Befuddled Warmist Richard Muller Declares Skeptics Should Convert to Believers Because His Study Shows the Earth Has Warmed Since the 1950s!

“Muller is in engaging in nothing short of propaganda,” says Marc Morano of Climate Depot. Muller waits until the end to finally admit that his study did not even look at what caused temperature trends.


20 Oct 11 – Editorial by Marc Morano

‘Warming now equals human causation?! Muller should be ashamed of himself for promoting media spin like this.’ ‘Muller’s study is already being met with massive scientific blowback from his colleagues’.

The climate debate has not centered on whether the Earth has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850 or since the 1950s. The climate debate is about how much humans may or may not be contributing to the warming trend. (and the science and data is solidly favoring skeptics.)”

Berkeley University Professor Richard A. Muller is a very confused man. Muller is claiming in a October 21, 2011 OPED that skeptics of man-made global warming fears no longer have any basis to doubt “global warming” because his new study confirms that the Earth has warmed since the 1950s! Muller seems to imply that terms “global warming” and man-made global warming are interchangeable and any warming is somehow “proof” of human causation.

Muller waits until the end his OPED to finally admit that his study did not even look at what caused temperature trends. By saying the loaded phrase “global warming is real” — which the media, politicians and most people would interpret as actually meaning “man-made global warming” is real – Muller is in engaging in nothing short of propaganda. Muller is seems to enjoy implying that his study addresses the core question of whether and how much humans may contribute to global average temperatures.

Muller is being described by many in the media — including NYT’s Andrew Revkin – as being a climate “skeptic.” But clearly, Muller must not have gotten the memo, as he is lustily referring to skeptics as “deniers” in his media blitz. See: Richard Muller: ‘The deniers pay no attention to science’

Muller’s WSJ OPED is designed to confuse the public with perhaps some of the most banal and straw man arguments yet put forth by a global warming activist. Muller (ramuller@lbl.gov) in his OPED and in his spin to the media, is implying that warming somehow equals human causation. But the climate debate has not centered on whether the Earth has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850 or since the 1950s. The climate debate is about how much humans may or may not be contributing to the warming trend. (and the science and data is solidly favoring skeptics.)

[Note: The highpoint of global temperatures is still 1998 and any claims of 2005 or 2010 being the “hottest on record” are laughable and ‘purely political.”

See Climate Depot’s analysis: 2010 tied for ‘hottest’ year?! Relax, it is ‘purely a political statement’ — Even NASA’s Hansen admits it is ‘not particularly important’ — Prof. mocks ‘hottest decade’ claim as ‘a joke’ — ‘Claims based on year-to-year temp data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree’]

Muller’s study is already being met with massive scientific blowback from his colleagues.

See: 1) Climatologist Dr. Pielke Sr. On Muller’s study: ‘The nearly identical [temperature] trends is no surprise as they draw from mostly the same raw data!’

2) Meteorologist Watts: The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project puts PR before peer review… making a ‘pre-peer review’ media blitz despite errors

3) Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl Rips Muller’s Temperature Study: ‘It is not true that the Berkeley group has found relevant evidence for the core questions in the AGW debate’

Climate Depot since at least March of 2011 had been publicly warning that Muller’s entire BEST project was a predetermined con set up to take down a straw man argument. See: On 3-23-11, Climate Depot wrote in group email to fellow skeptics: ‘This whole [Muller] project has to be a set up to screw skeptics. Who disputes warming has taken place? Why have we allowed Muller to set up a straw man argument to take cheap shots at skeptics? It appears Muller is incapable of running this project. He has allowed leaks, media distortions, allowed [warmist activist Joe] Romm to publicly hijack project and Muller remains silent’ – [Note: For Climate Depot’s comprehensive report on Muller in April 2011, see here.]

Muller finally admits BEST did not study AGW

Muller saves the best for last: “When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups…Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.”

Whoa. Muller waits until the end his OPED to finally admit that his study did not even look at what caused temperature trends.

See entire article:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/13375/Befuddled-Warmist-Richard-Muller-Declares-Skeptics-Sho uld-Convert-to-Believers-Because-His-Study-Shows-the-Earth-Has-Warmed-Since-the-1950s–Cli mate-Depot-Responds

Thanks to Marc Morano for this link

 

 


14 thoughts on “Befuddled Warmist Richard Muller Declares Skeptics Should Convert to Believers Because His Study Shows the Earth Has Warmed Since the 1950s!”

  1. The article quoted when it refers to ice rebounding in the Antarctic under the word rebound has a link. The link goes back to the same article. If you are going to use a link to debunk global warming, at least have it link to its sources. A scientific paper without sources is just as much to be ridiculed as one with sources that don’t have sufficient data.

    I would love to see actual evidence that sea level is falling. I would love to see the Antarctic refreezing itself to the highest levels ever. But so far I see no evidence of this. Regardless, if we are headed into an ice age as you so frequently post in this website, remember, pollution controls for greenhouse gases may also be important for controlling asthma issues around cities due to pollution. We shouldn’t be so ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and find ways to limit greenhouse gases where it creates smog, and unhealthful air, while not inhibiting the gases that keep an ice age in check. That’s a fine balance. Oh and for your evidence of malaria, the mosquito issues on the Eastern Shore of Maryland are worse than ever. Part of the problem, Maryland does not have the money to pay for mosquito control it used to. Why? Certain politicians who like supporting big business don’t want to pay money to help the public works department do its job. Remember you can’t have it both ways.

