I just watched this video interview on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow show (h/t to Poptech)
Despite the tacky caption, it was what Dr. Muller didn’t talk about that was, ahem, the best part.
To my surprise, when questioned on the issue, he didn’t list station quality as one of the things he ruled out. I think my message was delivered.
If you can get past the “genius” lead in part, its worth watching. Video here
@Paul Bell
You’ll get it……..http://mullerandassociates.com/
I would highly recomment “Dr.” (doesn’t deserve that title…sorry, intellectualy dishonest people should have their doctorates removed…) read a REAL Doctorate’s last book, i.e. Richard Feynmann. “Get your comb out Dick”…!!! (Tends to make him look foolish and a out of control.)
Max
I’m astonished, Muller says other countries must switch to natural gas and says fracking can be done safely. Wow, I thought he was a rabid greenie, no rabid greenie would EVER say fracking can be done safely. I expect he’ll be dragged over the greenie coals for saying anything positive about fossil fuels or fracking. He’s walking the center line.
It is curious that when so many principals of the AGW movement open their mouths, I sense that I’m in the presence of chldren.Their reasoning is childlike as are their emotional responses.
Could it be that having basically been at school continuously since the age of five, and in a protected environment insulated from the real world, some academics enter a neotenic state like human axolotls and never mature into adults? It would certainly explain the words and deeds of the likes of Mann, Hanson, Gleick, that idiot in the Superman costume, and now it seems Richard Muller.
It would actually be quite touching if it were not for the enormous harm that these geriatric brats are doing to the rest of mankind.
Mods could you fix typo in line 2 chldren please.
thanks, Andy
Forbes has a different take on AGW and the scientists who have shifted from believing CO2 is the problem to theory that suggests it is not the problem. One person shifted in favor and others went the other way so the argument continues. I personally think pollution in general contributes to the green house effect and over time the planet deals with the effects of pollution just as it did during the medieval period when temperatures were warmer than they are now due to volcanoes.
Did we make a mistake closing the Ozone Hole near the South Pole? Most likely. Why, the hole served as a chimney that allowed pollution to escape while bringing in icy cold air from outer space. Fear mongering Enviro-Facsists whined that the hole would let all the oxygen out, they were wrong. Think about like this, the icy cold air chills the trade winds that flow from the south pole to the north that aid the planet in cooling. So its time to talk about opening the hole instead of plugging the damn hole.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
This is more of a “return to the fold of a briefly strayed sheep” than a “conversion of an unbeliever.” I wonder if has he also “converted” on his recent indignation over the hiding of the decline in the Briffa MXD data since 1960?
The correlation with CO2 is a classical econometric “simultaneous equations” problem: CO2 causes warming, but at the same time warming causes more CO2 through outgassing from the oceans, so that it is not clear whether the correlation is telling us one or the other or some combination of the two.
The solution must lie in the inclusion of “exogenous” variables such as solar activity and human CO2 emissions in order to identify the two equations. I’ve been playing with this, but don’t have anything to report yet, since the dynamics of CO2 uptake by the environment complicate the simple IV/2SLS model. It’s also not clear how best to measure “solar”.
He did not mention nuclear because it costs more than natural gas, has more long term problems than natural gas, and he is talking about things that can be afforded globally. Do we want to have to worry about 47 or 186 countries with reactors and if someone is going to divert the fuel and try to cause problems with it?
I am for nuclear in general but lately I have seen that it is expensive and unlikely to go down due to govt. regulation as well as being inherently expensive (and scary to a lot of folks which makes it hard politically).
For every treason,
spin, spin, spin,
there is a reason,
spin, spin, spin
a time for every promise to be broken.
A time to tell lies
a time he denies.
A time to reflect
his reason’s suspect.
A time to show your work and code and calculations.
(With apologies to the Byrds.)
Yahoo is running with Muller:
http://news.yahoo.com/former-global-warming-skeptic-makes-total-turnaround-113037588.html
I wonder what was on her mind when she stumbled at the 5:11 point. LOL!
I find it interesting that Fracking is his solution for developing countries. Really?
That whole interview just didn’t seem right.
Anthony has bested BEST and its wild-eyed pretender to the scientific method. For that I am very, very grateful and respectful. I also imagine that Anthony was delighted beyond measure that the pretender could not tout “data accurate” or “thermometer siting okey-dokey”. Kind of leaves him with his pants down.
Unfortunately, watching anything on MSMBC (or CNN or ABC or CBS) is torture. We need new institutions, free-market corporations in the media business. Let these nonsense-sellers die from their own verbal pollution. If people had a choice (Fox is not good eough by far, but at least Anthony’s new study is mentioned), we would not find intelligent bloggers with integrity criticizing by “quoting” the crony corporate media’s purposeful, political errors. Such a big dose of RM is almost beyond the pale.
