Bishop Hill Muller still not impressed by Climategate
Aug 4, 2012 Climate: CRU Climate: Mann Richard Muller, who has been in much demand in recent days, because of his alleged conversion to the global warming mainstream, is going to get a whole lot more attention after his latest comments on Climategate (H/T Tom Nelson). Muller's comments come from an interview at the Brad Blog, reported here.
But the interview's friendly climate changed and really began to heat up when I asked Muller if his findings finally put to rest the far Right's claim that the cockamamie (and debunked-many times-over) "Climategate" affair "proved" that climate scientists linked to the pseudo-scandal were fudging their global warming data.
Incredibly, Muller asserted that "Climategate" was not a settled issue, and that the scientists involved were found to have "hidden" data. (He also asserted, without evidence to support it, that the "controversial" e-mails at the center of the pseudo-scandal were intentionally "leaked by a member of the team," rather than hacked. He claims that "most people" believe that to be the case, though he was unable or unwilling to back up that element of his charge either.) I pointed out that eight different investigations all found that no data manipulation took place; he asserted that temperature data had been "hidden", not manipulated. When I asked if "hiding" data was not a form of manipulation, he gave a muddled non-answer (though he made sure to get in some particularly nasty, and seemingly personal, shots at acclaimed Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann).
Rosenberg then addressed America's recently-shattered temperature records, wildfires and unrelenting drought, asking Muller if there was a clear link between these extreme weather events and climate change; Muller, again, curiously downplayed any connection, ultimately suggesting that the drought wasn't that much different from the 1930s Dust Bowl.
...
Even as Muller's own scientific findings continue to come closer and closer to Mann's long-standing and well-documented assertions, there is clearly no love lost between the two men, as evidenced by the shots Muller took at Mann during our interview.
In addition, as Tom Nelson notes, there is this comment about the CRU scientists:
What they did was, I think shameful, and it was scientific malpractice. If they were licensed scientists, they should have to lose their license. What they did is they held back the discordant data...if they had done this at Berkeley or Stanford, I think, they would have been shamed. The standards that they have over there at the University of East Anglia are just not up to what we consider standard scientific methods. When you withhold data that is discordant, and they refused to release it until it came out in this leak...<
Reader Comments (55)
What 'far right'?
"Far right" is a precautionary incantation - used by people on the left as an advance smear on anyone who might have to temerity to disagree with them.
Commonly used in BBC current affairs commentary, as in "Many people believe that the advantages EU membership far outweigh the costs - however there are those on the far right who disagree".
"... we would love to have him return to the show to discuss the "Climategate" matter with Mann himself "
The Muller v Mann show - oh joy of joys, that would be a heated conversation ;-) . Would there be a warm up act?
Trick show. With Mann's personal precautionary principle in place Its not going to happen though is it? He is not going to risk a conversation that shines a light into the Muller light transparency PR trick v Mann's dirty ditch turbidity trick.
To a rabid New World Order pro-big-government centralist commie, anyone who doesn't agree with them is "far right." I suppose - all things being relative - they're quite right. I mean correct. I count myself as a Libertarian, so to the Brad Blog that makes me one step away from Hitler (ironically, since of course he was a socialist).
"Far Right" definition?
Why not ask the author of the piece ...
D.R. Tucker is a Massachusetts-based freelance writer. He has been a contributor to the Huffington Post, the Boston Herald, ClimateCrocks.com, Human Events Online, FrumForum.com, the Ripon Forum, Truth-Out.org, TheNextRight.com, and BookerRising.com. In addition, he also hosted a Blog Talk Radio program, The Notes, from August 2009 to June, 2010. You can follow him on Twitter here: @DRTucker
My guess is that "Far Right" means everyone who drives a car, uses a computer, saves for a rainy day... including everyone who would prefer not to live in a cave, prefer not to subsistence farm, prefer not to starve, prefer not to have to stay within a 5 mile radius of birth for a whole lifetime, prefer to have children that lived until their 10th birthday, prefer not to have to cut down trees to keep warm.... etc etc.
have you listen to the full podcast yet!!! that the article is based on!!
podcast of the interview on this page
http://prn.fm/2012/08/01/green-front-dr-richard-muller-080112/#axzz22R4YezCa
Prof Muller from about 10:00 mins in.. 18:mins onwards the interviewer gets quite agressive...and Muller really, really criticises Mann, and defends the Koch brothers..
potshots! at Mann - full on broadside more like.
