kidding? That’s the future? I guess the age of visionary physicists is over….so sad.

  11. DirkH says:

    When Muller says now “Call me a converted skeptic”, we can say that this is a False Flag operation, since he has earlier said

    ““It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic — only a scientific skeptic,” he said in a recent email exchange with The Huffington Post. “Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller ‘Physics for Future Presidents’ I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.”

    http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/07/29/muller-never-was-a-skeptic/

    Muller is a publicity-hungry opportunist who speaks out of both ends of his mouth.

  12. Stephanie Clague says:

    The resurrection of Lysenkoism, the perversion of science to serve wholly political ends, the exploitation of science to further political objectives, the false claim of a unanimity that never in fact existed, the suppression of facts that contradict and disprove the supposed consensus and the smearing of sceptical scientists and free thinkers. History tells us that those forces that try to pervert science to serve political ends always fail, it is the damage they do in the attempt that defines their ultimate failure.

    Sound familiar? It should because history is littered with such examples and it never ended well, the real deniers are those that choose to deny observed reality in favour of made up political make believe. If the facts dont fit the narrative then change the facts and while changing them attack with utmost vigour those who dare to expose the facts. This isnt science it is a quasi religious cult and it is going to end in tears. History will not be kind to the supposed consensus, those who support it now will be widely mocked and rightly so.

  13. Timbo says:

    William Martin in NZ says:
    July 30, 2012 at 10:46 pm
    No sorry,couldn’t even get thru the intro BS.Aren’t we lucky to have Anthony on our side?Thanks to the team for an EXCELLENT job well done.

    +1 on that.

  14. Looking at lecture on Youtube he made at Berkley it becomes clear that it is more of a spectacle than lecture. Students attending them don’t learn much.
    BTW. Why is he listed as a visitor to the Bohemian Grove?

  15. Mike Borgelt says:

    Didn’t look at the video due to restricted bandwidth while away from home. Read that as too cheap to pay for more.

    Muller sure looks like a deranged whack job though in the still. I’m sick of all these people.

  16. Michael J says:

    Something else Dr Muller forgot to mention: his paper failed peer review and has been rejected.

    From http://www.rossmckitrick.com/:

    Update July 30: JGR told me “This paper was rejected and the editor recommended that the author resubmit it as a new paper.”

  17. mfo says:

    Muller “had the look of one who had drunk the cup of life and found a dead beetle at the bottom.”

  18. Richard says:

    Former denier, present sceptic?

  19. Adam says:

    I would love to see the CO2/warming correlation he said changed his mind. I always said I was a skeptic only because the other side didn’t have enough evidence, and this seems pretty strong for them (much stronger than models in my mind). I am especially curious because I can’t see how it could correlate for this past decade.

  20. Snotrocket says:

    At first I was thrown when I heard the Muller was financed by ‘Coke’, but if I got anything at all from watching the clip it is that while I always thought of the Kochs as ‘Cocks’, they are, in fact, ‘Cokes’, as Muller pronounced it.

  21. Sam the First says:

    Sadly the fact this man is getting MSM coverage, allied to his academic standing, will convince many of the uninformed, including our legislators worldwide. These people don’t do their own research.

    We are still climbing uphill, people, until the MSM reports findings from WUWT and others on our side of the argument first. Refuting an argument is never as convincing to the man in the street as being given a platform in the first place.

  22. Scarface says:

    “To my surprise, when questioned on the issue, he didn’t list station quality as one of the things he ruled out. I think my message was delivered.”

    The man is in trouble, and he knows it.

  23. Taphonomic says:

    I’m still waiting for Muller to explain, in his current media blitz, why his papers haven’t been peer reviewed.

  24. Latimer Alder says:

    I rarely bother to comment about people’s appearance, but this guy is pretty much everybody’s caricature of the mad scientist. Staring eyes, unkempt hair and tash, dishevelled clothing…if he approached me in the street I’d pass by on the other side. And I’m sure that I’0m not alone.

    He does himself – nor his message – no favours by not spending just a few minutes sprucing himself up. Rightly or wrongly, people really do make up their mind on first impressions. And his is not good.

  25. Liddy says:

    BEST study = hokey schtick science = MANNIAN SCIENCE.

    Richard Muller = practitioner of MANNIAN SCIENCE.

  26. Dyrewulf says:

    A: Sorry you had to sit through Maddow’s show, and B: the ‘Weather’ Channel is harping about this every hour or so. (We have to have it up in the office 24/7.)

  27. cd says:

    MSNBC is so partisan on this there was no journalistic objectivity at all.

  28. cd says:

    BTW Muller never claimed to be a skeptic until after the climategate e-mails were released. But he’s quite happy now to play the role of convert. I thought this guy had integrity, I’m really not so sure now. His whole position now seems contrived.

