Via Tom Nelson:
Muller: “I never said you shouldn’t be a skeptic. I never said that.”
Richard Muller interview, Part 1 – YouTube
Interviewed by Rob Nikolewski of Capitol Report New Mexico, 10/31/11.
Around the 2:45 mark of Part 1, referring to his recent Wall Street Journal article, Muller says “I never said you shouldn’t be a skeptic. I never said that.”
It is a big contrast from what he said in his Wall Street Journal article:
Without good answers to all these complaints, global-warming skepticism seems sensible. But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.
Just before the 5-minute mark, Muller is asked if he’s in the Al Gore camp. Muller: “Al Gore camp? That’s ridiculous…what I point out is that most of what appears in An Inconvenient Truth is absolutely either wrong, exaggerated, or misleading.”
At the 8:45 mark, he says scientists will “endorse Al Gore, even though they know what he’s saying is exaggerated and misleading. He’ll talk about polar bears dying even though we know they’re not dying…”.
In Part 2, he’s asked about Eugene Robinson’s Washington Post piece.
[Q] It says “What Dr Muller says proves that the skeptics are wrong and they’ve got to get on the cap and trade train”.
Muller: “That’s ridiculous. I mean, some people say I proved that there was no ClimateGate. No. NO! The ClimateGate thing was a scandal. It’s terrible what they did. It’s shameful the way they hid the data.”
UPDATE:
Over at Newsbusters.com Noel Sheppard has more on the debacle, including this direct link to the news story from CRNM that is titled: EXCLUSIVE: Author of controversial climate change article said Wall Street Journal changed the headline: “I don’t think I would have done it if they had told me”
Turnabout is fair play. Now Dr. Muller knows what I feel like after giving him my data, and getting a promise not to use it except to publish results, then he touts results in front of congress with no publication to show for it. Had I known that, I never would have given it to him.
Sheppard said one thing in his article that hit home with me: “In politics, he’d be called a RINO.”
Watching the video and seeing how he’s got different position for each media outlet, we may have witnessed the birth of the first global scale SINO (Skeptic In Name Only).
Must be tough to keep all those balls in the air while riding a unicycle blindfolded Dr. Muller
So, either he is a liar, or the WSJ journalist is a liar. Whichever way you dice it, someone is lying through their teeth.
Muller claims that the Wall Street Journal changed the title of his Op Ed piece.
Will he be calling on the Wall Street Journal to correct their misrepresentation of his article?
It would seem that a correction would be in order – if indeed the WSJ misrepresented him?
(or perhaps he is not interested in the truth?)
I believe Muller needs some good PR now. Something a bit better than what his daughter can provide. 🙂
PS He’s the Postnormal Renaissance Man: instead of holding an opinion on many things, Muller holds many opinions on one thing.
good grief….poor man’s in way over his head
Perhaps Muller should employ an ex-News of the World reporter to plant some ‘poor Muller’ articles in selected papers?
There is a lot of vested interest in AGW and the industries/trading/subsidies it has spawned.
The Wall Street Journal is a “Trade Journal” of those who have invested.
He has managed to burn his bridges with all sides.
“So, either he is a liar, or the WSJ journalist is a liar. Whichever way you dice it, someone is lying through their teeth.”
The WSJ piece wasn’t an article written by a journalist, it was an Op Ed written by Muller. So, either Muller is a liar, or Muller is a liar.
Frankly I think they’re both lying.
Of course, maybe he is playing the Mannspeak game: In his WSJ Op Ed didn’y SAY you shouldn’t be a sceptic. He wrote it.
Tangled webs and all of that ….
And now ladies and Gentlemen… the pathetic attempt at clearing up my own mess … (Should have bought me a pro PR rather than doing it myself)
most of what appears in An Inconvenient Truth is absolutely either wrong, exaggerated, or misleading.”
Muller goes up in my estimation with his criticism of Gore. For years the Warmist camp, even the likes of RC, have defended Gore’s ignorant, incoherent nonsense.
Remember all the skeptical blog criticism of the director of CERN stepping in to manage the public release of Dr. Kirkby’s CLOUD results? Well, given the totally unmanaged BEST Project media ineptitude, we can rethink the wisdom of CERN’s CLOUD project versus BEST’s project.
BEST Project’s project management should call up CERN’s director and get some pointers . . . me thinks.
John
No matter how long this idiotic AGW goes on, I simply can’t understand why there are so many people, genuine scientists, environmentalists, average Joes on the street, who are so bat-s..t crazy and determined that in the face of 30 years of observation that nothing of significance is happening with the climate they still cling to the hyper-religious hope that a climate armaggedon is right around the corner. Why aren’t they thrilled that the the world is doing OK and nothing needs be done. I’m afraid even several years of intensive psychotherapy would have no effect whatsoever on their insane belief.
Per Muller: “15 years is not enough”.
The whole debate hinges on how much of the recent (last 100 years) trend can be attributed to natural causes (both assignable natural causes and random variation) and how much can be attributed to human activity. It has become fashionable recently for scientists to say “15 years is not enough”. Meaning that there is natural variability in the system and that trends must be observed over a period of time that is long enough to smooth out the effects of natural variability. OK, I buy that. So then the question becomes ‘how long is enough’? The fact is that no one can answer that question. The whole problem is that we are unable to properly characterize the natural variability in the system. I wish they would just come clean on this fact. Say that 15 years is not enough is pure speculation if you can’t characterize the variability in the system. BTW, my gut tells me he is right that 15 years is not enough. But I also suspect that 100 years is not enough. Until someone can provide variance statistics, the whole conversation is moot.
I’m sorry, but when he says that scientists should hunker down and stick to proper science on important issues it makes me somewhat sick to the stomach given the shenanigans with press releases and the like. IMHO he has completely shot his credibility with such contradictory statements and actions.
Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) says:
November 2, 2011 at 2:39 pm
“I believe Muller needs some good PR now. Something a bit better than what his daughter can provide. 🙂
PS He’s the Postnormal Renaissance Man: instead of holding an opinion on many things, Muller holds many opinions on one thing.”
I am making one change in your very clever line. Change the last clause to:
“Muller holds many opinions on any one thing.”
I do want to emphasize the Carnival Barker or Snake Oil Salesman aspect of his mentality.