I conclude Muller is a professional rankler.
well worth a listen to his whole of podcast – he starts at 10 minutes.
http://prn.fm/2012/08/01/green-front-dr-richard-muller-080112/#axzz22R4YezCa
he also is really critical of the interviewers assertions of ‘record droughts, record heatwaves’, etc 21 mins 30 secs
his defence of the Koch brothers (from an idiotic question from the interviewer) is very interesting 4 mins later
Thanks Barry, that is indeed rather interesting.
[Snip - raise the tone please]
[Snip - venting]
[Snip - raise the tone please]
'I pointed out that eight different investigations all found that no data manipulation took place'
Not one of those investigations was worth a dam and in words of one them none of them ;looked at the science' in situation were something is not even covered its possible to if it invalid or valid . Although the GAW proponents would like to claim otherwise, what these awful reviews did not do is state that the 'science' carried out was good.
Aug 4, 2012 at 10:19 PM | Barry Woods
Thanks for that link an absolutely fascinating insight into what Muller is all about I think everybody should listen to it, it's extrememly entertaining. I find myself quite liking Muller even if he is shamelessly positioning himself as the true heir of climate science truth and plugging his book too.
I listened from the start of the show and got the impression it seemed be a crazy parody of green believer airheads, the anti-Fox green news, it seem obvious the reporters were unused to engaging in any tricky grey areas - the poor maroons were obviously only expecting to get gratitude from Muller for being welcomed into the unquestioning cult, and Muller initially seemingly obliges by being pleasant (throughout), but then his sticking to his guns on all the positions Barry mentions totally throws them into a spin. It was like something from a sitcom. Hilarious!
I listened a bit more after Muller left and they almost had a shaken tone to their voices, they went through some chatter together that was a palpable attempt at a reprogramming of their shaken cognitive stances back to comforting normality, chuckling at how risible the idea of the Koch brothers being open-minded.
Fascinating.
I would dearly love to hear both Muller and Mann together on the show as she asked but I got the feeling Muller ducked that possibility.
BTW Muller’s assertions about his belief that it was an inside leak at CRU is quite interesting -he seems surprisingly certain - I wondered if he may have some inside knowledge?
Meanwhile, at Real Climate, Gavin sweeps in, at his most magisterial and dismissive, to announce that the puny efforts of the little people are all in vain.
AR5 has already been decided by the important people.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/08/let-the-games-begin/
The 'fraud' being planned for AR5 appears to be Trenberth's 'missing heat' for which there is no physical basis.
The 'fraud' for AR4 was to switch Twomey's partially correct Mie physics with the fake 'surface reflection' claim': http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sgg/singh/winners4.html
When you stand as 'far to the left as D R Tucker does - even people in the centre sit on the 'far right'.
Then this from Muller family alarmist inc':
No mention of E Mann's data and Penn state then?......................curious.
That interview is hilarious. Kudos to Muller for not permitting the alarmist hosts to propagate and perpetuate their misunderstandings and myths of the realities of climategate emails, the supposed investigations, Hurricane Katrina, the 'record temperatures and drought of 2012', and the dangers of fracking etc. It is well worth a listen just to hear the hosts getting increasingly gobsmacked with his rational dismissal of their Gore and Mannian gonzo science and meteorological bollocks.
Muller is an interesting character. The physicist in him has clearly seen the bullshit which much of the alarmist cause is founded on. It is just a shame that he has not applied this scepticism to the significance of UHI and poor station siting in terms of contaminating NOAA, GISS, and ultimately his BEST dataset. I know he thinks his algorithms and statistical methods are above reproach, but it doesn't matter how hard you try, you can't polish a turd.
David UK said:
Just FYI, D.R. Tucker is a Republican and always has been. And we (I am the creator and publisher of The BRAD BLOG) have long supported the efforts of folks like Ron Paul who, last I checked, has some fairly impressive libertarian cred.
But I suspect it's much easier to take silly, baseless, pot shots at Tucker and at our site -- as "a rabid New World Order pro-big-government centralist commie" -- rather than criticize the actual, ya know, substance of the interview.
Keep up the bad work, David.
