Richard Muller – I Was Wrong On Global Warming, But It Didn’t Convince The ‘Sceptics’
By Collin Maessen on comment
Richard Muller
A couple of years ago Richard Muller entered the public debate on global warming. Making some very strange claims about the current temperature records and some extremely harsh accusations towards climate researchers. This of course made him a hero among climate science deniers.
He started the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project to double-check the existing temperature records and answer the, to him, valid criticisms of existing temperature reconstructions. It was no surprise to the climate research community that Muller confirmed that global warming is real and that the only plausible explanation is the increase in greenhouse gasses. This hasn’t endeared him with the climate science deniers.
Peter Sinclair has a good video giving the details of how Muller appeared on the scene and the results Muller found:
I managed to get an interview with Muller at the AGU 2014 Fall Meeting. During the interview he still made controversial claims about climate research. These same claims haven’t endeared him with the climate research community (more about this in a later video). Though nowadays he very clearly defends the temperature records showing global warming is real and he has some choice words for those that don’t accept the science.
Collin Maessen is the founder and editor of Real Skeptic and a proponent of scientific skepticism. For his content he uses the most up to date and best research as possible. Where necessary consulting or collaborating with scientists.
Why did the [warmists] think he was a hero for making odd comments and talking non-science … sorry need I ask? Everyone they praise is like that, it’s just that not many are so honest about it as you are.
I’m not praising Muller, never did. The only positive thing I’ve ever said about Muller is that he did change his position on the temperature records after Berkeley Earth was completed. But that leaves out a lot of nuance. This video is a reporting style type of video. It’s just Muller talking about his research, nothing more.
The interview I had with him is 34 minutes long in total and during it he said a lot of things I didn’t agree with. In an upcoming video I’ll be talking about that. There are very few people who praise him if they’re familiar with his claims about climate research. The majority of praise I see is from those that do not know his history and only are aware of his change in stance on the temperature records.
Mueller is like a high school student who wants to be congratulated for proving the central limit theorem by recreating the standard proof found in any textbook on statistics and probability. I mean, yeah ok, fine, nice work for a kid. But it’s not like you’re telling people who know this stuff anything new. He should pat himself on the back and go away.
I don’t comprehend the title of the post. What is the “it” that failed to convince the “skeptics”? Muller’s wrongness? Why would someone’s being wrong convince someone else, and what would it convince them of?
The “it” in the title is referring to the Berkeley Earth results and them confirming the existing temperature records, which then made Muller say that global warming is real and caused by CO2. Several ‘sceptics’ found Muller interesting and the work he was doing before he proved them wrong. Watts even wrote that he would accept what Muller found no matter what.
Accepting the results is of course not what happened, we saw the same response towards Berkeley Earth as to the other temperature records as soon as the results became inconvenient.
Watts literally said that? Huh.
If you’ll excuse my pedantry, what does “and is caused by CO2” mean in falsifiable, scientific language?
That there can be no GW without [an increase in] CO2? Or that there can be no [increase in] CO2 without GW? Or what?
Also, it’s interesting how “it” refers to Müller being wrong as well as to “the Berkeley Earth results and them confirming the existing temperature records.” Are you suggesting that confirmation was erroneous or am I missing some nuance of the argument? (Wouldn’t be the first time!)
The caused by CO2 is from what Muller said in the interview. He says in it that the increase in atmospheric levels of CO2 is the only thing that matches the observed warming. If you want more about what the scientific literature says this page on Skeptical Science is a good introduction.
I’m not saying that the confirmation was erroneous. I very clearly stated several times that Berkeley Earth confirmed existing temperature records.
Hi Collin,
If it wasn’t entirely clear what I was trying to find out, please forgive my messy English.
Bear with me for a minute if you will, because I think it’d be really really great if we could address this confusion / problem / question:
—————————————————————————
When you say, Collin, that…
“global warming is real and caused by CO2”
…what do the words “IS CAUSED BY” mean, in falsifiable, scientific language?
Do you mean there can be no GW without [an increase in] CO2?
Do you mean that there can be no [increase in] CO2 without GW?
Or do you mean something else, Collin?
In which case, what?
—————————————————————————
Thanks in advance for answering this,
Brad
PS: I’m not telling you that it’s NOT “caused by CO2,” by the way. Just trying to work out what’s meant by that.
I explained what that phrase meant in the context of what Muller said and I linked you to more materials explaining the science behind such a statement. The article I linked to explains perfectly well what I mean when I say global warming is caused by CO2. Please read that if you want to understand my position.