Muller is in an interesting position. I thought this interview was valuable, in that it gave us a chance to hear Muller, in his own words, state his views. Much more valuable than reading pundits’ comments on what they think Muller believes or what his motives might be. BEST has obviously messed up the PR side of things, but I think it would be a mistake to throw Muller under the bus at this early stage. Let’s see how the papers fair once they have had a chance to get reviewed in more depth. Muller has some reasonable viewpoints in terms of his recognition of many of the weaknesses of typical Al-Gore-level CAGW arguments. He is obviously not a “skeptic” as blared by some news headlines (herepeatedly refers to “skeptics” in the third person), but neither does he seem like a true believer who is intent on pushing a CAGW agenda.
PR fiasco aside, he’s getting hit hard from both sides, so perhaps that is a sign he is at least trying to take a reasonable middle ground view?
Herr Muller has a common problem. He doesn’t know when to stop digging!!
I think it’s clear now that Muller had no idea what positions various skeptics took on various issues. In many ways, he’s revisiting issues we’ve already addressed. He’d been a lot better off worrying about how those papers were going to hold up rather than give press statements. Well, we all lay in the bed we make. He should have actually spoke with a skeptic before making statements about skepticism. Now, he’s in an untenable situation.
Phillip Bradley,
do you also like his statements that if Gore and similar types actually get people motivated with their wrong science and misrepresentations it is OK for them to do what they are doing and should be allowed to fly whatever plane they want??
(I haven’t watched the video, but, this is from a previous print interview)
Interestingly Novim, the geoengineering company he works with, seems to think CO2 can be a huge issue needing remediation.
“Mission:
To provide clear scientific options to the most urgent problems facing mankind.
To explain the probable costs and possible consequences of each course of action.
To report and distribute the results without advocacy or agenda both quickly and widely.”
From their first study:
“Despite efforts to stabilize CO2 concentrations, it is possible that the climate system could respond abruptly with catastrophic consequences.
Intentional intervention in the climate system to avoid or ameliorate such consequences has been proposed as one possible response should such a scenario arise.
In a one-week study, the authors of this report conducted a technical review and evaluation of proposed climate engineering concepts that might serve as a rapid palliative response to such climate emergency scenarios. Because of their potential to induce a prompt (<1 yr) global cooling, this study concentrated on Shortwave Climate Engineering (SWCE) methods for moderately reducing the amount of shortwave solar radiation absorbed by the Earth."
from this page:
http://www.novim.org/projects/climate-engineering
Basically, without a climate scare they have no business.
“If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” This seems to me to be a pathetic example of a guy who longed for the “limelight” and then was shocked at the glare in his eyes. It buttresses the wisdom of that CERN director who allowed release of the cloud chamber experiment results, but forbade his people from interpreting those results as they might apply to AGW theory. Muller hyped the import of his group’s findings far beyond their actual impact and now he’s finding that “words” are not “chickens” that can be put back in the roost whenever you find their frolicking inconvenient or embarrassing.
Muller trashed Al Gore. I say we draw a line in the sand and give him a do over. He got that part right, maybe he can candid about the rest of the run away Global Warming scam.
Green Sand says:
November 2, 2011 at 2:48 pm
“There is a lot of vested interest in AGW and the industries/trading/subsidies it has spawned.
The Wall Street Journal is a “Trade Journal” of those who have invested.”
I would say it is a trade journal FOR investors that has nothing to gain from distorting information. They’d lose readers. Years ago my favorite German trade website was Financial Times Deutschland, ftd, but they started publishing more and more “project Syndicate” (Soros) economists and became evangelical about all things renewable energy. Maybe a change in the editorial board or what do I know; today they are more an EU propaganda rag than an information service. So I only read them these days when I need to know about the latest EU doctrine.
The WSJ has brought MANY pieces critical of AGW, especially after climategate broke.
Good grief!
Would we be considered impolite to say that Muller appears incompetent?
Is Dr. Curry still enamored with him?
On a side note, I believe by equating Muller to “RINO”s, you’ve given RINOs a bad name.
Skeptic In Name Only (SINO)?
Why not Warmist In Name Only (WINO)?
LOL
For some reason, this reminds me of one of Mark Russell’s jokes about Ronald Reagan’s changing story during Iran/Contra.
Recalling Nixon’s problem during Watergate, Russell quipped “In this case, it’s not ‘what did he know and when did he know it?’ or even ‘what didn’t he know and why didn’t he know it?’ but rather ‘what does he know and does he know that he knows it?'”
Guys, here’s a rule of thumb: never hold someone responsible for the headline on an article. They don’t control it. I say this having published something over 150 paid-for articles since Jan 2008, and having edited maybe 3 times that many when I was editing at PJM. The author doesn’t have any control, the author doesn’t have any say, the author won’t have seen the headline before his copy arrives in the mail/email/rss feed, and even the person who edits the article may look with horror on what actually gets published, because the headlines get looked over by the managing editor or the like as well.
DocMartyn says:
November 2, 2011 at 2:52 pm
He has managed to burn his bridges with all sides.
==================================
That’s what happens when you try to please both sides…
Dr. Muller seems more concerned with making friends…and people that do this tend to end up with no friends
babbling on…then claiming he didn’t say that, or didn’t mean it that way, or meant it another way
Talk about burning your bridges at both ends before you come to them!
Actually his position is quite consistent … as long as no one person ever watches more than one media source or one media source on more than one occasion…
I hope Dr. Curry sees this….
..maybe she will realize that what she thought she heard him say was not really what he said
or what he said to her was not really what he meant
…or what he told her was not necessarily what he told someone else
something like that……….
As a research engineer, I now have Muller’s name to add to my list of scientists whose papers I won’t read anymore.
To say explicitly what others have implied:
The statement that it was OK before to be a doubter but not OK anymore, was not from the headline but in the body of the WSJ opinion piece that “Muller” wrote. Is his next explanation “I didn’t write that, my daughter did!?”
James Sexton: Well, we all lay in the bed we make.
Well, chickens do anyway. But then ‘lie’ might have an inconvenient connotation.
: > )
So Muller says that we should not be a global warming skeptic, but its fine to be a anthropogenic global warming skeptic.
Thanks, that was helpful.
“kuhnkat says:
November 2, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Phillip Bradley,
do you also like his statements that if Gore and similar types actually get people motivated with their wrong science and misrepresentations it is OK for them to do what they are doing and should be allowed to fly whatever plane they want??