As ever, dispassionate endeavors to "debate" so-called Climate Science with serially evasive AGW Catastrophists rapidly degenerate to epithets concerning opponents' places on the contemporary political spectrum. Who cares... either these Big Government shills defend their theses on the merits, or it's back to Impetus, Epicycles, and Phlogiston for Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth, and others of their egregiously malfeasant ilk.
Brad Friedman - IMHO, anyone garnering a disparaging comment from a close associate of a convicted terrorist (i.e. YOU) should consider it a badge of honor.
http://leestranahan.com/the-political-connection-brett-kimberlin-brad-friedman
Yanno, aside from climate catastrophology, the only other "field" where 15ppmv of a particular substance can be perceived to have such a significant effect on the whole is homoeopathy.
but but but...no one has pointed out that climategate was really about destroying the concept of peer review as an academic safeguard. You can argue about temp records all you like. And it is interesting that that is where Muller seems to want to focus attention. In the end, it is the fact that academia and intellectual integrity and mathematical competence can be shown to be entirely corrupt that should be the real story. Instead, we all go after the peanuts. Yes...the temps go up at the end of the 20th c.. very disappointing if you are not a penguin.
Jim - Anyone relying on the work of a pretend "journalist" and close associate of known GOP con-men Andrew Breitbart and James O'Keefe, should consider themselves embarrassed. I suspect you don't.
Are we being introduced to the rather more dark and sleazy side of political climate change activism?
Brad - Hmm. Taking "silly, baseless potshots" at Breitbart & O'Keefe, rather than responding to the "actual ... substance" of the charge. Pot, kettle.
Do you dispute that you are an associate of Brett Kimberlin? Or do you dispute that he was convicted of being the "Speedway Bomber"?
http://www.americanfreedombybarbara.com/2012/05/who-is-brett-kimberlin.html
I don't normally comment here because I find it hard to quote your original text especially when you are quoting. I'm a "luddite" when it comes to this kind of stuff.
In this case you gave a link to the original, but even though you quoted the ridiculous part you didn't include the "entertaining introduction".l
"On Wednesday, Progressive Radio Network host/veteran green journalist"
This is basically silo news...
not that the alternative
"Conservative Radio Network host/verteran denailist journalist"
would be any better,
What I think your point is, and I don't want to be pargisan about it, but this guy largely gets the facts wrong either quoting non-authorities (not that authority means anything in science) or uses the word "assert" far too often.
It's a truism in science that you can't actually prove anything but you should be able to do better than quoting other people's views, lol
Presumably Mann is now angrily banging out an email or two demanding that pressure be applied to Professor Muller (and his associates).
(One shudders to think of the grammatical errors and the furiously uncoordinated elbow movements).
Aug 5, 2012 at 12:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrad Friedman
Looked at your website and all I can say is:
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,
Then it must be a duck.
"Trenberth's 'missing heat' for which there is no physical basis. Hurray, Climate "Science" has found its equivalent to 'dark matter'.
Seems like Muller wants to take over from Mann as the poster boy for anthropogenic global warming. Fight! Fight! Fight! *grabs popcorn*
Is there a modern day John Gabriel Utterson amongst us who can investigate the strange case of Dr Richard Muller?
Muller;
ACO2 warms the atmosphere.
Polar bears are not affected by that.
Katrina was only cat3 on land.
Storm activity decreasing.
In a warming world, records will be set.
Current extremes in continental US not unprecedented.
UEA is a crap university.
2/3 of 1 degree centigrade is all that is attributable to AGW.
Interviewer;
But, but, but: I've been trained by Al Gore....
Hilarious!
Hasn't anyone else realised that as the IPCC climate fraud spirals downwards in its death dive, others besides Muller who jumped aboard to access filthy lucre will also be ejected by centripetal force?
Do you dispute that you are an associate of Brett Kimberlin? Or do you dispute that he was convicted of being the "Speedway Bomber"?
Who is Brett Kimberlin? What is 'speedway bombing'? Are they worth my time at the Wikipedia? Where do people learn that kind of questioning anyway?
Who is Brett Kimberlin? What is 'speedway bombing'? Are they worth my time at the Wikipedia? Where do people learn that kind of questioning anyway?
Having wikkied him I would say that he is probably someone it would be best to avoid. Speedway is a town in Indiana. Bombings were in 1978.
