Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Professor Muller of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project is always interesting, but he just keeps digging his personal hole deeper. He recently gave an interview titled “Scientists Often Pigeonholed By Political Debates” and answered questions on NPR. To his credit, he is standing up straight and tall for science, for full transparency, for the scientific method. I like that. He is also one of the few mainstream scientists who has publicly said that Climategate showed horrible behavior and scientific malfeasance, and he repeated that on NPR:
CONAN: And that’s, you would say, would be at the heart of the so-called Climategate story, where emails from some scientists seemed to be working to prevent the work of other scientists from appearing in peer-reviewed journals.
Prof. MULLER: That really shook me up when I learned about that. I think that Climategate is a very unfortunate thing that happened, that the scientists who were involved in that, from what I’ve read, didn’t trust the public, didn’t even trust the scientific public. They were not showing the discordant data. That’s something that – as a scientist I was trained you always have to show the negative data, the data that disagrees with you, and then make the case that your case is stronger. And they were hiding the data, and a whole discussion of suppressing publications, I thought, was really unfortunate. It was not at a high point for science.
And I really get even more upset when some other people say, Oh, science is just a human activity. This is the way it happens. You have to recognize, these are people. No, no, no, no. These are not scientific standards. You don’t hide the data. You don’t play with the peer review system.
I wholeheartedly agree. I only fear that Muller doesn’t realize the full extent of the problem. I’m afraid he hasn’t noticed how that whole “we’re on a noble mission to save the world from itself” mentality has deeply infiltrated and corrupted an entire field of scientific inquiry.
I also found his comments on “pigeonholing” quite revealing. In the interview he divides people into “deniers”, “skeptics”, and “exaggerators”, and discusses what he sees as the characteristic claims of his neatly pigeonholed groups … and then he claims he doesn’t like pigeonholing?
Here’s a pro-tip, Dr. Muller.
A man who dislikes pigeonholing doesn’t use the term “denier”. It makes people doubt both your sincerity and your goodwill. You’ve been told many times that I and many other people out here find that term insulting. You continue to use it. Is that stupidity, or do you just not care that you are insulting people, or are you insisting that you have the right to insult people? Whichever way … it’s not good.
Next, he wants to play both sides of the street, viz:
CONAN: How much of that [warming] is attributable to humans? But do you agree that at least – does the data show that at least some part of it is attributable to humans?
Prof. MULLER: Yes, yes. It’s us. People call me a skeptic, because I drew attention to many of the exaggerations that in – is in former Vice President Al Gore’s movie. But I think a scientist has to recognize when there are exaggerations and settle down on what is solidly known.
OK. That’s clear. Regarding the warming, “It’s us.” He’s not a skeptic, he says he’s talking about what is “solidly known”. However, he continues …
Temperature has been rising over the last 100 years. That’s pretty clear. How much is due to varying solar activity and how much due to humans is a scientific issue that we’re trying to address.
Huh? How can he say “It’s us” so confidently, how can it be “solidly known” as he claims, if it is still “a scientific issue that we’re trying to address.” ?? Make up your mind, Dr. Muller, because clearly the Olympic back flip-flop isn’t your best event …
I did greatly enjoy Dr. Muller’s indirect takedown of Jerome Ravetz, however, viz:
CONAN: Well, given the analysis that you reached, aren’t there urgent policy decisions that need to be made?
Prof. MULLER: Oh, that’s the irony. The policy decisions are so urgent that people tend to abandon the scientific method. It’s ironic that when something’s important, they sometimes feel they have to not be so candid and unbiased because it’s urgent. I think just the opposite. When things are urgent, that’s the time the scientist has to settle down and show – do things using the unbiased methods that they’ve been taught.
Thank you, Professor Muller. Jerome Ravetz keeps pushing “Post-Normal Science”, the idea that when the stakes are high and decisions are urgent, we should change the way we do science. I agree with Muller that when things are urgent is the time when we need the full rigor of the tried-and-true scientific method even more than ever.
Next, Muller says:
CONAN: Urgency, though, is the critical word here, is it not?