(I haven’t watched the video, but, this is from a previous print interview)”
For the printed version of the interview, see
http://www.capitolreportnewmexico.com/?p=6691
With regards to your point above, Muller says that this is what others do:
“So at this point they say, ‘The public’s not listening. I know this is urgent. Therefore I have to say things that the public will understand.’ And they will then endorse Al Gore even though they know what he’s saying is exaggerated and misleading. He’ll talk about polar bears dying and we know they’re not dying. And I feel scientists, unfortunately, too many of them have abandoned the scientific method precisely because the problem is so important. And I feel exactly the opposite. I feel when the problem is really important, then we have to hunker down and really use the best methods of science.”
Are you sure the guy in the video is the same guy as in the articles?
So he is lying, and accepts it as his duty .. or what? … maybe it is necessary to keep the funds coming his way……???
[snip]
The article that appeared in our part of the country was written by Seth Borenstein of Associated Press . It was entitled SKEPTIC’S OWN STUDY FINDS CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, BUT SCIENTISTS SHOULD BE MORE CRITICAL. In the article the author said that ” There is no reason now to be skeptic about steadily rising temperatures ” [I don’t think he meant not be a skeptic, period .. ]This is a strange comment for Muller as most skeptics are not disputing that global temperatures have not been rising but that they have not been rising since 1998 and have actually been slightly cooling during the last 1o years and this rising is not due man generated green house gases
How in the world did anyone agree to work with this imbecile. What little esteem I held for Judith Curry has completely evaporated.
[snip – off color -AW]
Many people have commented on the fact that Muller apparently denies that his data shows that warming has stopped over the past decade. From the interview, I get the sense that he does not deny it, but rather says you cannot say warming has stopped since the time period is too short to say such a thing. If this point is to be debated with him, we need to know exactly what he agrees with and what he does not agree with.
“..produces a graph that — rather than showing increased global warming — shows that warming has stalled over the last decade.
“That’s incorrect,”
…..”And so when they take 13 years, and they say based on that they can reach a conclusion based on our data set, I think they’re playing that same game”
For the complete paragraph (and interview), see http://www.capitolreportnewmexico.com/?p=6691
Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) said @ November 2, 2011 at 2:39 pm
He’s the Postnormal Renaissance Man: instead of holding an opinion on many things, Muller holds many opinions on one thing.
No, he holds one opinion on one thing .. The Thing That Is More Important Than Anyother Thing .. his bank account
Indeed he has managed to create and foster a complete debacle. There are so many statements he makes which can be attacked from sop many angles it s difficult to know where to start. The good news is that this is just another crack in the edifice. I do not honestly think the MMGW scare can survive another cold winter.
Phillip Bradely says:
“Muller goes up in my estimation with his criticism of Gore.”
You mean this criticism of Al Gore?
Al Gore flies around in a jet plane — absolutely fine with me. The important thing is not getting Al Gore out of his jet plane; the important thing is solving the world’s problem. What we really need are policies around the world that address the problem, not feel-good measures. 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 “Two Face” Muller, October 6, 2008.
He thinks that what Algore says is “either wrong, exaggerated, or misleading.” He thinks it is just fine that Algore tells exaggerations and distortions, if it makes the sheople believe. He clearly practices this convenient deception himself, pretending to be a sceptic when he is not and never ever was.
This @#$%tard is a pathalogical liar. He is nothing more or less than a warmist propaganda tool. He is personally, emotionally, and financially invested in the ‘global warming’ scam. He has an agenda, and that agenda is to discredit legitimate scepticism of ‘global warming’, by whatever means he finds convenient.
It is time to call the spade a spade.
I don’t like trashing anyone one unless they do things like Mann did & does. Muller has pulled a PR boner, fair enough. He has messed up or apparently so the science process by premature release. He is being castigated for that too. We all know this climatology business is complex and complicated. Given that we also know no one has a lock on the truth of anything I suspect it is best to give Muller and some other sufficient latitude to show their true colors.
When Rick Mercer says “Politics” think “Science”.
“…our opinion of climate science and the people who practice the art, is now so low, that no matter what the behaviour, we’re no longer surprised. I
t’s like …it’s like going to a family wedding; Why bother getting upset because Uncle Rich has too much to drink and makes a holy show of himself out on the dance floor? It’s Uncle Rich. That’s what he DOES”
In fairness to him, I thought that he gave a good interview, although I would join issue with some of the points that he made during the last couple of minutes of part 2, After all most people accept that the globe has been warming and the real issue is by how much and to what extent (if any at all) this is caused and/or contributed to by man. The BEST data set merely confiirms that there has been some warming, and does nothing to establish the cause still less the extent to which man may have played a role. The data set should not be elevated to something that it is not. The headline in the WSJ sought to elevate it into something that it is not.
I personally consider that it is appropriate to cherry pick extracts of a data set. The issue is what is the significance if any of any cherry picked extract. It ought to be a simple and uncontentious question of fact whether temperatures have flat lined over any given period. The contentious issue is whether this is significant or not. That is where the debate should lie.
The unfortunate problem is that what length of period is reqiuired before one can be confident of a significant trend is akin to how long is a piece of string. Given the variability in climate, it may be that periods in excess of 100 years is required.
Whilts the recent hiatus to the warming may not be over a period that is statistically significant to conclude that warming has halted, it is significant to the question of the urgency of action. The effect of this hiatus is that there is now more time to save the world (if indeed it needs saving) and this enables us to take a more considered opportunity to more thoroughly examine and ascertain the underlying cause of any past warming and means that there is no need for any knee jerk reaction to controlling/mitigating the warming. I was pleased to hear Prof Muller clearly state that any action that the US might take would be futile unless all countries are on board.
Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) says: “…He’s the Postnormal Renaissance Man: instead of holding an opinion on many things, Muller holds many opinions on one thing.”
Well said. But anyone who thinks Al Gore is an ass can’t be all bad. I think Muller (or Mole-er) is trying too hard to be, as St. Paul said, “All things to all people.” The result is that he speaks out of both sides of his mouth. I find it hard to believe his skeptic side, Muller having said things like
“The bottom line is that there is a consensus — the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] — and the president needs to know what the IPCC says. Second, they say that most of the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to humans.”–Richard A. Muller [http://www.grist.org/article/lets-get-physical]
Omnologos wrote: “He’s the Postnormal Renaissance Man: instead of holding an opinion on many things, Muller holds many opinions on one thing.”
