Scientific American's interview with Dr. Richard Muller

I wrote in February this year that:

Several attempts will be made by climate change conformists and True Believers to smear the work of BEST, and to prevent them from publishing their data

I see they have started already. Perhaps the next bunch of BEST data won’t be as conformist as the first one?

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.

Paddy – are you advocating “preventative skepticism”? Then I’m…skeptical of yor views even before knowing them in full.

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.

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.

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.

“SciAm” minus the “i” is “ScAm”

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.

I love the “The Coming Ice Age” poster on his office wall.

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.

“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.

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.

Thank you for bringing this up, Dr. Muller!

Good interview. CO2 is rising, and it might (or might not) end up being a serious problem. We can’t deny that. But we need good science, that is what Muller is saying. Not the exaggeration we have been getting.
Re Viboring’s comment: you are right. Our CO2 went down in part because manufacturing shifted to Asia, where more CO2 is emitted per unit made than had been in the US. It’s not a zero sum game; it is a less than zero sum game in that greater CO2 is emitted when manufacturing leaves the US.
So why on earth are environmentalists doing this?

Now if he will just be as realistic about global warming as he is with China, India, etc…..

Great essay by Princeton Physicist, William Happer about the quackery of CO2 and global warming:
http://thetruthpeddler.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/noted-princeton-scientist-blasts-global-warming-alarmists/

I find Dr Mulers comments refreshingly scientific and reasonable.
The foaming at the mouth this has caused amongst the Rommulans and Mann is just icing on the cake, and tells you everything you need to know about those characters.

@ Jim Clark
I feel you are running circles around your own argument. The larger argument argues how much warming we will see with doubling of co2. Why I am on this site spouting my nonsense as apposed to on a warmest site is simply the fact that the models are not working. The feedback mechanisms are not showing up to the party. If they do , then I’ll be rooting for the other side, such is human nature.

John says:
May 23, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Re Viboring’s comment: you are right. Our CO2 went down in part because manufacturing shifted to Asia, where more CO2 is emitted per unit made than had been in the US. It’s not a zero sum game; it is a less than zero sum game in that greater CO2 is emitted when manufacturing leaves the US.
So why on earth are environmentalists doing this?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Its worse than we think since not only is more CO2 used in manufacturing (less stringent emission controls in countries such as China and India) but additionally more CO2 is used transporting the finished goods back to the market place in the developed world. Additionally (although this is not uniform and varies from counry to country and natural resources involved) more CO2 is expended in shipping the required raw materials into China and India etc to be used in the manufacturing process. It is certainly a diubke whammy if not a tripple whammy but for some unknown reason, the politicians just do not see it. Talk about being dumb.
Until I see the BEST data plots nd full details of their methodology and adjustments, I am not going to comment on what they are achieving and whether any progress has been made. I do not wish to pre-judge them.

Shouldn’t there be an asteroid over that dinosaur on his desk? (Not CO2, that is.)

Jim G says:
May 23, 2011 at 2:35 pm
“discontinued my “Unscientific American” a while back and went for the “Discover” mag and it is about to be flushed as well. Is there anything out there of a general science nature worth receiving?”
Not that I know of. This and other sites on the net make such magazines obsolete.
Save a tree.

big picture
Muller enraged climate skeptics after
testifying before congress that he em-
braced the mainstream view that earth
is warming as climate models project.

Enraged? Really?
Disappointed a few, perhaps….

Seems pretty fair and balanced, apart from the surrounding gumph that was obviously placed in afterwards and does not relate to the interview. That bit just shows the standard SA prejudice.
It’s nice to see someone like Muller being objective. Even if his conclusions do not agree with mine, I would give him and his conclusions respect because of this alone. I hope Congress ask him the right questions, but I predict they will not.

Hmmm… my latest SciAm is in the back seat of the car. Haven’t even glanced at the cover yet.
Joe Romm’s reaction is enough to make one roll on the floor laughing.
http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/22/scientific-american-lemonick-richard-muller/
This guy is quite the character.

Please note I predicted before Muller even got started with BEST that they would find no fundamental difference between their analysis of the instrumental record and the extant analysis. I made that prediction primarily because I don’t think the instrumental record is significantly flawed by UHI. It’s flawed by imprecision and lack of global coverage. The only point at which the instrumental record becomes sufficient in precision and coverage for the task is in the satellite era beginning in 1979 and that happens to align with oceanic oscillations which predict a temperature rise from natural causes. Even in this case it’s questionable whether the satellite record has the required precision given how many times it’s been “corrected” over the past 31 years.
To rely on an instrumental record which just about completely misses ocean surface temperature and huge swaths of the continents it has very little credibility in establishing any reliable global average temperature. What we need is a damned accurate measure of global average ocean temperature. Good luck with that. We only have a few years of data with adequate surface coverage and they still don’t dive deeper than 2000 meters which misses a full half of the ocean’s volume which lies below 2000 meters.

Dave Springer, if more scientists accept the idea that the Hockey Stick is bogus, what would that do to all the other papers that were written that assumed the data contained therein were accurate? Just think of the dove cotes that are shaken by THAT idea!