  29. Slabadang says:

    Deception!

    Hi!

    To map out who is who and why in the CAGWpropaganda circus. Who made Muller a “Voice” in the debate? Who appointed him as a speaker of “scpticism” in the kongressional hearings and put him on the stage and gave him a role? who is orcestrating this deceptive fars? Any leads?

    Are you awere that we are dealing with strategies controlled by experts on information/desinformation an exact copy of how the Sovjet orcestrated thier propaganda. many “defectors” where programmed to leave desinformation and make it believeble. Muller has played his part extremely clumsy, bit the set up is beutiful.. Pretend to be a sceptic, use the allready destroyed credability of M Mann as a collateral to gain confidence and trust to give teh CAGWalarmism a reptuational clean voice.
    So who made him sit in the kongressional hearing and who first introduced Muller as a “voice” in the debate. Today he has eggs floating all ower his face. Better performed it would have been a beutiful deception but the final made us all laugh. No more reaalstic than this filmclip.

    Muller in action:

  30. Peter in MD says:

    rk says:
    July 31, 2012 at 12:02 am
    “Why the fear of nuclear? I mean really, here you have a genius who’s afraid to talk about what to do 50 years from now? Clean fracking? Are you kidding? That’s the future? I guess the age of visionary physicists is over….so sad.”

    Paging Dr Sheldon Cooper….. Dr Cooper………

    Bazinga!!!

  31. Alan the Brit says:

    Pensionable age, book out, needs the money I guess! Consensus science? What’s that all about? They still keep carping back to consensus, that is the stuff of politics, NOT science! Apart from a couple of Greeks in the 4th century BC, they general scientific consensus was that the world was a flat disc, & that if you sailed too far in any direction you would fall off the edge to oblivion or be eaten by sea-monsters. The scientific consensus up until the 16th & 17th centuries, (endorsed with savage brutality by the IPCC of the time, the Holy Roman Catholic Church) was that the Earth was at the centre of the universe, & that the Sun, known planets, & stars revolved around it, & that sins could be forgicen for a Papal indulgence (slipping a few notes to the local priest in real terms). Then came the age of enlightenment via Copernicus & Gallileo in turn, the consensus changed. “Heavier than air flying machines are impossible!”………Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society (they know best, their members couldn’t see what all the fuss was about with this silly television machine of John Logie-Baird’s in the 1920s, who would want one, what is it for?) in 1895! The list is endless but they don’t want to see it, it hurts too much! :-)

  32. hro001 says:

    Latimer Alder says: July 31, 2012 at 2:17 am

    He does himself – nor his message – no favours by not spending just a few minutes sprucing himself up. Rightly or wrongly, people really do make up their mind on first impressions. And his is not good.

    Quite so. Perhaps he still fancies himself as, well, a Delinquent Teenager (who aspires to be the world’s top climate expert ;-) ) … His personal website is also quite a garish sight to behold – as I found when I was researching Will the real Richard Muller please stand up last October.

  33. Shevva says:

    Funny how these Meeedddiiiaaa types never reverse the caption – ‘Former CAGW\Climate change\climate disruption believer’?

  34. commieBob says:

    There is currently a story up at http://slashdot.org about Anthony’s paper. There is a lot of ad hominem. A bunch of us should go over there and straighten them up. We only have about an hour before the story becomes stale.

  35. John Doe says:

    Richard Muller with full head of dark hair in 2008 before he crossed Anthony Watts.

    http://probaway.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/physics-for-future-presidents-by-richard-muller-review/

    Richard Muller four years later after he crossed Anthony Watts.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/30/richard-muller-get-rid-of-coal-power-to-halt-global-warming/

    Moral of the story: HOLY RAPID AGING BATMAN! DO NOT CROSS ANTHONY WATTS!

  36. John Doe says:

    P.S. to mods

    18 hours ago you told me don’t get personal when I gave Steve Mosher a very very mild spank

    now it’s a free-for-all no-holds-barred tag team mud wrestling contest on Muller

    I REALLY need that list enumerating who’s fair game and who isn’t

    [REPLY: Muller, Hansen, Mann, Gore, Gleick, Weepy Bill McKibben & Jones are always in season as long as it is not threatening, defamatory or obscene. The earlier point was to focus on the content of Anthony's paper and not score points with other commenters. Besides, Mosh is like everyones eccentric, black-sheep uncle: still part of the family. -REP]

  37. Ian Cooper says:

    Stephanie Clague (July 31st at 12.10 a.m.)

    very succinct! I wish that I could put it like that at will.

    The still pic at the top of this post reminds me of a possum in the headlights, or another saying that is used here in New Zealand and elsewhere, “He looks like a stunned mullet!”