Beautiful. Worthy of Oscar Wilde. Meanwhile, can someone explain how Muller can make definitive claims about GLOBAL warming when they’ve got data (flawed at that) on (at most) 30 percent of the earth’s surface.
It’s undeniable that Muller speaks out of both sides of his mouth, depending on who he’s talking to. it’s really rather pathetic.
Allencic says:
November 2, 2011 at 3:12 pm
No matter how long this idiotic AGW goes on, I simply can’t understand why there are so many people, genuine scientists, environmentalists, average Joes on the street….
__________________________________
Scientist = Grant $$$$$$ politics
Environmentalists = Grant $$$$$ hatred of human species, politics
average Joes = brain washed and the ghoulish love of disaster. Think of all the rubberneckers at auto accidents.
John from CA says:
November 2, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Muller trashed Al Gore. I say we draw a line in the sand and give him a do over. He got that part right, maybe he can candid about the rest of the run away Global Warming scam.
_________________________________
No WAY!
Not with Muller’s Connections. Wolf in sheep’s clothing or a snake oil salesman.
See my comment on the firm Muller & Assoc.
at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/pre-prints-and-pre-data/#comment-784983
I think he made a bad move trying to blame the Wall Street Journal. That may come back to bite him.
I STRONGLY recommend we give Muller a Mulligan on this. It could pay off in the long run.
He is getting a sharp taste of how the media and the CAGW faithful will spin, amplify and distort his work. Yes he shot from the hip too quickly and should have been more careful and more politically savvy. But he is now getting taken to school rather brutally (and rapidly).
Muller is a potential ally. If we treat him decently (or even more than decently), he won’t forget it.
No one is perfect and he really is just being himself in the video.
He doesn’t appear to hold the same opinion from day to day or audience to audience.
Perhaps in his youth, Dr. Muller was inspired by Ralph Waldo Emerson … a very little mind indeed … who said, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”
How long does a pattern have to exist before it is relevant? I believe to focus on whether or not 10 or 13 or 15 years is relevant may not get us very far. However I believe few would argue that 160 years is not long enough. See the following graph showing 160 years of temperatures. Note the 62 year cycle that is referred to: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm
So if Richard Muller wishes to argue that 13 years is not relevant, I would suggest that a lack of warming over the last 13 years is totally consistent with being at the top of a 62 year sine curve on the site that shows the last 160 years.
Mr.Muller, if you read this,
You strike me as an activist. Global warming is from the left of politics (though oddly it started in the right with Margaret Thatcher, of all people). And I only see you being an activist for an issue from the left of politics. I see you have put politics over science. If science had truly been higher to you than politics you would have refused interviews about the paper before peer review had been done. You would have informed those requesting the interviews that the work was still in process and talk of it was not ready for the media. The media is ALWAYS anxious for any bad news it can put immediately into the eyes of the public. Manmade global warming has been bad news gold for them, and you gave them red meat—the reddest meat global warming has been able to produce in years. Your political views took precedence over science. And now there are technical issues, errors, being found in your paper. Will it even get through peer review! Odds of it are on your side though since peer review in the world of global warming is pal review and not peer review—all the global warming peers are pals.
I suppose it is fitting you are from Berkeley where irrational, immature political behavior is a norm.
But that’s just my opinion.
Muller hasn’t proved anything new. There isn’t a legitimate scientist that doesn’t agree the Earth’s average temperature hasn’t increased by about 0.7 C over the past century.
The real issue of GW is the “CA” part of CAGW. Muller freely admits his data addresses nothing about the CAUSES of GW, merely that GW has taken place. Duh…
What’s surprising is that Muller’s associate, Prof. Curry, clearly states that the BEST data shows no GW over the past 15 years. Muller, for apparent political reasons, avoids that issue by saying 15 years is too short of a time frame to make any assertions of a trend change.
What’s interesting is that since there hasn’t been any GW in 15 years, and CO2 levels have risen substantially over that time frame, it would tend to lessen the case for of the “Catastrophic Anthropogenic” theory of GW…
Statistics, damn statistics and politics…. Don’t you love it so…
juanslayton says:
November 2, 2011 at 5:00 pm
James Sexton: Well, we all lay in the bed we make.
Well, chickens do anyway. But then ‘lie’ might have an inconvenient connotation.
: > )
=======================================
Indeed! I had to re-word twice before it came out like so.
This guy seems a bit slippery.
Is he seriously trying to dodge the plain meaning oh his Wall Street Journal piece by claiming the reference to global warming was not also a reference to AGW?
If so, ok.
But is renders everything he has `said’ as trivial and relevant to nothing
But has he been living under a rock, to not understand that, in the public mind, a reference to global warming is usually taken as a reference to AGW. I do not belive Muller is ignorant of that.
Slippery. Really quite slippery …
Maybe Muller is trying to hard to be all things to all men, but I have yet to catch him in a deception, significant evasion, or unfounded claim.
And that in the world of climate scientists is a ringing endorsement.
Frederick Michael says:
November 2, 2011 at 7:04 pm
I STRONGLY recommend we give Muller a Mulligan on this. It could pay off in the long run.
He is getting a sharp taste of how the media and the CAGW faithful will spin, amplify and distort his work. Yes he shot from the hip too quickly and should have been more careful and more politically savvy. But he is now getting taken to school rather brutally (and rapidly).
Muller is a potential ally. If we treat him decently (or even more than decently), he won’t forget it.
================================================
I’m not sure we have time to get him up to speed. He certainly didn’t take the time to do so himself. As to whether or not he’ll forget it or not……. Today, I’d just assume that he’s an alarmist. But, I know they’d just assume he’d be considered a skeptic. He doesn’t know the issues. He’s not familiar with the dialogue. And his scientific approach is flawed. If he wanted to do anything other than get his name in the papers, he would have, at the very least, talked to Curry. But, he could have done something wild, like talk to Anthony or Steve Mc, to try and discern what the skeptic argument really was, as opposed to saying the earth has warmed and the skeptics are done.
I don’t give up on anyone. None of us should. But, damn…….. this ain’t figure skating. He should have kept his guard up. Yes, he’s getting schooled. If he’s an honest broker, I hope he can ride the storm out. But, either way he flops, he’s damaged goods. He is, BTW always invited to my blog. If he wishes to know who to talk to about the various thoughts and positions of the various skeptic camps, I’d be more than happy to give overviews and point him in the right directions to the people that can go into more detail.