    Still we’ll see what happens.

    • In my view the Muller results are irrelevant. I don’t think many people if anybody disputed that it got warmer from 1950-1998. The problem for the global warmists is that since 1998 its getting cooler. The issue is what the underlying causes are and I tend to give greater weight to natural causes rather than the 7% humans contributed to 0.035% of the atmosphere. The warmists are going to look like idiots over the next couple of decades as it keeps getting colder and colder.

  2. Befuddled Warmist Richard Muller Declares Skeptics Should Convert to Believers Because His Study Shows the Earth Has Warmed Since the 1950s!

    This is not science! This is all about a religious conversion to support a political and financial agenda. Watch and learn people and don’t accept establishment propaganda as fact just because of who provides the information. Make your own observations and do your own thinking and fact finding.

  3. How do “greenhouse gases” heat the atmosphere ?

    It is a good question they never answer. As 99.9% of a dry atmosphere does not significantly absorb IR radiation how does it become heated ?

    Obviously the answer is that radiation is not very significant in our atmosphere compared to conductive and convective “heat” transport mechanisms !

    Or is the warmth we feel, say 25 C air temperature, really 0.04 % of the atmosphere at really superhot temperature balanced by 99.96% at really cold temperature ?

    I don’t buy it and neither should you.

    If radiation is such a dominant mechanism of “heat” transfer in our atmosphere why do vehicle engines require “radiators” – which incidentally DON’T work by “radiation” – they work by conductive and convective “heat” transfer.

    Perhaps “climate scientists” might like to demonstrate their faith by building engines that actually remove excess heat by radiation.

    They’ll certainly boost the motor mechanic businesses.

  4. It’s time to except that carbon dioxide does absorb and re-radiate heat radiation. Scientists have only known this since 1861; Al Gore didn’t invent this. Spin doctors like Marc Morano who have no scientific credentials have no credibility.

    • Mr Carpainter,

      I am sorry but I can’t accept your argument. The science just is not there. Honestly, take the time to read about Global Cooling. Find the proof, if you can, against it.

  5. Research on the internet is a little like “wiping your bum with Glad Wrap” it goes on and on and on and on forever. There are always arguments for and against any given theory.

    However, the manipulation of data to suit the argument, the vested interests, and the inability or the unwillingness to debate points of contention, in a televised medium, with their fellow scientists from the Global Cooling side of the argument, makes an ass of the proponents of Global Warming.

    Debate is healthy. Debate will prove or disprove an argument.

    I am all for an international syposium to debate the merits of both arguments. I am all for international consensus.

  6. To be fair to the Berkeley Group, if you read their papers, there is some reasonable scientific approaches in them. Whether it’s accurate science will be determined by the detailed peer review. Which can be done by absolutely anyone as their papers etc are all found on the website.

    1. They re-evaluate somewhere close to 40,000 independent weather stations and draw up a ‘temperature index’ for the past 60 years. It’s similar to that of CRU.
    2. They claim to have investigated sites in urban and rural arenas. The findings are quite surprising and will no doubt be investigated skeptically.
    3. They have examined correlations between temperature and oceanic parameters such as AMO, PDO, NAO, AO etc and have reached similar conclusions to Joe D’Aleo and others previously.

    What I think they have sought to do is to start at the beginning with the question: ‘are there issues of analysis which render the temperature measurement claims since 1850 invalid?’ Then they have sought to correlate temperuture trends with oceanic parameters in a first search for potential mechanisms.

    What they have singularly failed to do is to compare carbon dioxide levels with temperature.

    The major issue here is the PR, the spin and the media blitz. It was timed with the California Cap ‘N’ Trade announcement. I wonder if it was also suggested by the strongly pro-Labour party head of the Royal Society, Nobel Laureate, Professor Sir Paul Nurse?

    What 2008 and 2011 have proven is simple: bankers and scientists, having been caught with their pants down once, have sought to repeat the process again.

    With one difference: those who were duped in 2008 found out how they had been duped in terms of how to manage the fall out. And they won’t be duped a second time.

    And because those folks sought wilfully to deceive again, their reputations should be in tatters forever. Not temporarily. Forever.

    Goldman Sachs and climate scientists actually have a lot in common you know.

    More than you would realise……….

  7. You look this guy up on Wikipedia…he’s not a climate guy at all.

    This is the problem with university or lab tenure: it inculcates a messanic complex to genuinely smart people who are specialists in one realm, and they suddenly feel entitled to be experts on everything.

    Look up the late Iben Browning, tenured at Sandia Nat’l Lab, who was a competent climate guy, but then left the reservation in 1990, scaring millions that the New Madrid earthquake fault would tear America in half (never happened). But Browning was always seriously convinced we were entering a dangerous cooling period.

  8. “absorbs and re-radiates infra-red radiation” is just a n obtuse way of saying “heats up then cools down”

  9. One could also say: “Believers should convert to skeptics because the Earth has cooled since 1934, or 1000 years ago!

Comments are closed.