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
@Bill Illis
I enjoy your posts and graphs, but could you change the background to a lighter color?
Madow and Mueller.Two crackpots. Both delusional hysterics.
Your interview on “Red-Eye” radio last night reached a sympathetic audience. R-E is becoming the nightly “show of choice”, judging by the number of stations which have switched to it. Great idea!
Especially, the concept of temperature increase proportional to the logarithm of CO2 concentration and hence, diminishing returns.
ferdberple says:
July 31, 2012 at 8:24 am
Exactly! If there is one thing above all else that defines our civilisation it is fossil fuels, it has taken out of the dark ages and presented us with the modern world which we take for granted. Everything we rely on, all the luxuries that our ancestors could only dream of have been provided by fossil fuels. From the fridge that keeps our food from rotting to the scanners that save our lives to transport systems that have opened up the world to us all. We should be thanking the Gods for the wonderful gift of fossil fuels, without this gift imagine where we would be.
William Jameson (@Juggernauzt) says:
July 31, 2012 at 6:37 am
…icey cold air from outer space,..
You forgot your /sarc tag – I hope.
Wow . . hard to imagine someone can plumb deeper depths of ridiculousness than Mikey Mann, but Mueller is certainly trying hard here to best him here.
I’m struck by two things when I look at Muller’s graphs of CO2/volcanic activity and temps. To me it doesn’t look like a very good fit from 1750 to 1940 or so. Does he provide any statistical evidence that his model is a good fit with the data over that period? Two, in 1940, by looking at the data, would his model have predicted temps would increase 1.5 degrees if CO2 had increased by as much as it did? Or did the strong correlation just show up over the last 50 years or so and he is predicted that this correlation will continue into the future? If his model wouldn’t have predicted that rise in temp for the given rise in CO2 what good is the model and why does anyone care about it.
OK I sat through the nauseating three minute long fallacious appeal to authority introduction by Maddow, only to hear that swivel eyed buffoon launch into his fantastic and unsubstantiated claim that man is now proven to be causing catastrophic climate change. It is enough to make any real scientist ill just to listen to this tripe. I had to give up before the end. Reading his half-baked and debunked papers is enough. It is too much have to also be tortured by listening to the uncritical press and this disciple of Lysenko having a love-in.
Nice article in fox news, but Fox new has just about no international credebility.CNN is here it needs to be. In the interview and the article, no graph of CO2 and temp. Where the beef?
I’d like to see Anthony on MSNBC…
Maybe the Koch brothers will fund your upcoming look at TOBS adjustments. The other post was going hog wild with posts, so I wait till now to congratulate you on your paper, and the hard work you and others put into it.
Who is that woman? She must be a caricature? Surely? For her sake…
I’m all for keeping coal in the ground as insurance, in case all else fails.
We do have plenty of natural gas, and it can be converted to liquid fuels such as gasoline and diesel.
I think this fellow is being reasonable, not asking for a shut down of society.
It was a pleasure seeing Maddow cringe when he mentioned clean fracking. Looked like a vampire at sunrise.
Sorry Sean starting “OK”.from Sean starting “Nice” – the bad speller Did not see there was already a Sean. I was not trying to pass myself off as you.
Sorry, couldn’t watch it. Not because of Muller, but because of Rachel Maddow. Half the piece was her blowhard diatribe propaganda rant that is just a waste of time.
Andy Smith says:
July 31, 2012 at 6:35 am
As far back as the late Sixties, it was understood that the last year of adolescence for academics is 39.
Ill repeat my FB post here and then go back and enjoy the comments:
“Watched Maddow and Muller. Again he speaks of a correlation between CO2 and temperature, and that they could not find any other explanation, which means it must be humanity. This is the only argument I have every heard. It implies that ‘science’ has fathomed and understood our planet and solar system and so ruled out every other mechanism! It’s called the principle of exclusion, and it’s bogus. Thank you Anthony.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/08/alarmist-climate-science-and-the-principle-of-exclusion/
This guy certainly has a haunted look in his eyes. Perhaps the Koch Brothers want their money back !
Clearly this poor man was tortured by the Inquisition and forced to confess his heresy publicly. Now that his confession is public and his views are no longer heterodox he can be accepted back as a full member of the church and thus avoid the damnation of his eternal soul.
It is clear the MSM is trying to spin him as a converted skeptic which is the biggest lie being perpetrated by him and the media. Muller has never been a skeptic,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html
“I was never a skeptic” – Richard Muller, 2011
“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 Muller, 2008
“There is a consensus that global warming is real. …it’s going to get much, much worse.” – Richard Muller, 2008
“Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” – Richard Muller, 2003
Ironic that Ms. Muller, a executive director of BEST and the Dr.’s daughter and publicity agent, holds a degree in literature?
Rachel Maddow is still around?
DR says:
July 31, 2012 at 9:27 am
@Bill Illis
I enjoy your posts and graphs, but could you change the background to a lighter color?
——————————
Something has been screwing up with imageshack lately so I’m trying a new image hoster. In addition to not screwing up the chart and having high resolution, I want it to preserve the file name because I do alot of charts and most image hosters just give you some code which doesn’t tell you what the file is or have crappy resolution.
So, try these and let me know if they don’t work.
http://s15.postimage.org/gisxup2c9/Berkeley12_vs_Had_CET_12_mon.png
http://s16.postimage.org/xpei9ayit/Berkeley2012_1773.png
The media gets it wrong a lot. And I’m beginning to think it’s intentional. They have a political left bent and aren’t making effort to change it. Truth is collateral damage in the world of politics and power.
So what did they get wrong this time? Just a little investigative work would have turned this up:
October 8, 2008 Grist Q & A with Richard A. Muller wherein is conclusive proof Richard A. Muller NEVER was a “denier” of “manmade” global warming:
(Q: ) Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?
(A:) Oh yes. [Laughs.] In fact, back in the early ’80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.
Link to Q & A Grist interview:
http://grist.org/article/lets-get-physical/
Why would anybody bother discussing how Richard Muller looks? Everybody at his university looks that way, and so they do here at Cambridge. Who cares? It does not mean anything. We don’t want to be seen barking up the wrong tree.
I would even give him the benefit of the doubt and presume he did what he did and said what he said without regard for political pressure.
The real problem is that what he did was moronic, to say the least. I can’t believe he could base any arguments on curve-fitting, which is a fine tool for making a guess, but it does not replace physics. Even worse, he challenges us to come up with a better-fitting theory. As if he is not aware of over-fitting. I can’t believe he is not. I think he forfeits his physics degree if he sincerely believes this is a way to discover things about nature.
A classical example of over-fitting is tide prediction, which is another thing not based on physics. Instead, it is achieved by massive curve-fitting, and only works for making short-range predictions. If you go to the Admiralty’s web site, they will predict the next few days’ worth of tide at any location equipped with a tide gauge with admirable precision. But don’t ask them about two weeks ahead (they claim to be able to do that for a fee, but I haven’t heard any success stories) or for any place not having a tide gauge. Ostensibly, ocean tides have much simpler causes than climate, so it should be easy enough to calculate them for centuries ahead, as we can do with planet trajectories. But that’s not how they do it. They simply ignore the causes of the tide and fit historic observations at each location with a humongous Fourier series including more than 100 harmonics. No wonder it falls apart. None of those harmonics makes any sense, despite their physically-sounding names like “lunisolar synodic fortnightly”.
The point is, if you guessed a theory form curve-fitting and then used the scientific method to prove it, you are my hero. I won’t care how you look or what other people say about your eyes or hair. But if your theory is nothing but the curve, get lost.