    The question is, are these people now in a state of denial that they have been doing the wrong thing for so long? Their ivory tower is steadily loosing its foundations, which weren’t made of the ‘right stuff’ in the first place. I predict that there will only be one ‘catastrophic’ outcome amongst all of this in the end, and it will be their demise. Catastrophic for them that is.

    Actually the picture of Dr Muller at the top reminds me of two photos shown here on WUWT several years ago of Dr Keith Briffa. The first when he was a young, bright-eyed, shiny looking scientist eager to get amongst the natural world with all of his skills. In the second Dr Briffa shows serious signs of wear and tear, like the game is no longer fun anymore. Some of his more ardent cohorts are changing the rules on him. He doesn’t look like he really wants to be a part of it, but he has to stay in it for the long haul even though it isn’t what he signed up for. A real conscience will do that to you.

    I’m not to sure about Dr Muller though. By the time that he realises that it is the freight train of public concern heading in his direction, it may be too late to get out of its way! For Dr Muller it could be Jim Hansen’s ‘Death Train’ personified.

    This is all metaphorical BTW!

    Cheers
    Coops

  38. philjourdan says:

    Notice the caption. Not Skeptic. That is MSNBC for you.

  39. Chuck L says:

    Watching anything on MSNBC (other than the Olympics) makes me throw up in my mouth and want to stick sharp objects in my eyeballs.

  40. HK says:

    5:15 minutes in “…I’m hoping we can settle the science…”

  41. RB says:

    Its a real shame that we have to have this circus.

    Steve Mc knows Muller and thinks he’s a good egg. Thats enough for me.

    It’s a shame the way it has been spun, some will say by Muller himself. He is painted as a former CC denier, a skeptic. In reality what Muller has always been is a scientist – sceptical as a default position. I say nothing about his recent “conversion”, but do note his comments on the hockey stick work. (No doubt Mann has been waiting ages to put the boot in).

    It is true that BEST might need a rejig after Watts’ paper, but isn’t that how science works?

    In my opinion there is far too much here that is personal. What will we say if Muller comes out in the next few weeks and agrees with Watts and says time to go back to the drawing board and have another look? Will all of those who have insulted him apologise?

  42. HK says:

    Maddow asks him at the start if the intro had misrepresented him (he said no) but then the MSNBC caption rather amusingly labelled him as “RICHARD MULLER, FMR. CLIMATE-CHANGE DENIER” (e.g. at 6 minutes) which presumably he had no idea about as he was being interviewed.

    Muller may not even realise it now, as his title kept switching between his Berkeley/BEST description.

  43. Code monkey wrench says:

    Once you’ve made an appearance as a friendly guest on Maddow (or any other MSNBC show for that matter), whatever credibility you may have once had, is completely shot. The woman is mendacious slime.

  44. Mervyn says:

    And why didn’t the program get a response from a realist scientist? For example, a response geologist and palaeontologist Dr. Sebatstion Luning would have been interesting. Or how about a response from Dr Henrik Svensmark… that would have been even more amazing?

    I keep wondering why Muller is now pushing the global warming doctrine.

    They say the answer can often be found by simply “following the money”. So what’s going to be revealed next!!!!!

  45. David A. Evans says:

    I got the impression that the Koch brothers were right up there peddling this fantasy.
    Why do they accept being painted as the bad guys?

    DaveE.

  46. AnonyMoose says:

    Well done, following up the intentionally funny video with an unintentionally funny one.

  47. _Jim says:

    Sam the First says July 31, 2012 at 1:53 am

    Sadly the fact this man is getting MSM coverage, …

    Fortunately, MSNBC is not mainstream and the appearances of articles/opinion pieces in the NYT is dooming that rag; one only need look at the ‘profit and loss’ statement of the NYT over the years to objectively “observe the decline” …

    .

  48. kim says:

    There are some people whose daughter’s papers I will no longer read.
    ===============

  49. more soylent green! says:

    Here Muller says there’s a difference between being a scientific skeptic and a climate skeptic, and he makes it clear he was never a climate skeptic.

    “It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic — only a scientific skeptic,” he said in a recent email exchange with The Huffington Post. “Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller ‘Physics for Future Presidents’ I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=1072419

    Has he walked this back, or are we just rewriting the past again to suit the present.

  50. DR says:

    @Paul Bell

    You’ll get it……..http://mullerandassociates.com/

  51. Max Hugoson says:

    I would highly recomment “Dr.” (doesn’t deserve that title…sorry, intellectualy dishonest people should have their doctorates removed…) read a REAL Doctorate’s last book, i.e. Richard Feynmann. “Get your comb out Dick”…!!! (Tends to make him look foolish and a out of control.)

    Max

  52. klem says:

    I’m astonished, Muller says other countries must switch to natural gas and says fracking can be done safely. Wow, I thought he was a rabid greenie, no rabid greenie would EVER say fracking can be done safely. I expect he’ll be dragged over the greenie coals for saying anything positive about fossil fuels or fracking. He’s walking the center line.