(Anthony, no criticism meant here; your delight is well deserved. Instead I am trying to cheerlead for new media. The old cannot be reformed; the free market’s creative destruction is called for, as it was, and still is, with General Motors.)
Muller is the equivalent of a “false flag”.
This is the new tactic from the propagandists – take people who are avid AGW believers but once made a comment correcting a falsehood, and claim that they are “former deniers” who have seen the light of day.
This sort of propaganda is straight out of Stalin’s or Goebbels’ play book.
The evidence is that Muller was never a skeptic, more of a waffle I think.
To those not familiar with MSNBC, you might have noticed their motto, Lean Forward. The Obama campaign motto is Forward. No coincidence. MSNBC is simply a mouthpiece for the most liberal of the liberals in the US, and Maddow leans the most. She makes my head explode.
Follow the money stupid!
INteresting to note. Fox carried the story (it wrote about both Anthony’s and Muller’s) and the dateline is yesterday. Nothing on CNN (I do not check MSNBC).
Why does Muller’s data start in 1753?
Why not 1750 which has just as much data and was about 0.0C?
Why not 1730 which was perhaps +1.0C.
Because 1753 was a nice low point to start with.
Berkeley 2012 versus HadCET going back to 1659.
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/2005/berkeley12vshadcet12mon.png
Why not start in 1773? Of course because it looks like this.
http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/502/berkeley20121773.png
Against my better judgment I attempted to watch this. But I just could not bring myself to sit through even the first minute of listen Rachel Madcow.
@Taphonomic: I’m still waiting for Muller to explain, in his current media blitz, why his papers haven’t been peer reviewed.
Oh, but they HAVE been peer reviewed. Repeatedly. The papers just have not PASSED peer review.
I watched the opening few minutes comments of Rachel Maddow, and felt nauseated, so I tuned out before Muller appeared. She had fallen into the Ad Vericundiam trap of logical fallacies; appeal to authority. Muller is qualified in some area of Physics, but knows squat about climate which is a large subject with too many unknowns and manipulations even at this time. It reminds me of Linus Pauling and his statements on vitamin C and the common cold. He should have stuck to the Hydrogen bond.
I was a skeptic, then a believer, then a skeptic, then a believer, then a skeptic, then a believer.Now I’m not sure. I believe I am a skeptic, or am I skeptical I am a believer?
Stephanie Clague says:
July 31, 2012 at 12:10 am
History tells us that those forces that try to pervert science to serve political ends always fail, it is the damage they do in the attempt that defines their ultimate failure.
==============
You need look no further than EU and US unemployment rates and debt levels. Neither is sustainable and will over time lead to economic collapse of these empires, if history is any guide.
Each and every one of us owes our prosperity to an army of mechanical slaves, kept alive on a diet of coal, oil and gas. In the industrialized nations, the labor provided by these slaves is on the order of that provided by 200 human slaves in pre-industrial times.
These mechanical slaves are remarkably efficient. The CO2 these machines produce is only 1/4 the amount of CO2 the equivalent number of human slaves would produce. If we tried to replace these machines by human slaves, we could not grow enough food on the surface of the earth to feed them.
If we tried to replace the diet of coal, oil and gas these machines consume with the equivalent amount of energy from plant material, these machines would soon consume all plant life on the planet.
We live in cities of millions of people, made possible by these mechanical slaves. They grow vast quantities of food, mine huge amounts of raw materials, manufacture vast quantities of manufactured goods. They transport these to our cites, so that we may live.
Disrupt this process and most of us that live in cities would within a matter of a few short months would be facing starvation and death. As was clearly demonstrated in the last century in the USSR and Cambodia.
At the heart of the CO2 scare is the notion that the earth has too many people. That if we were to get rid of most of them, things would be a lot better for those that remained. The earth’s resources would be much more sustainable (last longer) with less people consuming them.
All that is required to make this happen is to enact the same policies that worked so well to remove “surplus” people in the past. Simply remove their access to the 200 slaves that work each day to keep them alive, and nature will quickly take care of the rest.
William Jameson (@Juggernauzt) says:
July 31, 2012 at 6:37 am
Did we make a mistake closing the Ozone Hole near the South Pole? Most likely. Why, the hole served as a chimney that allowed pollution to escape while bringing in icy cold air from outer space.
Seriously, “icy cold air from outer space”? How much air is there in outer space?
Fox news picked up your story:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/30/weather-station-temp-claims-are-overheated-report-claims/?intcmp=features