I always hold a special bit of resentment for people such as him that would lump all of us together. It isn’t that I don’t hold skeptics in high regard, I do. (God knows many of us have been skewered much more than he’ll ever be.) I read and I learn. I get some of the posits made. I don’t get others. Others, still, I reject. But, I don’t have to be correct before the CAGW hypothesis is wrong.
I agree with Frederick. Better to ally with geo-engineers if it slows down the “action now!” crowd than to end up pedaling to power a computer to see what’s up @ WUWT.
Frankly, I think the headline bit is a scapegoat of convenience for Muller. As Charlie Martin noted above, authors don’t have control over the headlines of their articles. In this instance the headline and sub-head need to be taken into account, and considering the content of the article I don’t even think he has grounds for complaint: He handed the sub-head to them …
…..right in the body of his article:
Of course he didn’t mention that part, during the interview, did he?! I wonder why!
I’d be more inclined to cut him some slack if, when concluding this carefully crafted opus, instead of writing:
… he had written:
“When we began our study, we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had been careful in their work.
“Of course, one of the major criticisms of the skeptics is that we do not know how much of the warming is due to human emissions of carbon dioxide, nor what the effects might be. We made no independent assessment of that.”
Now, that would represent a desire to “cool the debate” that I could believe in – and I think it would have gone a long way towards leading the WSJ in a different direction for their choice of headline. Don’t you?!
Nonetheless, this whole mess could have been avoided if Muller had heeded his own advice from December, 2003:
Physicist, heal thyself!
In the meantime, the most charitable description I can think of for Muller is that his choices of actions and words suggest that he’d make a very good “chameleon”.
When I read about the BEST project examination of rural stations and the definition of criteria for that selection.as well as the use to define UHI effects, My brain SHOUTED BS (bad science). This guy is too lazy to do real science.
Too bad that Anthony got snookered by this con man. We do not need to ignore this guys double talk. pg
Remember when scientists would do some research, get some results, and publish them regardless of political impact?
Good times, good times.
Doesn’t anyone get the impression of Muller as a scared man?
I think he wants to be a skeptic but is simply terrified of being mangled by the IPCC media machine, so he tries to be a sort of ‘skept-believer’ and please both sides at once, but just succeeds in talking such contradictory bullshit he looks like a jerk. Pity, because he was a good potential Voice of Reason.
In the Wall Street Journal piece Muller writes “But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.” In the youtube video, he claims he never said that.
Faced with this kind of contradiction as a reader and viewer, you have two choices. Either believe he is a liar or believe that in his mind he believes he told the truth in both instances. I find myself vacillating between the two.
At times he seems incredibly Machiavellian. This view is supported by his praising Al Gore for his “exaggeration and distortion.” But at other times, I really think he does not see the contradiction between what he wrote and what he said. I think he meant to write “But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic that the world is warming, at least not any longer.” Somehow, in his own mind, that is what he thinks he wrote – even though if he goes back and reads it he will see he didn’t. This view is supported by his public criticism of Al Gore.
I never had any doubt the UHI story was a red herring. We know a warming trend exists, on average, all over the US. There has never been a reason to suspect the trend did not also exist at stations subject to UHI. Madness to wonder otherwise, in fact. The problem then is to extract only the trend from these stations as is done with all stations. It seems daunting but I believe it is achievable. Perhaps easier is to simply remove the stations with UHI problems from the record. It won’t affect the trend. The trend is what it is.
So now we can get to work on what the trend means, and I think it doesn’t mean anything special and here’s why. If we look at ice core records we see thousands of years of continual variation. What we don’t see are even brief periods without change. So we can take away from that our climate is stable around a moving average that we can explain with celestial cycles, estimates of lag in ocean heat change, solar variations, volcanism, and flora and fauna response. If we dig deeper we can include krill, termite, bovine, and SUV farts. None of it compares to natural cycles that are celestial and solar in nature. We can look at the record and see equivalent changes in all the years prior to human development. The only trend is our aging star and changes in our galactic neighborhood. It isn’t us that’s doing it.
The good news is the trend does not indicate a changed climate since the current interglacial began. Neither did the LIA, for that matter. Perturbations, like weather, are not climate. Climate is the framework within which weather happens. There are sporadic extremes within any climate framework but we will not see massive glaciation in our current climate and we won’t see a cinder Earth, either. We are seeing minor climate variability. When real climate change happens we won’t need Yoda assuring us he is sincere about his data – we will see it on our lawns.
We have so many cycles within cycles, some of which repeat, some not, glaciation with attendant feedbacks, glacial lake floods that cool the oceans, massive seas of lava that flood our tectonic margins, undersea black smokers in numbers we can’t imagine, solar activity – it is no wonder our models predict nothing useful. And it doesn’t matter. We don’t have the multi-petawatt capacity needed to counter even one sunny day let alone continuously counter the complex heat engine that has broken our dawn through all eternity.
Stop the madness, invest in adaption studies because that is all we have, and if we allow the climate nutters access to our tax system, there will be revolt on a global scale like we’ve never seen. California and Oz have done the world a favor by taking themselves out of the market place. Nobody has to worry about business competition from either place. Even better they will become dependent states, needful of the productivity and economical stream of goods produced elsewhere. They will become net importers for as long as the madness lasts. Good for everyone but them. They chose badly.
Philip Bradley says:
November 2, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Maybe Muller is trying to hard to be all things to all men, but I have yet to catch him in a deception, significant evasion, or unfounded claim.
Then you are being willfully blind.
Deception – Claiming to be a sceptic, when he is not. Permitting and encouraging the media interpretation that he is a “prominent former sceptic” who has “seen the light” about global warming.
Claiming that he never said that “you should no longer be a sceptic” when that is precisely what he said in his Op Ed.
Claiming that he finds fault with Algore’s tactics, while extolling those same deceptive methods as acceptable if they make people believe in ‘global warming’ and effect policy change.
Pretending that he is an unbiased observer with no preconceived notions, while the record demonstrates that he is a True Believer in global warming and desires policy change.
Pretending that he is an unbiased observer with no preconceived notions, while actively marketing himself through his company as a provider of potential solutions to ‘global warming’.
significant evasion – Trying to draw attention away from the fact that he did say “you should no longer be a sceptic”, by blaming the media for using a headline that accurately reflected exactly what he did in fact say.