  53. Andy Smith says:

    It is curious that when so many principals of the AGW movement open their mouths, I sense that I’m in the presence of chldren.Their reasoning is childlike as are their emotional responses.

    Could it be that having basically been at school continuously since the age of five, and in a protected environment insulated from the real world, some academics enter a neotenic state like human axolotls and never mature into adults? It would certainly explain the words and deeds of the likes of Mann, Hanson, Gleick, that idiot in the Superman costume, and now it seems Richard Muller.
    It would actually be quite touching if it were not for the enormous harm that these geriatric brats are doing to the rest of mankind.

  54. Andy Smith says:

    Mods could you fix typo in line 2 chldren please.
    thanks, Andy

  55. Forbes has a different take on AGW and the scientists who have shifted from believing CO2 is the problem to theory that suggests it is not the problem. One person shifted in favor and others went the other way so the argument continues. I personally think pollution in general contributes to the green house effect and over time the planet deals with the effects of pollution just as it did during the medieval period when temperatures were warmer than they are now due to volcanoes.

    Did we make a mistake closing the Ozone Hole near the South Pole? Most likely. Why, the hole served as a chimney that allowed pollution to escape while bringing in icy cold air from outer space. Fear mongering Enviro-Facsists whined that the hole would let all the oxygen out, they were wrong. Think about like this, the icy cold air chills the trade winds that flow from the south pole to the north that aid the planet in cooling. So its time to talk about opening the hole instead of plugging the damn hole.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

  56. Hu McCulloch says:

    This is more of a “return to the fold of a briefly strayed sheep” than a “conversion of an unbeliever.” I wonder if has he also “converted” on his recent indignation over the hiding of the decline in the Briffa MXD data since 1960?

    The correlation with CO2 is a classical econometric “simultaneous equations” problem: CO2 causes warming, but at the same time warming causes more CO2 through outgassing from the oceans, so that it is not clear whether the correlation is telling us one or the other or some combination of the two.

    The solution must lie in the inclusion of “exogenous” variables such as solar activity and human CO2 emissions in order to identify the two equations. I’ve been playing with this, but don’t have anything to report yet, since the dynamics of CO2 uptake by the environment complicate the simple IV/2SLS model. It’s also not clear how best to measure “solar”.

  57. Bill says:

    He did not mention nuclear because it costs more than natural gas, has more long term problems than natural gas, and he is talking about things that can be afforded globally. Do we want to have to worry about 47 or 186 countries with reactors and if someone is going to divert the fuel and try to cause problems with it?

    I am for nuclear in general but lately I have seen that it is expensive and unlikely to go down due to govt. regulation as well as being inherently expensive (and scary to a lot of folks which makes it hard politically).

  58. eqibno says:

    For every treason,
    spin, spin, spin,
    there is a reason,
    spin, spin, spin
    a time for every promise to be broken.
    A time to tell lies
    a time he denies.
    A time to reflect
    his reason’s suspect.
    A time to show your work and code and calculations.

    (With apologies to the Byrds.)

  59. OssQss says:

    I wonder what was on her mind when she stumbled at the 5:11 point. LOL!

    I find it interesting that Fracking is his solution for developing countries. Really?

    That whole interview just didn’t seem right.

  60. pyromancer76 says:

    Anthony has bested BEST and its wild-eyed pretender to the scientific method. For that I am very, very grateful and respectful. I also imagine that Anthony was delighted beyond measure that the pretender could not tout “data accurate” or “thermometer siting okey-dokey”. Kind of leaves him with his pants down.

    Unfortunately, watching anything on MSMBC (or CNN or ABC or CBS) is torture. We need new institutions, free-market corporations in the media business. Let these nonsense-sellers die from their own verbal pollution. If people had a choice (Fox is not good eough by far, but at least Anthony’s new study is mentioned), we would not find intelligent bloggers with integrity criticizing by “quoting” the crony corporate media’s purposeful, political errors. Such a big dose of RM is almost beyond the pale.

    (Anthony, no criticism meant here; your delight is well deserved. Instead I am trying to cheerlead for new media. The old cannot be reformed; the free market’s creative destruction is called for, as it was, and still is, with General Motors.)

  61. Dave L. says:

    Muller is the equivalent of a “false flag”.

  62. ggm says:

    This is the new tactic from the propagandists – take people who are avid AGW believers but once made a comment correcting a falsehood, and claim that they are “former deniers” who have seen the light of day.
    This sort of propaganda is straight out of Stalin’s or Goebbels’ play book.

  63. Downdraft says:

    The evidence is that Muller was never a skeptic, more of a waffle I think.
    To those not familiar with MSNBC, you might have noticed their motto, Lean Forward. The Obama campaign motto is Forward. No coincidence. MSNBC is simply a mouthpiece for the most liberal of the liberals in the US, and Maddow leans the most. She makes my head explode.

