Warmists’ trash alleged ‘converted skeptic’ Muller as ‘absurdly naive…rubbish’ — ‘Way over simplistic & not at all convincing’ — Mann says Muller all about ‘self-aggrandizement’

By: - Climate DepotJuly 29, 2012 10:23 AM

Richard Muller’s email: [email protected]

He’s back! Berkeley’s Richard Muller Climate Con Continues: Muller pens NYT OPED: Claims to be ‘Converted Skeptic’ – Declares global warming ‘due to the human emission of ghgs’

Muller says we caused 0.7 warming seen in pink circle on right, even though it is completely in the noise of measurement error – & an order of magnitude smaller than natural variability’

Muller claims his ‘statistical methods’ prove man-made warming –‘How definite is the attribution to humans? The CO2 curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried’ [email protected]

Climate Depot Response: ‘Did your ‘statistical methods’ rule out the hundreds of factors that make up global temps? Did you rule out the Sun, volcanoes, tilt of Earth’s axis, water vapor, methane, clouds, ocean cycles, plate tectonics, albedo, atmospheric dust, Atmospheric circulation, cosmic rays, carbon soot, forests & land use, etc.? Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, not just CO2, so please spare us your attempt at fingerprint modeling.’

Michael Mann rips Muller’s latest media blitz: ‘It seems, in the end–quite sadly–that this is all really about Richard Muller’s self-aggrandizement :(‘

Warmist William Connolley on Muller: Study is ‘purely a matter of pulling together a temperature record. They’ve done none of the attribution work you’d expect, in order to talk about attribution’Connolley: ‘And what they say…appears absurdly naive’

Analysis: Muller’s ‘Results Nothing New’: Warmist William Connolley finds new BEST results ‘rubbish’ (by which he means data analysis is nothing new, & the attribution claims not very scientific) — Stoat calls Muller a ‘prima donna,’ and quotes Ken Caldiera: ‘…I do not see the results of Muller et al as being scientifically important. However, their result may be politically important’

Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘Spot on W. M. Connolley. Muller is still rubbish’ Pielke Jr. asks: ‘Bigger issue is how NYT let itself be conned into running [Muller’s] op-ed’

Flashback: Self-loathing Muller in 2003: ‘Scientists regard with disdain those who play their conclusions to the press’ — Muller: ‘In most fields of science, researchers who express the most self-doubt and who understate their conclusions are the ones that are most respected’

Muller hope’s his analysis ‘will help settle the scientific debate’ Roger Pielke Jr. responds: ‘I want what he’s smoking’

Former Muller Co-Author Dr. Judith Curry: The method used to attribute human emissions to the warming was ‘way over simplistic and not at all convincing in my opinion’

NYT’s Revkin accuses Muller of ‘P.T. Barnum showmanship…this could backfire’

Lord Monckton on Muller: ‘If he had had a Classical training, he would have been made familiar with dozen logical fallacies first codified by Aristotle 2300 years ago’ — Monckton: ‘Natural variability, therefore, is sufficient to explain all of the warming since 1750. No other explanation is necessary. Accordingly, it is not legitimate to claim, as the Berkeley team claim, that in the absence of any other explanation the warming must be attributed to CO2. That claim is an instance of the argumentum ad ignorantiam, the fundamental logical fallacy of argument from ignorance. It is not sound science’

Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson on Muller like claims: ‘The climate-studies people who work with models always tend to overestimate their models’ — ‘They come to believe models are real and forget they are only models’

Meteorologist Joe Bastardi isses debate challenge: ‘Attn Richard Muller. Set up a debate where I can show you the actual weather and physical reasons for why your conclusion is nonsense’

Earth to Richard Muller: We know that your incessant ‘I was skeptical until recently’ schtick is complete BS’ — Muller in 2003: ‘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’

The Truth about Richard Muller: ‘I was never a skeptic’ declared Richard Muller in 2011 — ‘No wonder Muller endorsed ‘The Earth is the Great Ship Titanic’, Steven Chu as ‘perfect’ for U.S. Energy Secretary and Al Gore’s hypocritical alarmism’

Flashback: Scientists trashing Muller’s work…Muller stands accused of being ‘front man for geoengineering org.’ — Muller’s Temp Project called ‘The Berkeley Scam’ — Muller makes ”contradictory statements’ — His ‘Transparency Becomes Vaporware’

Flashback: Befuddled Warmist Richard Muller Declares Skeptics Should Convert to Believers Because His Study Shows the Earth Has Warmed Since the 1950s! — Climate Depot Responds‘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’

Muller in 2008: ‘The bottom line is that there is a consensus — the IPCC — and the president needs to know what the IPCC says’ — ‘2nd, they say that most of warming of last 50 years is probably due to humans. You need to know that this is from carbon dioxide’

Climate Depot Response: ‘So Prof. Muller, if you believed this in 2008, what has changed in 2012? How can you pretend to be ‘converted skeptic?!’