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