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).
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?
For at least twenty years “Scientific” “American” has been neither.
Now if he will just be as realistic about global warming as he is with China, India, etc…..
The Hokey Schtick is a liability to the AGW crowd and Dr.Muller recognizes that perfectly and paves with BEST new roads for the AGW industry. It’s time Dr.Muller will research the climate models he’s accepting.
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/
Much ado about nothing! Not even Muller knows the results of his study! If the final conclusion of his work is that the UHI effect on the global temperature record is small, will any of you change your current opinion on man-made climate change?
I have always granted, for the sake of argument, that the surface temperature records were okay, and thrashed the climate crisis arguments from there. If this study indicates that the surface records are okay, my arguments are not weakened. If the study shows that the UHI is a significant player in the record, then it just makes it even easier to dismiss this crisis nonsense.
It is important, for the sake of science, to correctly quantify the UHI effect in the global temperature record, but one can not hurt the position of the crisis skeptic with that quantification. And if the UHI effect is small, it does not bolster the arguments of those pushing a climate crisis. This is a no-win situation for the fear mongers and a no-lose situation for the crisis skeptics.
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.
Re, Jim Clarke, May 23, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Jim, why not simply calculate the global temperature using the raw original unadjusted temperature data from all the temperature stations unaffected by UHI?
If somebody did this, this would be my gold standard, no matter what it showed.
@ur momisugly 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.
I just read the Sci Am article and I thought it was balanced. I then read the ClimateProgress article by Romm and Anthony is right, Romm’s panties are in a twist.
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.
Yep, 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? Still getting Astronomy and Sky & Telescope even though they have aslo bought into the AGW scam but one of my main hobbies needs to be represented! They, though, are pretty specific to astronomy and it would be nice to read about what else is happening on the science front.
Any suggestions will be appreciated.
Regards,
Jim
I’ve heard this man interviewed many times and I trust in his integrity. We may end up having some disagreements with his method, but he’s the real deal. I still don’t understand how you can sort out temperature data without going over each station one by one. Can there be some one size fits all analysis of the data?
The Reaction at Climate Progress
“Scientific American has published easily its worst article ever, a multi-libelous puff piece by Michael Lemonick lionizing the widely debunked Prof. Richard Muller. Its embarrassing title, “I Stick to the Science,” is a self-congratulatory quote from Muller as utterly false as most of most of his other statements in the piece.
Leading climatologist Michael Mann has rightfully requested a retraction of the article’s defamatory claims. It also gratuitously libels Al Gore and Tom Friedman.”
Shouldn’t there be an asteroid over that dinosaur on his desk? (Not CO2, that is.)
This, from Muller, got printed there too!
“I’ve been quoted as saying that both Gore and [New York Times columnist Thomas L.] Friedman are exaggerators. These are people who are so deeply concerned with the dangers of global warming that they cherry-pick the data, too, and they’re not really paying attention to the science, which is not surprising. They’re not scientists.
But that’s not science. With science, you have to look at all the data and draw a balanced conclusion.”
Given who OWNS Scientific American (and Nature), this may be a sign that the gang is backing away from the project… at least enough to try to restore their credibility.
In the meantime, the interviewer parrots the party line… “Anthony Watts, whom some climate scientists consider a denier, not just a skeptic”
What is the ‘scientific’ definition of a ‘denier’? LOL.
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.
Hopefully, as self described “true Scientists”, the BEST team will be able to “scientifically prove” that their methodology leads to a truly “accurate” description of the temperature record. “Accurate enough” to isolate any AGW signature/contribution that might exist — or demonstrate that one does not exist.
Today, based on my own knowledge, I think such a “proof” will be impossible. How they handle that will reflect on their credibility.
Of course, I could be wrong. And, I would happily accept “genuine”, logically, scientifically, and statistically sound proof that the BEST reconstruction is “accurate”.
Enraged? Really?
Disappointed a few, perhaps….
Finally!
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.
L Nettles says:
May 23, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Hah, Hah!
BTW, is it actually possible to make more of an idiot of Al than he does himself?
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.
I hold dearly the hope that the once great magazine Scientific American, which has disappointingly transformed into Political American, will once again transform itself back to being a non-biased Scientific American magazine, and one that I will eagerly renew my subscription to.
I’ve noticed here and elswhere people discussing the urban heat island (UHI) effect. I know that AGWers dismiss the idea, but I’m wondering what, exactly defines the extent of the UHI? Do they get distinct borders, or do they shade into a suburban heat island (SHI)? What, if any, is the criteria for the SHI? Percent impermiable cover? Land use classification? Who gets to pick? Given population density, New Jersey might be considered 30-50% UHI by area (just a guess; please, pick no nits!).
My sense is that maybe most of the stations in the US and perhaps elsewhere are already in UHI’s or SHI’s and the reason there’s no observable trend is there’s no or little non-UHI area to compare it to!