  64. Resourceguy says:

    Follow the money stupid!

  65. philjourdan says:

    INteresting to note. Fox carried the story (it wrote about both Anthony’s and Muller’s) and the dateline is yesterday. Nothing on CNN (I do not check MSNBC).

  66. Bill Illis says:

    Why does Muller’s data start in 1753?

    Why not 1750 which has just as much data and was about 0.0C?

    Why not 1730 which was perhaps +1.0C.

    Because 1753 was a nice low point to start with.

    Berkeley 2012 versus HadCET going back to 1659.

    http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/2005/berkeley12vshadcet12mon.png

    Why not start in 1773? Of course because it looks like this.

    http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/502/berkeley20121773.png

  67. TomT says:

    Against my better judgment I attempted to watch this. But I just could not bring myself to sit through even the first minute of listen Rachel Madcow.

  68. @Taphonomic: I’m still waiting for Muller to explain, in his current media blitz, why his papers haven’t been peer reviewed.

    Oh, but they HAVE been peer reviewed. Repeatedly. The papers just have not PASSED peer review.

  69. I watched the opening few minutes comments of Rachel Maddow, and felt nauseated, so I tuned out before Muller appeared. She had fallen into the Ad Vericundiam trap of logical fallacies; appeal to authority. Muller is qualified in some area of Physics, but knows squat about climate which is a large subject with too many unknowns and manipulations even at this time. It reminds me of Linus Pauling and his statements on vitamin C and the common cold. He should have stuck to the Hydrogen bond.

  70. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    I was a skeptic, then a believer, then a skeptic, then a believer, then a skeptic, then a believer.Now I’m not sure. I believe I am a skeptic, or am I skeptical I am a believer?

  71. ferdberple says:

    Stephanie Clague says:
    July 31, 2012 at 12:10 am
    History tells us that those forces that try to pervert science to serve political ends always fail, it is the damage they do in the attempt that defines their ultimate failure.
    ==============
    You need look no further than EU and US unemployment rates and debt levels. Neither is sustainable and will over time lead to economic collapse of these empires, if history is any guide.

    Each and every one of us owes our prosperity to an army of mechanical slaves, kept alive on a diet of coal, oil and gas. In the industrialized nations, the labor provided by these slaves is on the order of that provided by 200 human slaves in pre-industrial times.

    These mechanical slaves are remarkably efficient. The CO2 these machines produce is only 1/4 the amount of CO2 the equivalent number of human slaves would produce. If we tried to replace these machines by human slaves, we could not grow enough food on the surface of the earth to feed them.

    If we tried to replace the diet of coal, oil and gas these machines consume with the equivalent amount of energy from plant material, these machines would soon consume all plant life on the planet.

    We live in cities of millions of people, made possible by these mechanical slaves. They grow vast quantities of food, mine huge amounts of raw materials, manufacture vast quantities of manufactured goods. They transport these to our cites, so that we may live.

    Disrupt this process and most of us that live in cities would within a matter of a few short months would be facing starvation and death. As was clearly demonstrated in the last century in the USSR and Cambodia.

    At the heart of the CO2 scare is the notion that the earth has too many people. That if we were to get rid of most of them, things would be a lot better for those that remained. The earth’s resources would be much more sustainable (last longer) with less people consuming them.

    All that is required to make this happen is to enact the same policies that worked so well to remove “surplus” people in the past. Simply remove their access to the 200 slaves that work each day to keep them alive, and nature will quickly take care of the rest.

  72. mkelly says:

    William Jameson (@Juggernauzt) says:
    July 31, 2012 at 6:37 am
    Did we make a mistake closing the Ozone Hole near the South Pole? Most likely. Why, the hole served as a chimney that allowed pollution to escape while bringing in icy cold air from outer space.

    Seriously, “icy cold air from outer space”? How much air is there in outer space?

  73. DR says:

    @Bill Illis
    I enjoy your posts and graphs, but could you change the background to a lighter color?

  74. pat says:

    Madow and Mueller.Two crackpots. Both delusional hysterics.

  75. Sam Glasser says:

    Your interview on “Red-Eye” radio last night reached a sympathetic audience. R-E is becoming the nightly “show of choice”, judging by the number of stations which have switched to it. Great idea!
    Especially, the concept of temperature increase proportional to the logarithm of CO2 concentration and hence, diminishing returns.

  76. Stephanie Clague says:

    ferdberple says:
    July 31, 2012 at 8:24 am

    Exactly! If there is one thing above all else that defines our civilisation it is fossil fuels, it has taken out of the dark ages and presented us with the modern world which we take for granted. Everything we rely on, all the luxuries that our ancestors could only dream of have been provided by fossil fuels. From the fridge that keeps our food from rotting to the scanners that save our lives to transport systems that have opened up the world to us all. We should be thanking the Gods for the wonderful gift of fossil fuels, without this gift imagine where we would be.