Prof. MULLER: Well, I think one of the things we’re trying to do at Berkeley Earth is determine how urgent it is. The global warming attributed by the IPCC, the big U.N. Council that makes this consensus report, attributes about half a degree, half a degree Celsius of warming to humans. But is it .4? Is it .3? If so, we have a lot more time. Is it .6 or.7? If so, we’re in a big rush.
I find this curious. Does anyone know where he gets that “half a degree” of anthropogenic warming from the IPCC report? (And I love his description of the IPCC report as a “consensus report”, he must not have twigged that “consensus” is what you get when you squash all opposition. But I digress.)
In any case, I don’t see how his work with BEST relates to any urgency. Does he really believe that BEST finding a difference of 0.1°C or 0.2°C in the observational record will suddenly make the situation “urgent”? As he points out, the issue is not whether the world is warming, it is whether humans are the cause. His work will not elucidate that question in the slightest.
Finally, I emphatically did not like his dig at Anthony Watts.
CONAN: You mentioned Anthony Watts. He runs a website for climate deniers, said he was prepared to accept whatever result your group produced, even if it proves my premise wrong. After your testimony, he said the hearing was post-normal science political theater.
Prof. MULLER: Well, I think Anthony can be forgiven for his ups and downs. I think he has done a great job, a real contribution, and I think his work has proved really essential.
Professor Muller thinks he is entitled to advise us to forgive Anthony for his “ups and downs” because of the great weight of Anthony’s contribution to science? Man, the good Doc’s sense of entitlement knows no bounds, it’s been far too long in the ivory tower for that boy. Having transgressed badly himself, he now wants to lecture us on proper behavior as though we were his college students?
Now, that comes close to undoing all the good Prof. Muller did above with his defense of honest science. Here’s my take-home message for Professor Muller:
Professor Muller, there’s a lot of folks like me out here who are deciding whether or not to forgive you for your un-necessary public attack on Anthony, using data he had given you in confidence. Your arrogant and patronizing attitude in this interview merely helps us make up our minds whether you are worth forgiving or not.
My vote is still yes, Dr. Muller, we should forgive you. But that’s based on your profound but probably curable naiveté about climate science and your general likability, and not based on your contrition or probity, because you seem woefully short on both of the latter. The good news is that at least you stand revealed. From here out any man who tells you anything in confidence is a fool. You have shown us that you won’t shirk to first publicly betray the man’s confidence, and then to top it off you’ll advise us to forgive the man for being so crude as to get upset at your betrayal …
Again, let me say that none of this says anything about whether the BEST results will be good, bad, or meaningless. That is a totally separate question, about which to date we know far too little to comment.
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Venter says:
April 14, 2011 at 3:32 am
Paul…You should read the testimony, read Willis’ comments and get the whole picture.
Thanks for the advice. I watched the whole testimony & listened to the whole radio broadcast & read must of the criticism for & against.
The criticism are Much Ado About Nothing, many of the fears expressed in this blog thread are prejudging something that has not yet happened. What has not happened? BEST haven’t finished their project or published any results!
As I say, I will be interested in the results & the criticisms of BEST ONCE they have published!
🙂
Paul
Paul says:
“I am waiting for the BEST project to actually publish results before drawing conclusions.”
Sorry, you didn’t get your wish. And that highlights a serious problem. Based on only 2% of the data, Muller draws his conclusions – and surprise, surprise, they’re right in line with the IPCC. Throwing out baseless numbers like .6 or .7 [out of a .4°C increase!] shows where he’s headed: “Choco rations have been increased to 25 grams per week, up from 30 grams per week.” [G. Orwell, 1984]
I notice Muller never discussed the very real possibility that AGW is insignificant, and that per the null hypothesis, there is no discernable difference at all between current global temperatures, trends or parameters, and the temperatures, trends and parameters over the past ten millennia. But then, pointing that out wouldn’t fit the narrantive. It’s pretty clear that BEST is looking for conclusions that support the IPCC, and ignoring other likely possibilities that contradict the “consensus.”