Yanno, aside from climate catastrophology, the only other "field" where 15ppmv of a particular substance can be perceived to have such a significant effect on the whole is homoeopathy.
Aug 5, 2012 at 1:15 AM | Simon Hopkinson
This is very profound.
Can we cut the discussion of Speedway please.
Beg pardon your Grace.
"...rather than criticize the actual, ya know, substance of the interview."
The interviewee provided some substance, at least. None was apparent from the interviewer.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Lapogus, GrantB and, come to that, geffchambers
Now here’s a thought.
Why does someone with deep pockets not fund Pidgeon/Corner to investigate the causes of Muller’s changes of allegiance over the years?
Might reveal something of interest?? (???) About the warmists? Or the skeptics? Or just Muller?
Re: Aug 4, 2012 at 10:04 PM | Barry Woods
"have you listen to the full podcast yet!!! that the article is based on!!
podcast of the interview on this page
http://prn.fm/2012/08/01/green-front-dr-richard-muller-080112/#axzz22R4YezCa
Prof Muller from about 10:00 mins in.. 18:mins onwards the interviewer gets quite agressive...and Muller really, really criticises Mann, and defends the Koch brothers..
potshots! at Mann - full on broadside more like."
--------------------------------------
Thanks for the link, Barry, made my day... hilarious and very informative!!!
I'm hoping there'll be more 'in-fighting' like this, to me one of the frustrating aspects of CAGW propronents is their absolute refusal to criticise each other for any wrongdoing whatsover no matter how blatant (in public that is, obviously the Climategate mails were another matter!!) , this is a very welcome diversion from their normally stictly held code of conduct.
I had been thinking that Dr. Muller was kinda despicable lately. Thank you for the links and thread!
I think a whole lot better of Dr. Muller now. Not trusting mind you, just better.
I have been thinking that I've watched too many movies based on 'Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde' personality plots lately.
Actually, his position is extremely close to being sceptical. He doesn't believe that rubbish spouted by the alarmists about this, or that, weather event being proof of global warming, he believes that Gore is exaggerating the effects of global warming, he believes the scientists at the centre of the warmist camp have committed academic malfeasance and that the "inquiries" were less than rigorous, and he believes that the earth is warming and humans are causing it. He also pointed out that a warmer climate means that the temperature gradient between the poles and the equator would be less than today which means that there will be less tropical cyclones, wider tropical belts, more precipitation and generally all round mild weather.
I believe all that except the bit about humans causing the warming, contributing to the warming and we're together on everything. The only area of dispute I have with Dr. Muller, apart from his grandstanding is that he appears to believe that there is a substantial body of opinion that the UHI effect is having an impact on measured temperatures. On that issue I'm firmly in the "don't know" camp but I don't know that BEST has solved the problem. it makes sense if you have 27000 weather stations and 4000 are in cities that they won't distort the average temperature anomoly unduly, but I don't know if that's the case and am off now to the BEST site to find out.
geronimo: Muller has a background in particle physics. This means he doesn't have the experience of practical heat transfer and spectroscopy/IR to know the IPCC 'consensus' has been constructed to produce false predictions.
"Aug 5, 2012 at 1:15 AM | Simon Hopkinson"
And yet... (utterly OT, but..._
http://goodscience.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/pharmacologist-madeleine-ennis-admits-homeopathy-there-is-something-going-on-there/
I have figured it out. He is a smart guy who is appalled by what he has seen and who is determined to bring the CAGW edifice tumbling down.
Following a cunning plan, he has declared that he was once a disbeliever but that he has now got Religion - to the intense delight of the True Believers.
However, in reality, he remains a CAGW skeptic and he plans to demolish the edifice from within - far more effective than chipping away at the walls from outside.
Can anyone explain to me why the BEST ave temperature plot shows accelerated warming after 2000 - whereas most of the others show at least some degree of plateau-ing?
Aug 5, 2012 at 2:07 PM | Jeremy Poynton
So we should be looking forward to Ennis picking up the $1000,000 cheque on offer from James Randi then? ;)
Dr Muller is just an ordinary physisict and not a"climate scientist" so he will never understand how CO2 does not rise until after the temperature rise it causes.
As I mentioned before somewhere even Einstein would have struggled with this concept.
But not "the team": they are a pretty smart bunch of cookies...
/sarc