Bishop Hill Muller in the NYT
Jul 29, 2012 Climate: Surface Richard Muller's op-ed in the New York Times is now published:
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
Interestingly, I learn from Anthony that this is not what has caused him to postpone his vacation. There's more news coming later today.
Bishop Hill
Just a note to clarify - I am saying that the excitement is not over the Muller editorial. It's not unrelated though.
Reader Comments (74)
Good grief ... I still have another 6 hours to wait!!!
Hickman in the Guardian:
Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds: Earth's land shown to have warmed by 1.5C over past 250 years, with humans being almost entirely responsible
Wow I thought there were no "skeptical scientists" because the "science was settled" long ago??
What is it with "humans being almost entirely responsible" for temp change over 250 years?? pre-1950 we were also driving all temp change??
p.s. Judith Curry is not onboard with the attribution claims (from Hickman article linked above):
[my emphasis]
@Jonas N!
You following all this too? Mullers data isn't out on this yet, but filling in the gaps around what he says, I can's see anyway his attribution claim can be valid and certainly not "Stronger" than the IPCC's case as he asserts. Odd the CAGW's see this as being supporting, get the same climate sensitivity figure in magnitude(?), but with different, in fact contradictary, assumptions. Bizarre, looking forward to more info.
Hmm. I really thought watts' announcement and BEST were related. This better not be Anthony has a new home weather gizmo for sale!
I agree it is unlikely to be emails if Steve is in the dark. Hmm. UVA gives up and Watts has a scoop? No idea really...
GSW, of course I follow this (and the suspense of late :-)
Muller doesn't work with attribution, I think he is just mediasavvy trying to position him for more exposure and funding.
What he seems to claim is that there has been a 1.5 °C increase over quite recent times. Of which possibly 0.25 (±some) may be attributed to human CO2 over the last 50 years. I have a hard time seeing this strengthening the alarmist's position that 'it must be CO2, we have no other explanation'.
Fact seems to be that they shoud say: 'We have no explanation' Because the really don't!
Thanks for the update. If it turns out to be related, then my guess is Watts is working on a rebuttal that is going into the WSJ. Judith curry and Willis are involved as well is my guess
Agree Jonas, the way he goes about things, not quite right. Announcing new findings in an Op/Ed? v odd indeed. Also difficult to see what the new findings are, extending his dataset back 50yrs, who cares? and he's personally more convinced about human attribution than he was last time, "it's just a fact so there", plays well to the Hickmans and Romms. As you say, for one reason or another he needs the publicity.
My guess this time (has changed 3 times already!), based on the non-plussed statement is that a big time AGW scientist has dobbed in massive documentary evidence of AGW fraud and AW 's been going through the whole lot to get the facts etc 100% right etc. If so it really will be the end of AGW, IPCC and most climate scientists etc...
This guy was always part of the alarmist propaganda machine. His objective was to bump-start the stalled "cause".
It's too late though now , as claims of "It's worse than we thought" have little impact, except to bolster the flagging resolve of the faithful.
Skeptic?! Muller runs a consulting outfit - advising those who will pay (normally using tax payer dollars) on global warming. See http://mullerandassociates.com.
Mariana Britez: only your last guess counts. It's the same as my first guess and I still stick to that. If we win the first prize in this lottery we and several others have to share it: 0/n = 0.
the update from the Bishop at top of this thread indicates it's not something specific to Muller's op-ed but "not unrelated" either..... so somewhere in the ballpark of surface temp records and analysis thereof??
btw, update on WUWT confirms there will be an announcement today (in less than 5 hours from now):
[WUWT]: UPDATE: 7/29/2012 A press release will be issued at ~12PM Noon, PDT today.
You'd think Muller would at least be smart enough NOT to make the very first sentence of his article a lie.
Another alarmist proving his lack of integrity.
Thanks to ZT, I never heard of that Muller associates site.
Interesting to note that Michael Mann is quoted thus in the Guardian article skiphil refs:
Has Mann forgotten that Muller laid into the Michael Mann hockey stick and detailed the "errors in the Mann analysis" and given props to the two Mc's in their uncovering the errors?
If he hasn't maybe this is Mann tacitly accepting that criticism?
Or rather should we expect Muller to recant his excoriation of the high priest?
Someone should ask him. ;)
Another quick look at the Muller associate site and see this from 2004 when he contemplates India China growth:
It seems Muller was happily contemplating 8 degrees C in 50 years back in 2004 so why are we supposed to be shocked by his Pauline conversion to a mere 1.5 deg F in 20 years? ;)
So far, with Muller, this to me is all standard climate narcissism. Now, what a delightfully creepy world the climate orthodoxy is if Muller changes his mind on Mann. ;)
Linked from Hickman's story: Adam Corner reports favorably on Lewandowsky's smear of climate sceptics (and libertarians as well) as conspiracy theorists.
"The link between endorsing conspiracy theories and rejecting climate science facts suggests that it is the libertarian instinct to stick two fingers up at the mainstream – whatever the issue – that is important."
Ugh.
Well I am sticking with my Alien Masters guess. Anthony was contacted by our originator's and has been appointed their ambassador. They are coming to "help" their children move on to the next ring of awareness. Of course they will reveal themselves on Dec. 24, 2012.
Andrew Revkin has a pretty good post about this story, as Pielke Jr notes the use of scare quote around "converted" is appropriate.
Still. I'd now like to see some better jounalism on this - maybe a question put to Muller about his previous Mann criticism and his opinion of the "hide the decline" climategate controversy and his statement about how he won't read papers by certain people who were involved in "hide the decline".
I won't hold my breath. I suspect this pseudo-recantation balls is a satisfying money shot for many ;)
A cynic might ask; how much is it worth in grant funding terms is a 400 to 800 year CO2 to Temperature lag worth compared to, and in the alternative, a 0 year on year CO2 to Temperature exact correlation ???
All those Paleoclimatologists who froze their assets off collecting ice core samples must be pleased to be now told that they wasted their time.
How do things go down?
Roger Pielke Jr notes that Muller's statements are similar to those presented in his book. But if Muller is unconvincing, so is the book. It also means that people have been presenting the same insipid arguments over again, isn't it?
Roger Pielke Jr also wonders what Muller must be smoking when he makes his attribution statements. This shows that you have to be high on something to believe in attribution arguments.
Here's a video of Richard A. Muller earning the Bishop's imprimatur by repeating the skeptical gospel-- verbatim
The money quotes start ten minutes in .
Jul 29, 2012 at 6:48 PM | Russell
Apologies if you are not the same Russell who said this:
But I have to say to you that I'd much rather see a video of Richard Muller’s Nobel prize acceptance speech rather than some dreary cultish now anti-Richard Muller video ;)
Muller has an excellent lecture on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk) he totally destroys Mann, Jones, Schmidt et al.
After demonstrating their appalling 'science' lies and tricks, at 3.53 he says, "I now have a list of people whose paper I won't read anymore."
Does he still stand by that, I wonder?
Looks like Watt's has just burst Muller's bubble before it had time to inflate...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/#more-68286
Talk about using your opponent's words against themselves... it certainly is a poor gun that cannot point both ways :-)
Jul 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM | Harry Dale Huffman
Muller is just another Ecclesiastic, in the Church of Academic Science ...
... One of the Gelded, Golden Ones, all silky smooth now, and thus immune to harsh facts ...
May I offer my services to do some gelding? :)