  77. Duster says:

    William Jameson (@Juggernauzt) says:
    July 31, 2012 at 6:37 am

    …icey cold air from outer space,..

    You forgot your /sarc tag – I hope.

  78. Fred says:

    Wow . . hard to imagine someone can plumb deeper depths of ridiculousness than Mikey Mann, but Mueller is certainly trying hard here to best him here.

  79. David Ging says:

    I’m struck by two things when I look at Muller’s graphs of CO2/volcanic activity and temps. To me it doesn’t look like a very good fit from 1750 to 1940 or so. Does he provide any statistical evidence that his model is a good fit with the data over that period? Two, in 1940, by looking at the data, would his model have predicted temps would increase 1.5 degrees if CO2 had increased by as much as it did? Or did the strong correlation just show up over the last 50 years or so and he is predicted that this correlation will continue into the future? If his model wouldn’t have predicted that rise in temp for the given rise in CO2 what good is the model and why does anyone care about it.

  80. Sean says:

    OK I sat through the nauseating three minute long fallacious appeal to authority introduction by Maddow, only to hear that swivel eyed buffoon launch into his fantastic and unsubstantiated claim that man is now proven to be causing catastrophic climate change. It is enough to make any real scientist ill just to listen to this tripe. I had to give up before the end. Reading his half-baked and debunked papers is enough. It is too much have to also be tortured by listening to the uncritical press and this disciple of Lysenko having a love-in.

  81. Sean says:

    Nice article in fox news, but Fox new has just about no international credebility.CNN is here it needs to be. In the interview and the article, no graph of CO2 and temp. Where the beef?

  82. kramer says:

    I’d like to see Anthony on MSNBC…

  83. Brian D says:

    Maybe the Koch brothers will fund your upcoming look at TOBS adjustments. The other post was going hog wild with posts, so I wait till now to congratulate you on your paper, and the hard work you and others put into it.

  84. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Who is that woman? She must be a caricature? Surely? For her sake…

  85. Dave Worley says:

    I’m all for keeping coal in the ground as insurance, in case all else fails.
    We do have plenty of natural gas, and it can be converted to liquid fuels such as gasoline and diesel.
    I think this fellow is being reasonable, not asking for a shut down of society.
    It was a pleasure seeing Maddow cringe when he mentioned clean fracking. Looked like a vampire at sunrise.

  86. stacyglen says:

    Sorry Sean starting “OK”.from Sean starting “Nice” – the bad speller Did not see there was already a Sean. I was not trying to pass myself off as you.

  87. Dieter says:

    Sorry, couldn’t watch it. Not because of Muller, but because of Rachel Maddow. Half the piece was her blowhard diatribe propaganda rant that is just a waste of time.

  88. Theo Goodwin says:

    Andy Smith says:
    July 31, 2012 at 6:35 am

    As far back as the late Sixties, it was understood that the last year of adolescence for academics is 39.

  89. giov says:

    Ill repeat my FB post here and then go back and enjoy the comments:
    “Watched Maddow and Muller. Again he speaks of a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and that they could not find any other explanation, which means it must be humanity. This is the only argument I have every heard. It implies that ‘science’ has fathomed and understood our planet and solar system and so ruled out every other mechanism! It’s called the principle of exclusion, and it’s bogus. Thank you Anthony.”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/08/alarmist-climate-science-and-the-principle-of-exclusion/

  90. This guy certainly has a haunted look in his eyes. Perhaps the Koch Brothers want their money back !

  91. Crito says:

    Clearly this poor man was tortured by the Inquisition and forced to confess his heresy publicly. Now that his confession is public and his views are no longer heterodox he can be accepted back as a full member of the church and thus avoid the damnation of his eternal soul.

  92. Poptech says:

    It is clear the MSM is trying to spin him as a converted skeptic which is the biggest lie being perpetrated by him and the media. Muller has never been a skeptic,

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html

    “I was never a skeptic” – Richard Muller, 2011

    “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

  93. Brodirt says:

    Ironic that Ms. Muller, a executive director of BEST and the Dr.’s daughter and publicity agent, holds a degree in literature?

  94. Militant Catholic says:

    Rachel Maddow is still around?

  95. Bill Illis says:

    DR says:
    July 31, 2012 at 9:27 am
    @Bill Illis
    I enjoy your posts and graphs, but could you change the background to a lighter color?

    ——————————

    Something has been screwing up with imageshack lately so I’m trying a new image hoster. In addition to not screwing up the chart and having high resolution, I want it to preserve the file name because I do alot of charts and most image hosters just give you some code which doesn’t tell you what the file is or have crappy resolution.