Muller is chomping at the bit to complete his assignment. His reward will be job security, and it will cement his reputation among the alarmist clique as someone who can be trusted. But despite his soothing words about the scientific method, where are BEST’s true scientific skeptics with unimpeachable credentials, such as Dr. Richard Lindzen? To be credible on this issue, BEST requires an equal number of CAGW skeptics. Where are they? There are certainly plenty available. And just as certainly, Muller is no scientific skeptic, as his premature conclusion – with 98% of the data missing – makes clear. He’s simply setting the stage.
And finally, Willis hit the nail on the head regarding Muller’s lack of ethics. Promising confidentiality, then disclosing the confidential information in the most public of places – on the Congrssional record – is indefensible. Deliberately breaking confidentiality seems to be a recurring pattern among climate alarmist scientists. But hey, it’s only Anthony Watts who was promised confidentiality. It’s OK to stick it to someone like him, right? He’s just a denier.
Muller is a part of the alarmist crowd; that’s how he makes his living. And that’s why he was chosen for BEST, by the people who are paying the piper. That, and the fact that Muller is a good chameleon who sounds like a scientific skeptic.
Niccolo Machiavelli wrote, “Men are bad unless compelled to be good.” Nothing in BEST requires that they will strictly adhere to the scientific method, so they won’t. Therefore, their conclusions are predictable.
I think alot of closet alarmists have self identified in these comments …
To all commentors (like me) who have contributed nothing to the science of this debate other that typing snarky comments at WUWT …. I would say this, when you do real serious work on your own dime and someone reneges on a promise about that work THEN and only then can you comment on Anthonys reaction … until then what you think about his reaction should remain in your own mind …
No Paul, you did not get it still. You haven’t understood or have deliberately skipped over Wills’ arguments about Muller using Anthony’s confidentially released information on station siting and making negative statements about that in front of Congress.
Willis’ comment and complaint about Muller was on that specific point, not on the 2% data of BEST. Got it?
“Muller is a part of the alarmist crowd; that’s how he makes his living. ” says Smokey.
Sure. He became part of the alarmist crowd only a couple of weeks ago when he discovered scientific integrity 🙂
Layne Blanchard says:
April 13, 2011 at 11:49 pm
“We’re on a mission from God”
Ha ha. I have a metalized poster of Jake and Elwood over my computer captioned:
They’ll never get caught. They’re on a mission from God.”
On the other hand, when Jake’s abandoned fiance catches up with him she delivers the classic line “You look fine down there slithering in the mud like vermin” and “You contemptible pig! I remained celibate for you. I stood at the back of a cathedral, waiting in celibacy for you, with 300 friends and relatives in attendance.”
One might very well imagine Muller as Jake and Watts as the abandoned fiance.
Just sayin… 🙂
How far back is BEST trying to go? If it only goes back to mid-20thC then that doesn’t even cover a complete PDO cycle. If it doesn’t cover at least a full PDO cycle then it is of very little use for helping to determine the drivers of temperature change (you can’t find a CO2 signal in the temperature data if you can’t identify and quantify major factors like the PDO).
If BEST is trying to go back a reasonable length of time, then it is going back to a time when data is thinner. I understand part of their strategy to be to try to fill in missing station data from neighbouring stations.
To give you an idea of the scale of the problem wrt Australia, equal in size to the “lower 48” and quite a significant proportion of the Southern Hemisphere land area:-
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) lists 174 “long record temperature sites”. These are defined as “more than 50y of data and 80% complete record”.
More than half of those 174 stations (98) are over 50 miles (~80.5km) from their nearest neighbour, 38 are over 100 miles, and, believe it or not, 4 are ~1,000 miles or more from their nearest neighbour. And we haven’t even started to look at factors like altitude.
But of the 174 stations, only 47 even cover the period 1940-2000, ie. approx one PDO cycle. Within those 47, only 10 are within 50 miles of their nearest neighbour, only 16 are within 100 miles, and 1 is over 1,000 miles. (Note: 13 of the 47 stations appear to have closed after 2000).
The idea that “neighbouring stations” can be used to fill in missing data – in Australia at least – is, to me, bordering on the absurd.
