Scientific American has an interview in “Science Talk” with Dr. Richard Muller, who is spokesman for the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project.
I enjoyed the photograph, particularly for the poster over his left shoulder in the background.
Both Steve McIntyre and I are mentioned prominently in the article, and once again Dr. Muller thanks us for our contributions to the debate.
One quote about Mann’s hockey-stick from Dr. Muller made it past SciAm’s usual boilerplate position on the issue, and I was quite surprised to see it in print.
Muller: A few years later, McIntyre came out and, indeed, showed that the hockey-stick chart was in fact incorrect. It had been affected by a very serious bug in the way scientists calculated their principal components.
I applaud SciAm for not censoring what many consider to be an inconvenient truth about the bad science of that iconic graph.
This is also surprising to see in print in SciAm.
Q: You’ve also said more than once that nothing we do in the U.S. to reduce emissions will make any difference because emissions from coal burned by India and China
are growing so rapidly.
Muller: In fact, if we cut back and China continues to grow and India continues to grow, our cutting back will not achieve any real good. The hope is that we’ll set an example that China and India will follow. But the way it’s presented by many people, for political purposes because it sounds more compelling, is that we are responsible for terrible global warming, and we have to cut back regardless of what other people do. And that is not looking at the numbers.
Regarding Dr. Muller, whether you love him or hate him, the article is well worth reading, and has been helpfully provided by Joe Romm of Climate Progress (who is predictably upset by all this, but then again a light breeze upsets him) on his website where you can view it here (PDF).
I just like that his office looks like mine.
I wrote in February this year that:
I see they have started already. Perhaps the next bunch of BEST data won’t be as conformist as the first one?
……helpfully provided by Joe Romm of Climate Progress (who is predictably upset by all this, but then again a light breeze upsets him)….
lol, funny. Dr. Muller seems to be a hard one to pin down, but then it isn’t unheard of to have climatologist having brief moments of clarity. Reading the article, I can imagine Romm needing both medical and psychological help after reading it.
I have given up on SciAm. The subscription will lapse. Too little objective science, too much political baloney. Sad. I grew up with it many years ago. It was worthwhile then.
Why are manydenying that Dr Muller’s BEST program could be a false flag operation? Where is solid scientific skepticism when it is needed?
Paddy – are you advocating “preventative skepticism”? Then I’m…skeptical of yor views even before knowing them in full.
Sadly, I gave up on them shortly after Climategate as they were printing more PR than anything scientific (not to say that before that they were any better).
James Sexton says:
May 23, 2011 at 10:48 am
…… Reading the article, I can imagine Romm needing both medical and psychological help after reading it.
Romm and the Rommulans are already sputtering and fuming, starting yesterday. Talk of libel suits is rampant. Delicious.
Dr. Mueller’s position in the SA article is reasonable. But it is not the final word in the matter, leaving open several follow-up questions not addressed by the BEST project: a) If the temperature measurements are correct showing the planet warming over the past 100 years, is this due to natural variability similar to that seem in the past or can it only be explained by anthropogenic causes. b) If the temperature measurements are correct there is still evidence that temperature rises are not being correctly modeled by the IPCC climate models, despite what the SA article states.
The part people leave out is that China and India aren’t just following in our footsteps – they are emitting our emissions for us by manufacturing the goods we used to make everywhere else.
If you track the CO2 emissions exported by outsourcing production of goods back to the country that consumes that good, there isn’t a country in the world with a dream of a chance of meeting Kyoto protocol goals without going through a great depression.
Meanwhile, moving manufacturing to China means the real environmental problems get ignored as well as the imaginary ones.
I think that pile in the background might actually be some of my unread mail – not that makes any difference to me beyond knowing where it is…
Maybe it’s the way the interview is presented, but Muller comes across as either a little unfocused on the questions or naive as to how his answers will be interpreted.
“The public is the jury and hears it on both sides. And when people hear such different results, they get very confused. And right now I believe the public is in a state of confusion because people have learned that some of the issues raised by legitimate skeptics are valid.”
Thank you very much Dr. Muller for your faith in Joe Public. As a fully paid up member of the proletariat; the knuckle dragging, lobotomised, illiterate, rednecked scum that is in such confusion, I am grateful that you condescend to even refer to me let alone think I need persuading. Perhaps you could run up a few pictograms for me to look over to try and get my poor addled brain to understand the difference between truth and fiction. Tipping my hat to “Your Superiorness” as we speak. I hope that title meets your approval.
“SciAm” minus the “i” is “ScAm”
“If a cluttered desk signs a cluttered mind, Of what, then, is an empty desk a sign?”
Albert Einstein.
Generally agreeable article. But I don’t like how Muller is clearly cowed into rejecting his status of ‘sceptic’ due to the supposed bastardisation of the word, right before he goes on to contradict his stance by highlighting certain apparently legitimate sceptics like McIntyre and Watts. Jeez Muller, get some balls, and take back the word! Own it! You know that scepticism in science is an essential quality, you said as much yourself. Just because certain elements choose to redefine the word as a term of abuse isn’t reason to act all two-faced – that’s just playing the stupid political game. It’s so true what they say: control the language, and you control the thoughts. That much is evidenced in the article.
What baffles me is why people are so concerned to second guess the official world temperature records when they do not show any sign of alarming global warming. See…
http://www.thetruthaboutclimatechange.org/temps.html
…which shows a distinctly un-alarming average long term (160 year) rise of 0.41degC per century, superimposed on which is an equally un-alarming ~67 year cyclic oscillation of only plus and minus 0.25degC. The long term rise is usually attributed to natural recovery from the Little Ice Age; and the cyclic oscillation to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
Both are entirely natural phenomena. So what’s everyone’s problem?
I love the “The Coming Ice Age” poster on his office wall.
From what is known so far about the BEST project, we will be able to be more confident about the reliability of the global temperature record. Thus, Dr. Muller and his team are providing a useful verification to some the important information needed for rationalizing the risk management of climate change. This is a good thing.
That Dr. Muller has said some things that paint the leading alarmists as less than heroes may be upsetting to their admirers, but these comments are irrelevant to the important issue being addressed.
Great to see these quotes by Dr. Muller. I applaud him for making these statements and hope he will continue to pursue the best science, regardless of the outcome.
The current incarnation of Scientific American magazine is little more than People magazine with a slightly science-y orientation, but I will read the article based upon your recommendation.
“Muller: In fact, if we cut back and China continues to grow and India continues to grow, our cutting back will not achieve any real good. ”
One would think that it would be prudent then to actually do the only good thing one can do: not do anything that is negative to ones economy, so as to have money to do what needs be done to adapt if needed. Oh, yeah, just like the Chinese folks.
I don’t know what parties pay Romm, however after having read his reaction to this piece they definitely don’t pay by the word. I’ve never read such a pseudo aggressive/defensive piece of writing in my life. The guy is certifiable.
Thank you for bringing this up, Dr. Muller!
Muller is just another political scientist … some days he sounds reasonable and other days he publishes grant bait to ensure he doesn’t have to beg for funding …
He should not have published his findings to Congress when they were no where near finished … that is not science but simply a fund raising document release … he cannot be trusted to do pure science …
Mark my words, you will regret associating your name to him …