    So, try these and let me know if they don’t work.

    http://s15.postimage.org/gisxup2c9/Berkeley12_vs_Had_CET_12_mon.png

    http://s16.postimage.org/xpei9ayit/Berkeley2012_1773.png

  96. The media gets it wrong a lot. And I’m beginning to think it’s intentional. They have a political left bent and aren’t making effort to change it. Truth is collateral damage in the world of politics and power.

    So what did they get wrong this time? Just a little investigative work would have turned this up:

    October 8, 2008 Grist Q & A with Richard A. Muller wherein is conclusive proof Richard A. Muller NEVER was a “denier” of “manmade” global warming:

    (Q: ) Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?

    (A:) Oh yes. [Laughs.] In fact, back in the early ’80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.

    Link to Q & A Grist interview:

    http://grist.org/article/lets-get-physical/

  97. Gene Selkov says:

    Why would anybody bother discussing how Richard Muller looks? Everybody at his university looks that way, and so they do here at Cambridge. Who cares? It does not mean anything. We don’t want to be seen barking up the wrong tree.

    I would even give him the benefit of the doubt and presume he did what he did and said what he said without regard for political pressure.

    The real problem is that what he did was moronic, to say the least. I can’t believe he could base any arguments on curve-fitting, which is a fine tool for making a guess, but it does not replace physics. Even worse, he challenges us to come up with a better-fitting theory. As if he is not aware of over-fitting. I can’t believe he is not. I think he forfeits his physics degree if he sincerely believes this is a way to discover things about nature.

    A classical example of over-fitting is tide prediction, which is another thing not based on physics. Instead, it is achieved by massive curve-fitting, and only works for making short-range predictions. If you go to the Admiralty’s web site, they will predict the next few days’ worth of tide at any location equipped with a tide gauge with admirable precision. But don’t ask them about two weeks ahead (they claim to be able to do that for a fee, but I haven’t heard any success stories) or for any place not having a tide gauge. Ostensibly, ocean tides have much simpler causes than climate, so it should be easy enough to calculate them for centuries ahead, as we can do with planet trajectories. But that’s not how they do it. They simply ignore the causes of the tide and fit historic observations at each location with a humongous Fourier series including more than 100 harmonics. No wonder it falls apart. None of those harmonics makes any sense, despite their physically-sounding names like “lunisolar synodic fortnightly”.

    The point is, if you guessed a theory form curve-fitting and then used the scientific method to prove it, you are my hero. I won’t care how you look or what other people say about your eyes or hair. But if your theory is nothing but the curve, get lost.

  98. Ulric Lyons says:

    cd says:
    July 31, 2012 at 3:05 am
    “His whole position now seems contrived.”

    This seems to be a recurring theme..

  99. Al Adrian says:

    This is what you must do to convince me. Develop an alternative theory of climate without a carbon cycle. This theory must explain what climate scientists now know: 1) nightime temps are increasing more rapidly than daytime temps. 2) winter time temps are increasing more rapidly than summer temps. 3) summers come about a week early and winters start a week later. 4) absolute humidity is correlated with CO2 concentrations. 5) high altitude clouds are forming more rapidly than in past. 6) troposphere is heating and expanding while stratosphere is cooling. 7) increasing frequency of extreme weather events 8) fast retreat of almost all alpine glaciers 9) increasing rate of mass loss from Greenland 10) increasing rate of sea level rise 11) satellite IR data shows over time that IR reflectivity as measured from the ground has increased. 12) pH of oceans has decrease. 13) melting of permafrost. NOW, can you explain all these facts without anthropogenic CO2 of approximately 32 thousand million tons annually? Also, can you develop a computer program which duplicates past global temps without use of anthropogenic CO2?

  100. Smokey says:

    Al Adrian,

    You will never be convinced. But to provide a response:

    1) That comment is a quote of Prof Freeman Dyson, a skeptic of CAGW.

    2) Ibid

    3) Natural variability; it has repeatedly happened before. See the Null Hypothesis.

    4) Relative humidity has been declining since WWII.

    5) Not a cloud expert, so I’ll give you that one. What does it have to do with CO2?

    6) The widely predicted tropospheric hot spot, the “fingerprint of global warming”, never materialized. The prediction failed.

    7) Extreme weather events are decreasing.

    8) Glaciers have been naturally receding since the Little Ice Age.

    9) Antarctic ice – 90% of global ice – is increasing.

    10) Sea level rise is decelerating.

    11) Satellite data shows that despite rising CO2, temperatures have been flat to declining for the past 15 years.

    12) Ocean pH has not measurably changed. Do a keyword search for “acidification”. Learn.

    13) Cherry-picking some areas of Arctic permafrost ignores #9. The Arctic has less than one-tenth the ice of the Antarctic.