Pretending that the media blitz PR campaign that he kicked off on Oct 20 was the same as pre-publication open review.
Pretending that his media blitz PR campaign was necessary to draw the attention of the IPPC to his papers for inclusion in AR5 – while simultaneously claiming that the media blitz was necessary to prevent the IPCC from sweeping his papers under the rug.
unfounded claim – Pretending that they have ruled out problems with station siting, UHI, methodologic err, and illegitimate adjustment with their unreviewed, unpublished, undocumented, alleged ‘research’.
Muller is a True Believer in global warming and brags that he has been for 30 years. He has called CO2 the worst pollutant in the history of man, and demands policy changes to solve that ‘problem’. His little Berkeley Kabuki theater production is not about serious scientific investigation, it is 100% about whitewashing over the legitimate bases for refusing to buy into the ‘global warming by CO2’ paradigm that he believes in and profits from.
Muller/BEST is to scientific investigation as Muir-Russel/UEA is to scandal inquiry.
It is all about providing plausbile justification for disregarding and marginalizing sceptics.
He just got beaten senseless by some pro boxer by the name of Curry. Honest, I saw it on the Internet. You guys should cut him a little slack. Ok, a LOT of slack.
/sarc
“The BEST flavor of the day”
So, what would Ben and Jerry call their ice cream flavor with Muller’s face on it?
What would some less AGW-friendly ice cream maker call it?
Would it melt faster?
JJ says:
November 2, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Excellent summary.
This guy is under a lot of strain. And on weak ice. A bad combo.
I don’t think he can recover. Not even with Mann’s ignorant fool for a lawyer.
Latitude says:
November 2, 2011 at 4:41 pm
Is this what you were thinking of?
Robert McCloskey quotes:
“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”
Frederick Michael says:
November 2, 2011 at 7:04 pm
“I STRONGLY recommend we give Muller a Mulligan on this. It could pay off in the long run.”
…
“Muller is a potential ally. If we treat him decently (or even more than decently), he won’t forget it.”
I respectfully disagree with Frederick Michael. To update an old saying:
With friends like Muller, who needs enemies?
Heaven help the poor fellow when he hears Sasano’s revelations about what the IBUKU satellite found. ( http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=025_1320063001 ) Meltdown alarm!
Warming, Oscillating and heavy weather, maybe he is not a RINO but a NINO
seriously though, the fellow needs to understand that communication and PR are skills. Skills he lacks
The “skeptic” label for Muller at most only could apply to his opinion about The Team. “What they did was shameful” – and that’s the sum total and the end of where his “skepticism” takes him.. It’s not skepticism about the temp records, and never was.He never stopped believing that CO2- driven AGW disaster is history that hasn’t happened yet..
I’ve looked at both videos and read the WSJ article and feel the inconsistencies have been exaggerated. When he says “you should not be a skeptic” he is referring to his own area of study – the temperature record, though he does not make this clear. But few sceptics have doubted that temperatures have risen – the debate concerning the record was the extent to which the published record was in error due to artefacts in the selection and processing of the data. To some extent the BEST scientist have a slain a dragon that, if not dead, was clearly dying.
The other big topics are whether the increase in temperature is anthropogenic and whether the effect will harmful or beneficent. On these issues Muller is clear that scepticism has a valid contribution to make. This is a position few scientists in the climate debate are prepared to take.
I welcome his contribution.
This man Muller is giving himself wedgies from all different directions, that usually results in being snookered in a corner with no way out but up. The only person that I have heard about that up is an option is Superman. The Ibuku satellite puts paid to all this CO2 none sense, it proves that it is not our fault.
But was he ever skeptical about the temperature rising ? Not at all. He was always convinced – in fact, action against it has been his business.
One could hope that he did not found the business based on what he thought was possibly untrue ?
A. Weasel.
Responding to Allencic:
Because there is so much govt. funding at stake. Literally billions. For most of the rent seeking scientists out there, that is worth lying for. And because there is so much A list social acclaim and media acclaim at stake….
Muller’s skepticism, is that he doubts that The Team has adequately explained things to the real skeptics.That’s his skepticism on the subject of AGW.
Steve C says:
November 2, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Heaven help the poor fellow when he hears Sasano’s revelations about what the IBUKU satellite found. ( http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=025_1320063001 ) Meltdown alarm!
Thanks for the link. This sounds almost unbelievable, but if it holds up it could be a real game changer. It should be very interesting to watch as this develops.
Mods; you might want to alert Anthony to this link. It seems well worth a post of it’s own.
It looks as if Muller had forgotten the first law of holes!
I cannot know Muller’s intentions.
I do know that the statement trashing climate change skepticism was delivered into a very loud PA system turned up to MAX and that the statements indicating that he would “never” trash climate change skepticism were made into a little tiny PA system with the volume set to 1.
Maybe intentions don’t matter.
Dave Wendt, the video might be misleading in that it zooms a graph showing all the green are for one season, while discussing overall results in an ambiguous way.
Does Muller have a memory problem?
Dave Wendt says:
November 3, 2011 at 3:24 am
Steve C says:
November 2, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Heaven help the poor fellow when he hears Sasano’s revelations about what the IBUKU satellite found. ( http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=025_1320063001 ) Meltdown alarm!
Thanks for the link. This sounds almost unbelievable, but if it holds up it could be a real game changer. It should be very interesting to watch as this develops.
Mods; you might want to alert Anthony to this link. It seems well worth a post of it’s own.
He’s been aware of it for a few days – it was posted in the “Tips & Notes” section.
The actual paper mentioned in the article is here: (pdf)
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/7/0/161/_pdf
As a WSJ subscriber, I don’t see that at all. What makes you believe the WSJ has a vested interested as an AGW trade journal?
“But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.” Richard Muller.
When asked about this statement, Muller replies
“I never said you shouldn’t be a skeptic. I never said that.”
Oh, yes you did. You wrote the Op-Ed piece in the WSJ – they are your words. To try to distinguish between reasons why one should not be a skeptic and the suggestion that one shouldn’t be a skeptic (an ethical statement) is as bad as the worst examples of Jesuitical casuistry I’ve ever seen.
Steve C says:
November 2, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Heaven help the poor fellow when he hears Sasano’s revelations about what the IBUKU satellite found. ( http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=025_1320063001 ) Meltdown alarm!
————–
I don’t see any ‘colorful maps’.
I can’t find a link to anything but the story but no pix.