I agree with Muller; Gore and Friedman are exaggerators – with reference to their focus on promoting AGW supporting datums and hiding anything under the rug that goes against AGW – that’s not science, it’s marketing. Also its not libel to call them exaggerators when the basis of that statement can be proven, and the argument from authority won’t wash either.
Also I hope all the pro AGW subscribers quit – it will take the pressure off the need to keep bending over to publish pro AGW articles and hopefully bring some much needed balance back.

I can’t get past the rise of a trace gas to a level still measured in parts per million is somehow responsible for terrible global warming.
As far as China and India go, they are quite pleased at how much the U.S. has given up in terms of manufacturing, technology and tooling, laughing all the way to the Global Market. Truth be told, there isn’t much left for the U.S. to give up aside from its resources.

The only difference between Joe Romm and Harold Camping is that the latter [had the seeds/was stupid enough] to pick and name a date of the impending doom…

Rhoda Ramirez says:
May 23, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Dave Springer, if more scientists accept the idea that the Hockey Stick is bogus, what would that do to all the other papers that were written that assumed the data contained therein were accurate? Just think of the dove cotes that are shaken by THAT idea!
———————————————————–
Rhoda, I can’t even believe there is one person on the planet (including Mann) who doesn’t know that the hockey stick is bogus, as in scientific fraud. I mean, just look at this stupid s***:
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/images/Fig.final_11.jpg
I suppose there are are still tribes out there in the Amazon jungle who don’t have the internet. Good luck with getting them on the jury Mike.
(I admit, I did cherrypick a particularly ludicrous one, but it was from a warmist site).

Eric says:
May 23, 2011 at 12:32 pm
“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.”
Romm is paid by the “Center for Progress”, run by John Podesta and funded by George Soros.
Romm is sort of a brilliant guy but has lost his scientific soul in promoting the AGW hoax. My favorite symptom of his psychosis is his serious, adamant insistence that Al Gore is indeed a scientist; the evidence being the Nobel Peace Prize.(!)

Oh dear. Australia is now being sold a bill of goods:
http://climatecommission.govspace.gov.au/files/2011/05/4108-CC-Science-Update-PRINT-CHANGES.pdf

The evidence that the
Earth’s surface is warming
Rapidly is now exceptionally
Strong, and beyond doubt.
Evidence for changes
In other aspects of the
Climate system is also
Strengthening. The primary
Cause of the observed
Warming and associated
Changes since the mid-20th
Century – human emissions
Of greenhouse gases – is
Also known with a high
Level of confidence.

and

For the most recent
10-year period (2001-2010),
Global average temperature
Was 0.46 °c above the 1961-1990
Average, the warmest
Decade on record.

and

Indeed, a climate change
(warming) signal is now
Clear in an increasing
Number of australian and
Global observations of
The responses of biological
Species and ecosystems
(e.g., parmesan 2006; root
Et al. 2005; ipcc 2007b).

and

– There is no credible evidence that changes in
incoming solar radiation can be the cause of
the current warming trend.
– Neither multi-decadal or century-scale patterns
of natural variability, such as the Medieval Warm
Period, nor shorter term patterns of variability,
such as ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation)
or the North Atlantic Oscillation, can explain the
globally coherent warming trend observed since
the middle of the 20th century.
– There is a very large body of internally consistent
observations, experiments, analyses, and physical
theory that points to the increasing atmospheric
concentration of greenhouse gases, with carbon
dioxide (CO2
) the most important, as the ultimate
cause for the observed warming.
– Improved understanding of the sensitivity of the
climate system to the increasing atmospheric CO2
concentration has provided further evidence of its
role in the current warming trend, and provided
more confdence in projections of the level of
future warming.

and

The IPCC AR4 has been intensively and exhaustively
scrutinised, including formal reviews such as that by
the InterAcademy Council (2010), and only two peripheral
errors, both of them in the WG 2 report on impacts and
adaptation, have yet been found (in a publication containing
approximately 2.5 million words!). No errors have been
found in any of the main conclusions, nor have any errors
been found in the 996-page WG 1 report, which describes
our understanding of how and why the climate system is
changing. The IPCC AR4 WG 1 report provides the scientifc
input to the development of climate policy. Several offcial
“assessments of the assessment” have concluded that the
conclusions of the AR4 are sound (InterAcademy Council
2010; Royal Society 2010; National Research Council 2010).

and

Global sea level has risen by about 20 cm since the 1880s,
When the first global estimates could be made.