    You are reading the wrong blogs. Your examples reek of confirmation bias. Read this site for a few months, and the scales might fall from your eyes.

    The Null Hypothesis remains unfalsified. Despite a 40% rise in CO2, temperatures have not accelerated. Conclusion: CO2 has too tiny of an effect to be measured. Thus, AGW is a false alarm.

    Finally, it is not the job of skeptics to ‘develop an alternative’ climate hypothesis [AGW is far from being a 'Theory'. It is not even a testable hypothesis]. The job of skeptics is to destroy any proposed hypothesis or conjecture if they can. And scientific skeptics have done an excellent job of deconstructing the CO2=AGW conjecture. Time for the alarmist crowd to reset, and start over – beginning with the realization that Occam’s Razor applies, and that adding the extraneous variable of a tiny trace gas is an unnecessary, confusing distraction or worse.

  101. “He didn’t list station quality as one of the things he ruled out.” Perhaps not in the TV interview, but BEST certainly has looked at station quality, in part to address concerns raised by Anthony Watts (who is mentioned in several places). See:
    http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/station-quality-may-20.pdf
    Final words of the conclusion: “we do not observe a significant bias in average temperature trends arising from station quality in the contiguous United States.”

  102. Man Bearpig says:

    Someone kindly pointed out the following quotes made by Muller

    “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
    Not really the stuff of a bone-fide a former Climate Denier is it ?
    Is he a denier? is he not a denier … I think I may need a daisy to work this out I think he might too.

  103. Karl Koehler says:

    Ah, so that’s Richard Muller. I thought the name sounded familiar. As it happens, I just read his book. Not the guy I had pictured. He didn’t come across to me in the book as a skeptic at all even though he was willing to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims associated with global warming. He offered what I read to be his full throated support for the work of the IPCC and seemed to draw on his experience of once having seen permafrost melting in Alaska to validate his views on a personal level. Realist? Maybe. Skeptic? Hardly.

  104. M Simon says:

    To those not familiar with MSNBC, you might have noticed their motto, Lean Forward.

    Isn’t that another way of saying “Bend Over” ?

  105. For those attributing quotes to Muller… it is likely that there is a lot of copy-paste and wishful thinking going on. Always find the original source and read it. If the quote has been changed, or invented (which is surprisingly often), then you have to ask yourself why the words were changed.

    So… /source/ the Muller quotes.

    As to him be a “scientific” or “climate” skeptic. That’s easy. You can find video footage of him trashing Mann et al., and the IPCC. He changed his mind, and then, apparently, changed it again when he discovered new information. Information which he derived himself.

    If only the posters of WUWT knew and understood what the cognitive bubble was. Maybe we could get on with solving the worlds problems. What I mean, and what you think I mean, are almost certainly disjoint sets. Hence, you first gotta understand the cognitive bubble – an intrinsic part of the human condition.

  106. Correlation is not necessarily causation.

    :

  107. Richard and Elizabeth Muller, in their home: http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/14/34/00/3260476/3/628×471.jpg

    [REPLY: What was this supposed to convey and how does it relate to the thread topic? I actually rather like the photo. -REP]

  108. It is an interesting picture and I did wonder what it was intended to convey.
    It seems to be one of a series done in Prof. Muller’s home to promote something around his conversion I think, of which this is another:-
    http://cagw.mythicalunderworld.com/wp-content/plugins/rss-poster/cache/9bc85_AP111028037724.jpg
    Anyway, in the context of correlation vs. causation, which seems central to determining the culpability of CO2 in the warming debate, I did wonder whether the inclusion and positioning of the gorilla in the well taken shot was deliberate and intended to say something about evolution perhaps.
    (apologies for the split comment, as I tried including it in the earlier ‘correlation’ one using HTML tags, which failed to work)

  109. Skiphil says:

    2 major Australian dailies get cold feet about the Muller “skeptic conversion” narrative, or what is the explanation for these stories disappearing:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/major-australian-dailies-disappear-the-muller-conversion-article-opps-404-error/

  110. Ron Henzel says:

    I’ll tell you what’s really interesting to me: to folks like Rachel Maddow, “Climate-Change Deniers” are people of dubious mental stability and even (perhaps especially) ethical integrity. As a category, Maddow and others laughingly dismiss “Climate-Change Deniers” they way some people make fun of senior citizens with dementia who also occasionally shoplift in the pet toy section at WalMart.

    But “Former Climate-Change Deniers,” on the other hand—well, to the Maddow crowd these are a unique breed of intellectually-gifted individuals with the hardy moral fiber required to stare down their former fellow partisans and save the planet.

    In Muller’s case, this raises an interesting question: how do Maddow and her ilk explain how one goes from the equivalent of a village idiot to joining the ranks of Newton, Einstein, and Hawking in (ahem—supposedly!) one short year?

Comments are closed.