Samurai November 2, 2011 at 8:12 pm
What’s surprising is that Muller’s associate, Prof. Curry, clearly states that the BEST data shows no GW over the past 15 years. Muller, for apparent political reasons, avoids that issue by saying 15 years is too short of a time frame to make any assertions of a trend change.
No. The 1979-2011 trend is less positive than the (say) 1979-2001 trend, so there has been a trend change. I’d be amazed if Muller would disagree with this. When he or any other scientist says that the past 10-15 years are “not enough,” he means that they haven’t changed the trend by enough to make for a strong challenge to the claim that the globe is warming over the long term. See the difference?
I wouldn’t be harsh on Muller. I’d just be appropriately cautious about what he says. You could ask for a less flappable character, but you have to take into account that global warming is hard to talk about for a person who thinks both sides have good points.
Not wishing to get embroiled in the warming has stalled argument, I point out that La Nina continues to bite.and according to the stellite data the October anomaly is 0.11degC. That is a big reduction over the September anomaly which was 0,29degC. If this fall in temperatures continues it will not be long before the anomaly is close to zero. It will be interesting to see the November data when this is out in early December.
As I’ve said previously, the man is a vile hypocrite. He’s been caught spouting outrageously obviously contradictions.
Aside from his hypocrisy, he has proven that he’s dishonest: 1) the way he treated Anthony in violating the process they agreed to, 2) going to press before completion of peer review, 3) his backdated “pre-print library” rationalization nonsense, 4) refusal to release final data, 5) stating he went to only one media outlet, while orchestrating an entire media campaign.
He’s also biased: 1) his use of “anthropogenic era” in the paper, 2) his statement about this work being included by the IPCC, 3) his flagrant failure to issue a statement of full disclosure regarding the work his company does and it’s vested interest in a finding supportive of AGW, 4) his failure to disclose his association and collaboration with his activist daughter in coordinating the media campaign.
This is not merely a singular indiscretion. It is a whole series of flagrantly dishonest acts and violations of scientific norms.
If a grad student or entry-level professor had done any one of these things, his career would be over.
Personally, at this point, I would absolutely not cut him a break or give him yet another chance, nor collaborate with him in any way. Even if he were to issue an apology, I’d would not believe for a second that it was sincere. He’s dishonest.
What I just said leaves out the matter of what he did with Anthony’s data – I mean, the premature publicizing or whatever. For that, maybe, it’s legitimate to be harsh on him.
There’s also the fact that the body of his op-ed (as opposed to the title) says that you shouldn’t be a skeptic any longer, but I’m willing to attribute his contradiction of that in the interview to confusion.
Chuck Nolan says:
November 3, 2011 at 6:20 am
Steve C says:
November 2, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Heaven help the poor fellow when he hears Sasano’s revelations about what the IBUKU satellite found. ( http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=025_1320063001 ) Meltdown alarm!
————–
I don’t see any ‘colorful maps’.
I can’t find a link to anything but the story but no pix.
Chuck –
I provided a link to the actual paper, above.
Enjoy.
If J Curry is simply unable to process the facts here, she is sinking herself.
My take on it is that she felt guilty, after coming down hard.
Then she was far far too giving, and damaged herself by way of repair, in offering an unconditional approval of Muller and of Best.
It looks like she had zero control and never even got to read the manuscript before release.
Ron Manley says:
“I’ve looked at both videos and read the WSJ article and feel the inconsistencies have been exaggerated. When he says “you should not be a skeptic” he is referring to his own area of study – the temperature record, though he does not make this clear.”
If he had merely had a slip of the pen, and failed to explain himself adequately in his Op Ed, then when that was pointed out he he would have dealt with the issue by
1) Saying “I misspoke”, and apologizing
2) re-running his media blitz list, issuing a retraction, and actively countering the “misperception” that his “misstatements” had made. He would also take that opportunity to clear up the “inadvertant confusion” the media has over his status as a sceptic, and retract some of the “accidental overstatements” regarding the conclusions of his “research”.
He did not do that.
1) Instead of saying “I misspoke”, he lied and said “I never said that.”
2) Instead of saying issuing a retraction and clarification for all of the “misstatements”, “misperceptions”, and “indavertant overstatements” that are all over every headline and article of every media outlet used by his PR campaign, he has he spun the issue by blaming the problem on the WSJ. He did this by calling attention to the WSJ headline and claiming that they wrote it without his knowledge or consent, and telling the lie that the headline doesnt reflect what he said. He did that, rather than acknowledging that the issue was with the words that HE WROTE, that the WSJ got it right, and so did the hundreds of other media outlets that accurately interpreted his media blitz message the exact same way.
This man is not confused. He is not making errors. He is playing politics. His goal is not science, his goal is countering scientific objection to ‘global warming’ theology.
Ron Cram says:
November 2, 2011 at 10:08 pm
In the Wall Street Journal piece Muller writes “But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.” In the youtube video, he claims he never said that.
Faced with this kind of contradiction as a reader and viewer, you have two choices. Either believe he is a liar or believe that in his mind he believes he told the truth in both instances. I find myself vacillating between the two.
At times he seems incredibly Machiavellian…..
_________________________________
There is no doubt but that He IS Machiavellian if you research him.
This guy is as innocent as a fox with feathers and blood all over his face. He just made a miscalculation in how FAST and how FAR the blog-o-sphere would carry word of his unscrupulous behavior and that Dr. Curry would do a bit of waffling.
He expected the print media and TV to be the overwhelming news carrier and he miscalculate, that is all. Now he is trying to back pedal a bit.
He is President and his daughter is CEO of Muller & Assoc. (Do not forget private corporations are a perfect cover for bribes as “Consulting fees”.)
From Muller & Assoc.
The man comes across as very frenetic/ borderline psychopathic
Steve C says:
November 2, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Heaven help the poor fellow when he hears Sasano’s revelations about what the IBUKU satellite found. ( http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=025_1320063001 ) Meltdown alarm!
————–
Chuck Nolan says:
November 3, 2011 at 6:20 am
I don’t see any ‘colorful maps’.
I can’t find a link to anything but the story but no pix.
______________
CheifIO (E. M Smith) has a very good write up: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/
Perhaps he can repost it here since Anthony is very busy..Hint, Hint
“But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.”
Okay, he says “you should’nt be sceptic that the planet has warmed lately”?
He seems to imply that he was sceptic to this, but not anymore?