Willis,
As you know I recently proposed an alternative assessment of climate science to compete with upcoming AR5. One of the exclusion criteria to partaking in the alternative assessment is to have defended the indefensible (MBH98, Climategate, etc). On this score, Muller is one of the few warmists in the public’s eye who have not disqualified himself. Other warmists who agree with Muller include Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita and Judith Curry.
While your criticisms of Muller may be accurate, I think it is helpful to not be too critical because it will be easier to win them with science if the personal animosity is not too high.
I’ll agree with Willis 100%. I support Anthony in all he does here, and I agree that Dr. Muller betrayed Anthony’s confidence. Betraying a trust is about as bad as it gets. “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much.” Accordingly, not a good start to the BEST project.
Further, the noble-cause aspect of the alarmist cabal is the root problem, and it is far graver than any claim of the alarmists (or claims from other sides). The alarmists are fundamentalists. They have taken the leap of faith. They are in it to the bitter end. They are destroying all that science stands for. I can only hope that science survives. It may already be dead in the collective conscience of the masses, those who subconsciously and instinctively know they, too, have been betrayed.
PAUL,
I listened to Dr. Muller for ten hours on San Francisco KGO radio with Dr. Wattenburg.
I expected a reasonable discourse.
I have read this site for two years.
Dr. Muller leaves me very disappointed!
Exactly right. The label ‘denier’ attempts to paint the object with the vile penumbra of Holocaust denial. As such it is as objectionable as any ethnic slur. But the slur ‘denier’ is allowed, even encouraged, by the fanatical eco-zealots who have elevated the myth of catastrophic man-made ‘global warming’ to a badge of religious belief and far-left political orthodoxy. The ‘denier’ is therefore a heretic, someone to be shunned, ostracized, and vilified.
In a day not far distant, the punishments for heresy were the rack, and burning at the stake. More recently, in the Soviet Union, it was ‘re-education’ in forced labor camps. What do you think the militant Alarmists would like to visit upon the ‘Climate-Change Deniers’ today?
If Professor Muller wants to engage with individuals who are skeptical of the science behind CAGW, on terms of mutual respect and comity, he owes them an apology for using the term ‘denier’.
He also owes Anthony an apology for leaping to an unjustified conclusion about the significance of Surface Stations data, just to have something to say to a congressional committee. He should immediately submit an emendation to the committee’s record correcting his error.
/Mr Lynn
Willis: awesome work. I think those who think that you (and Anthony) are being too harsh on Muller, are missing several points. First, as you rightly emphasize, Muller betrayed a confidence. Second, he damaged Anthony’s own case (by apparently arguing to Congress that BEST’s findings, while “preliminary,” showed no meaningful effect on temperature from siting issues). So that when Surfacestations does publish in a few months, it will have to make its case against the prior expectation that Muller has worked to create. In military terms, that’s called a “spoiling attack;” pre-empt the adversary and, in this case, try to turn his own guns against him. Third, Muller didn’t need to go to Congress. At the best of times, Congress is a circus and its hearings are clown shows. Muller is a grown-up and must be charged with knowledge of this fact. He’s apparently also a scientist, and one who knows where his bread is buttered, so he certainly should have known how Congress would (mis)appropriate his testimony, how it would affect his career and his project. Bright lights, big city. My read of the Muller/BEST fiasco is that, at best, he’s dangerously naive and will hurt the cause of science by overselling and getting blindsided in this highly charged area; but, at worst (and for me the more likely interpretation), he is just playing this for all he can get. He burned Anthony, and put a lot of dust in the air. When it settles out, and the real work gets done and published, Muller will have a lot to answer for.
In the meantime, let’s do some science.
PS: agree on the distinction between “significant” and “urgent.” Note that the latter also implies a third, independent, criterion: “actionable.” Right now we don’t know enough about whether the planet is warming; whether any such warming is significant; whether there is anything we can do about it; whether what we might do is too expensive relative to the avoided costs (with huge error bars around the whole affair); whether what we might do, if effective and efficient, needs to be done yesterday or maybe started when our grandchildren get around to it. We just don’t know. And Muller isn’t helping much.