For many years, since I read his book ‘Nemesis’, I have had the very highest regard for Richard Muller. His career has been very distinguished, and I’m surprised there’s been virtually no discussion of his career.
He was closely involved with the Alvarez group, which found that the dinosaurs had most likely been destroyed by a massive asteroid or comet strike (the dinosaur on his desk is no coincidence). Alvarez was Muller’s mentor. One thing he learned from Alvarez was that science depended on proof, and that the consensus was no proof at all. Indeed, as they worked on and promoted the asteroid theory, they found themselves having to fight against the massed ranks of the geological consensus. Of course the evidence, such as the iridium layers found all around the globe, finally won the argument. The consensus turned out to be wrong – does this sound familiar?
As Muller involves himself ever deeper in climate change, I hope he remembers the lessons he learned as a young scientist from one of the great scientists of the last century, namely Luis W. Alvarez.
If you can get a copy of ‘Nemesis’, do so – I thoroughly recommend it. It’s the best science book I have read.
Chris

Facts do not come easy,
Facts are now wasted by many,
Facts made U.S. what we are,
Facts will teach U.S. lessons,
Facts care only about themselves,
and
Facts need care.

I see Muller as a thinking person misled by fake climate information I am trying to expose. When the Lemonick interview appeared on SciAm Web site I posted two comments, one directed at Muller and one at a commentator who needed to be educated. That was on May 22nd. On May 23rd I checked and both were gone – censored. SciAm does not allow unkind words to be said about global warming. I am attaching them below.
***********************
• 4. Arno Arrak 06:17 PM 5/22/11
Dr. Muller ends his interview this way: “Hey, scientific community, give me advice on this. What do you do when your country asks you for your best state of knowledge of the world’s climate change?” In this spirit, may I suggest that you give them the best advice possible? BEST as now conceived is not the best possible advice because you are not addressing the real temperature problem. I never thought UHI that Watts complains about would be enough to produce the amount of massive distortion that my work has uncovered. It is documented in my book What Warming? available on Amazon.com. The book has been out for a year and a half . The real temperature problem can only be understood by comparing satellite temperature curves with ground-based curves as done in the book. To start with, lets concentrate on the twenty year period from 1978 and 1997, the the period NASA, NOAA and the Met office call late twentieth century warming. Problem is that satellites cannot see this warming. What they do see is a temperature oscillation, up and down by half a degree for twenty years, but no rise. These peaks correspond to El Nino periods of ENSO (see Figure 15 in my book). The valleys in between are cool La Nina periods. They have been with us since the Isthmus of Panama rose from the sea. I plotted their data on the same graph with the satellite temperatures and found that ENSO oscillations could easily be seen in HadCRUT3 from the Met Office. The locations match but the depth of the valleys between the peaks is different. They have been reduced to approximately half of what satellites show. NOAA (my Figure 27) is worse and eliminates even the existence of the valleys from their curve. There is no natural process that can selectively raise up temperature valleys between the peaks and yet leave the peaks in place. I have no doubt that this warming has been both illegitimate and anthropogenic from the start. It continues to this day. Clearly it requires coordination to do this. This is criminal conspiracy. I personally would discontinue the use of any temperature curves from these agencies and resort to using satellite temperatures exclusively. But since these big boys are calling the tune it is not likely to happen. What must be done is to unmask the source of these distortions, using criminal investigation if necessary. This, Dr. Muller, is what BEST should be doing to answer your country s call for the best state of knowledge of the world’s climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
****************************
• 5. Arno Arrak in reply to Mark F. Wrone 07:23 PM 5/22/11
Mark – you seem to be a true believer who does not want to listen to anything bad about warming. I too read Watts and I think he is honest even though he may not report your favorite parts of an article the way you would like. But have you ever considered the possibility that you might be wrong? What if all that hullabaloo about global warming turns out to be nonsense? We have all been told that the world is warming and that the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is responsible for it. Did you know that the actual existence of this greenhouse effect has never been directly verified by measurements of infrared absorption by the real atmosphere? What you would have to do is to periodically measure how much infrared the atmosphere absorbs and then construct a time series showing that it increases as carbon dioxide goes up. None of the labs that are supported by the billions of dollars spent on study of climate change has seen fit to do it. Fortunately Ferenc Miskolczi found a back door way to get this information anyway. Using NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 he showed that the transparency of the atmosphere in the infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs had not changed for the last 61 years. During this same period of time the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased by 21.6 percent. This means that the greenhouse absorption signature of this added carbon dioxide is totally missing. This is an empirical observation of nature, not derived from any calculations, and overrides any calculations from theory that do not agree with it. No Absorption, no greenhouse effect, case closed. This has further consequences because this non-existent greenhouse effect is what they feed into their computers to predict dangerous global warming. Putting a nonexistet entity into a computer is putting garbage into a computer. And when you put garbage in you get garbage out. GIGO, in short. Super-GIGO in fact because it comes from supercomputers they cheated out of Uncle Sam by scare tactics.

I stopped getting Sci-Am because I got tired of them ignoring the evidence against AGW theory.
It would be nice if they returned to objective reporting and analysis and only supported the unproven in their opinion columns.

Bruce Cobb says:
May 24, 2011 at 2:26 pm
“Muller gets a few things right, and seems to have the much-sought-after (by NOAA, anyway) scientific integrity, but mostly he’s just plain wrong. Perhaps he just needs to try a bit harder.”
———————————
Bruce, can you cite what is plain wrong and why?