Wow, so he was among those that deny that the planet has warmed (by natural causes, and perhaps slightly, maybe 0.2 degees or so, nobody really knows, by manmade actions) , and now he isnt anymore?
Hmmmm. Strange. A very sceptical man, in other words. Denying natural climate change like that!
Can someone take that shovel away from him? I have not heard anyone twist and turn like that since my engineering days when someone had messed up!
Anthony/Judith, why get involved with a land only measurement? I honestly want to know! I still fail to see what the BEST paper can bring to a debate that is about Global Temperatures. Its simply muddying the waters and Muller certainly seems to have the rubber boots on.
Others seem to have the same opinion!
Steven McIntyre reports that “649 Berkeley stations lack information on latitude and longitude, including 145 BOGUS stations. 453 stations lack not only latitude and longitude, but even a name. Many such stations are located in the country “[Missing]“, but a large fraction are located in “United States”. Steve says: “I’m pondering how one goes about calculating spatial autocorrelation between two BOGUS stations with unknown locations.”
Now, this is simply land stations. Imagine where the BEST team would be had they also added in the spatial autocorrelation with the Ocean/Sea readings, that have appeared to have problems!
Brings to mind “The rain in……………” post
I think one thing that is being confused is thermal emissions and land use change. The only way to possibly separate such changes is to find out if the maximums and minimums have both gone up or only the maximum. Both will indicate urbanisation (thermal emissions and land use change) and maximums only would usually indicate land use change or deforestation in rural areas. Of course this may not always be the case as intensely farmed areas for examply would have irrigation which changes things yet again. Another point is that 60% plus of thermal emissions take place at the power source and this will often be rural.
Some here may be holding on to this too closely. I got about 20 or so comments into it and quit reading because the majority were making personal comments against Richard Muller. Perhaps your mothers never taught you about not saying anything about a person if you couldn’t find anything nice to say. If Dr Muller is flip flopping around with his story when speaking to the press or to a group, it will become self evident. It will be his reputation that suffers. If he is a publicity seeker, in the end, his own goals for BEST will be what suffer.
Another thing my mom tried to teach us was not to sweat the small stuff. When it comes right down to it, Dr Muller’s BEST press release and his WSJ article are nothing more than small stuff. So how about we let the Michael Mann’s of the world be the small, mean spirited ones.
James Sexton says:
November 2, 2011 at 8:53 pm
I’m not sure we have time to get him up to speed.
How we treat Muller will become part of the permanent record. Muller should appreciate it but, as many have pointed out, that may not amount to much. But our reputation for civility is, and always will be, a stark contrast with the alarmists. in the very long run, I expect the civility contrast to be part of the historians’ narrative.
I have a deep desire to see scientific debate handled more professionally, and not just with the AGW issue. All science would be better for it. Good science is often interdicted by scientists’ emotional baggage. There seems to be a correlation between being uncivil and being wrong. If future students are made aware of this correlation, they will become better scientists.
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck
JohnWho says:
November 3, 2011 at 5:28 am
Thanks for the the link to the real paper. I’ve only had time for a quick scan but it looks like the liveleaks story was kind of an Emily Litella moment. The paper seems to be all about reducing the uncertainty of the emission estimates and not much about what the estimates actually are.
Oh, good heavens. Muller, before the study, proclaimed himself skeptical that the planet was warming. He is no longer skeptical about that, but reserves judgment about how much (not whether) human activity has to do with it. Then he hedges on that, saying that “well, the U.S. is not a big player in greenhouse gas emission compared to China and India,” That may be true, but is both an admission that greenhouse gas emissions play a role–and a convenient (kind of) defense for the anti-regulatory right. Real science always considers its positions “falsifiable” but the odds here are increasingly big that humans should cool it by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
[snip. No denigrating of our host. Further such references will get your entire comment deleted. ~dbs, mod.]
Not at all. He thinks some things are doubtful and others are not. He has been consistent about that.
Muller says, “Without good answers to all these complaints, global-warming skepticism seems sensible. But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.”
He means there are good reason why you should not be skeptical tat the globe has warmed – that’s the direct quote (“global-warming skeptic”), and that’s what he goes on to explain in the part that follows.
There is a fundamental flaw in this rebranding of Muller as a pretend skeptic – the implication is that unless you agree with positions x y and z, you cannot be a true skeptic. But that’s tribalism, not skepticism. Muller finds some components of the debate dubious but not others. Muller thinks the hockey stick in broken. He pans Michael Mann. He discredited the official temp records and maligned the motives and competence of those who compile them. On other matters he is closer to Pielke Snrs position. For instance, he doesn’t doubt there is an atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ effect and that human activity can contribute to it (same with Spencer and Lindzen). He also says that hopw much humans contribute to that effect is more uncertain than the IPCC give out, but that notkbnowing doesn’t automate a complacent attitude (same view as Pielke Snr).
Skepticism on AGW is not an all or nothing proposal, and if one is to criticise Muller on it, then refer to precisely what he is/isn’t skeptical about, otherwise you are not being a good skeptic!
[MODERATOR’S NOTE: Barry, please check your e-mail. -REP]
Dr Muller does seem way over his head. Others are trading off on his reputation to interpret anything they want out of BEST. Dr. Muller does not help the situation in that he says that that isn’t what he said, but he doesn’t really seem upset that others used his words that way. When the stakes are so high, including spending trillions of dollars world wide, bankrupting nations, and keeping the third world away from modern “conveniences” such as refrigeration and clean water, this passivity does not help. The end Part 2 is the key to everything, where he says that whatever the US does in CO2 reduction basically doesn’t matter, because most of the CO2 will be produced by China and India.
As an aside, I downloaded the Professor’s course “Physics for Future Presidents” and listened to it on my iPod. Actually, it was fun to listen to with my 15 year old son, on long driving trips, and have discussions after. Whatever his screw up in dealing with the AGW crowd, I will always have a soft spot in my heart for him and the gift he gave me in this connection with my son.
This nonsense will not stop until the flow of money to it stops. The politicians will continue to throw taxpayers money at it as long as they think they can gain more power and tax us more. The UN has an agenda, the EU has an agenda and then British elite have an agenda.
However there are signs that the public in liberal democracies have begun to realize that their lives are being ruined by this and are getting angry. At least the British government is beginning to change direction on climate (catching up with some others perhaps?). This Muller thing can only help.