“We see that in every single instance of comparison, the Theory of the Greenhouse Effect appears to contradict what the Laws of Thermodynamics have to say about the exact same physical situation.”
“The conclusion of this article is very simple: there is no such thing as a radiative Theory of the Greenhouse Effect, not in real greenhouses, and certainly not in any planetary atmosphere known to man. The true role of the atmosphere, on Earth, is that it cools the ground, not warms it. Therefore, there is no such thing as Anthropogenic Global Warming or anthropogenic-CO2 induced climate change, because that supposition is based on the false Theory of the Greenhouse Effect. Any monetary expenditure or political debate on this issue can therefore stop. Now. Or, those can exist only in so far as they are directed to eradicate the false science.”
See “Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect” (Joseph E. Postma) (in Observatorio ARVAL) http://www.oarval.org/ThermoAtmos.htm
Willis, thanks for keeping a summary of the back-and-forth of Muller-Watts-CongressCritters-NPR before us. However, I do not agree with your conclusion: “My vote is still yes, Dr. Muller, we should forgive you”. No, I don’t think so. His “hole” is a scientific hole, not a personal hole. Forgive him for subverting the scientific method while he says he is protecting it?! Look at the data (direction of focus intended — with what data is BEST doing its “science” — anyone can be “unbiased” if the data is cooked), Willis, in your excellent post.
1. Muller: “Climategate is a very unfortunate thing that happened.” Unfortunate! Unfortunate! That’s the BEST he can come up with? Climategate was one of the most egregious falsifications of scientific data and method that pseudo-scientists — a small group backing political policy changes — have conspired to comit.
2. Willis: ‘In the interview he divides people into “deniers”, “skeptics”, and “exaggerators”’. And we are supposed to believe that Muller is interested in the scientific outcome of a study??? I think this is the standard name-calling in support of a belief, not science. How does he know in advance who is who?
3. Muller: ” Yes, yes. It’s us.” Give me a break. Can this man be trusted to “do” science.
4. Muller: ” The global warming attributed by the IPCC, the big U.N. Council that makes this consensus report, attributes about half a degree, half a degree Celsius of warming to humans.” Can he read reports?
5. Notice the softball question Muller was asked. Conan: ” He runs a website for CLIMATE DENIERS—- After your testimony, he said the hearing was POST-NORMAL SCIENCE POLITICAL THEATER.” Notice there are no details, just name-calling. Muller: ” Well, I think Anthony can be forgiven for his ups and downs.” Anthony, your reputation is being shredded in a nice, sweet way. How do you like being called “bipolar” on NPR? Let’s see. How large an audience does the government’s station have?
This man is not a scientist. He is out to put serious doubts into the minds of the public about the credibility of Anthony Watts’ scientific study. Why do you think “they” approached you, fairminded you, Anthony?
Finally, he tells us what he and his fellow pseudo-scientists are up to at Berkeley. “When things are urgent, that’s the time the scientist has to settle down and show – do things using the unbiased methods that they’ve been taught.” Anyone want to believe this man can be “unbiased”. Anthony, Willis, anyone?
“In the interview he divides people into “deniers”, “skeptics”, and “exaggerators”…”
What are the chances that Muller, et al, are trying to set things up for himself, Dr Curry, and a few others, to be the skeptics, who eventually will see the error of their ways? Then when they rejoin the consensus of true believers, that will leave only the deniers and other “nutcases” who easily can be (further) ignored
I forgot to say:
Thanks Willis, once again, a very good article!
Anthony, WUWT is not just for “denying” but for science. Thank you very much!
Last July, I directed Prof. Muller to “The Hockey Stick Illusion” via Mat Ridley’s review in The Prospect
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/03/the-case-against-the-hockey-stick/
I also offered him my own potted history of Climategate, including a copy of McIntyre’s ERICE Seminar paper (August 2009).
He quickly thanked me. I only hope he followed up with at least part of my offerings.
“Third: I agree with Ravetz that urgency sometimes requires a different approach. His favorite example is an epidemic. In other words, a situation where urgency may be a real factor rather than a politically motivated mass psychosis.”
An epidemic would be the last place to throw away the scientific method for expediency as it would almost certianly result in an increased death rate. The only reason you would throw away the scientific method is political. The rush to “do something” even if it is the wrong thing.
Ravetz is playing foul, equating regulation with the scientific method. Regulation say you do not do front line testing on human subjects. However, in an epidemic, you may wish to throw some of these regulations out of the window, as they are time consuming.
For example, a new vaccine is available but is not yet tested for safety in humans. In an epidemic you might waive the regulations and conduct trials on infected humans without first going through safety trials. The scientific method will tell you if the results are effective. However, regulations may prevent your from using the untested vaccine.
In the case of an epidemic, it is the regulations you are seeking to bypass, not the scientific method.
I really don’t need to consider Muller any further than his jumping at the chance to present his lack of knowledge to Congress. It showed a complete lack of integrity. Once lost it is hard to recover.
Of course, his other antics are now supporting that view of him as well. He is not to be taken seriously as he is only promoting himself.
Muller is a product of the liberal culture that excludes all other ideas and dominates all levels of education in the US. He like many others is declaring a climate disaster in the face of actual good climate for humans.
State governments have oversight authority on education but do nothing about the loss of academic freedom because they agree. Free expression and objectivity will not return to the educational system until the forces that support the restrictive behavior changes.
It might be good for academics to work outside the university system to gain experience from time to time where their students are expected to work. The experience might be good and improve performance and attitude.
Alan the Brit says:
April 14, 2011 at 2:38 am
At this point people might expect to read what I said, but instead they get what you heard. I wonder if you wouldn’t mind clarifying for these good people where my part ends and your part begins. I always like it better when the words attributed to me actually come from me. Surely you understand.
I am with Anthony on this one regarding BEST. From what I have seen at various forums and blogs, people on both sides of the imaginary debate* are waiting for the conclusions of BEST before making up their minds about whether it is good science or not without really examining the science. The alarmists are waiting to see if they come out against a strong warming signature since 1900, in which case they will oppose the conclusions. The other strident and more dogmatic end of the non-believer side, likewise will never accept any conclusion which confirms warming.
I will wait to see what they actually publish and more importantly, what they also publish by way of corroborating data and method as their conclusions and what working out they show, what methods, assumptions and if they publish any counter or alternatives to their conclusion and then argue why their conclusion should be considered the correct one.
If their science and method is correct, full, open, honest and beyond reproach, then the conclusion will be too, whatever the conclusion. If they “show their work” and it is riddled with errors, false assumptions, or they fail to show their work then I shall not be able to concur with their conclusions.
This is where many of the contributing scientists to IPCC fail, and where the Hockey Team failed. They are conclusion led science, instead of method led. They have decided the conclusion and look for supportive evidence and dismiss that which does not fit. It is cherry picking, not science.
Willis, I see your points and agree, but your reaction seems over the top. A bit too emotional.
I am more concerned about the false narrative the LA Times is perpetuating than Muller’s condescension and over-reaching in drawing conclusions from his preliminary analysis (which even complete cannot support some of his assertions).
Muller’s public appearances aren’t very bad themselves, but the way they are being spun is a downright lie. Muller should respond to the LA Times articles and dispel the falsehoods in the article. The LA Time should somehow be accountable. I don’t think a highly visible public rebuttal is even enough.
When Muller says “Climategate is a very unfortunate thing that happened.” his choice of words leaves me wondering did he mean it was unfortunate that the scientists ignored, breached and trampled scientific due process or did Muller find it unfortunate that Climategate revealed these machinations? Interesting choice of words.
My own interpretation is that when the video of his lecture castigating the CRU et al. went viral and he began to see himself lumped in with the ‘deniers’ he developed severely cold feet. Probably he got a lot of negative feedback from within various scientific circles. So now he’s trying to redeem his reputation with the climate in crowd, while still also criticizing breaches of scientific conduct in as temperate (academic) a fashion as possible. This will assist his reputation for posterity whilst still allowing him the perks of current recognition by the scientistas. In common parlance, he’s trying to have his cake and eat it.
Right on, Willis!