Muller: Warming Real, “We will be in agreement” with Human Cause

June 16, 2012

Unbelievably, …OK, well, not so unbelievably – I still get people posting here telling me to watch Richard Muller’s libelous rants against climate science and the various teams that have examined and re-examined the global temperature record.  Those with even a modest awareness of the issue will know that Muller took a boatload of money from the Koch Brothers and others to examine the temp record a couple years ago, (the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project…) and came up with….nothing.

The previous work, it turned out, was, in his words, “..excellent.”

KQED Climate Watch:

CM: Let’s clear the air. What are you convinced of now with respect to climate science that you weren’t, let’s say, two years ago?

RM: The estimate for how much global warming has taken place, that was done by the prior groups. We did that independently. We did it checking all the issues, the legitimate issues that had been raised, looking at them quantitatively and estimating how big an effect they were, subtracting them where we needed to. In the end we found that the prior groups had actually done a very good job.

CM: In terms of the big picture with the way the climate may be changing and what might be causing it, what have you changed your mind about, if anything?

RM: I didn’t really change my mind. Instead I developed a conclusion that I wasn’t sure of before. Global warming is real and over the last 50 years — that’s the period when the IPCC says the human component is evident — over that period it’s gone up about .9 degrees Celsius. That’s very close to what the other groups have said. Worldwide, if you include the oceans, it’s more like .6 degrees Celsius. But I now believe that land measurement has — warming has gone up.

CM: Do you agree with the UN’s climate panel that the majority of the warming going on is being caused by human activity, burning fossil fuels?

RM: We haven’t yet finished our work on the human component of this. It looks to me like we will be in agreement with that [Muller says he’ll be publishing his conclusions in the next few weeks].

In terms of adding to confusion and delay, Muller’s contribution to the befuddlement among the dim denialist bulbs of the web will continue to reverberate for years. His slanders will ricochet around the net and in the empty heads of the troglodyte tea party set, probably for a lifetime.

So, don’t feel like you failed, Richard. The Koch’s already got their money’s worth, and they know that.

More below on this stunning breakthrough.



19 Responses to “Muller: Warming Real, “We will be in agreement” with Human Cause”

  1. omnologos Says:

    Nice to see Muller get to the point I and others reached…in 2007! (see “About Omniclimate”)

    Now for the easy bit…what will be the human contribution in the future? Hopefully he won’t need to reach 2017 to come up to my conclusion again (sensitivity<1.5C). /sarc

    ps given Muller's words, I wonder if you'll change your stance about the Koch brothers? As in, finally putting to rest Mann's paranoid meme about the "well-oiled denial machine"?

    The [Koch] foundation actually worried about that more than we did. They worried that our results would be looked at with a political light because of the fact that they had supported it. But they gave us an unrestricted educational grant and they made it clear to us that what they really wanted was to have the issue settled. They didn’t even indicate which side they hoped it would be settled on. My own suspicion is they don’t care. They just want this issue settled because it creates great uncertainty in future planning.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      you really don’t get how this game is played, do you?

      • omnologos Says:

        is that a reference to the “real warming”, the “human cause” or the Koch Foundation?

        • greenman3610 Says:

          its a reference to the way the game is played. the tobacco model. truth and fact are irrelevant. confusion and delay are the goal.
          “doubt is our product”.
          since you are following the script, perhaps you should know the meta story.

          • omnologos Says:

            Which bit of “They just want this issue settled because it creates great uncertainty in future planning” follows the “confusion and delay” script?

          • greenman3610 Says:

            it’s the part where, when Muller gives the final result of his study, the one they paid for to “settle the issue” — they keep right ahead lavishly funding their climate denial agenda.

          • Martin Lack Says:

            You do (MM).

    • paulie200 Says:

      So I went to see “About Omniclimate” as you requested. I was looking for your credentials… any sort of credentials, which would grant you even marginal credibility to make statements like “to come up to my conclusion again” and “…Mann’s paranoid meme…” and there I found…

      “From that [everybody’s remarks] I extract, polish, and sometimes destroy my own opinion.”

      So your credentials are that you “extract and polish?” Like an intellectual wanker? One of such momentous self-importance that you don’t even tolerate your own opinion?

      Is something lost in translation here? Or maybe wherever you happen to be, there is a critical shortage of medications to treat delusions?

    • They give money to a”climate skeptic” on the assumption he will support their effort and when he doesn’t his research is dumped down the memory hole. As Jon Stewart pointed out, the mainstream TV media jumped all over the “climate gate” story for days but when the Muller report contradicted climate gate the cable news networks gave a total of 26the seconds of coverage on CNN. I guess those ad dollars mean news networks don’t like to look the gift horse in the mouth.

  2. Martin Lack Says:

    No, no, no. You just don’t get it. Muller has bought the farm. He has sold-out. He has been paid-off by the “warmist” conspirators; and is now being paraded in front of the World’s media as supposed proof of their fallacious hypothesis.

    Did I fool anyone? If you are uncertain of my position, please read this:

  3. If you know any deniers who still insist that the global-warming signal in the surface temperature record is the result of UHI or “data homogenization” or whatever….

    Snag a copy of the image at and send it to them.

    The image shows what you get when you compute global-average temperature results from *raw* (i.e. not “homogenized”) data taken from very small numbers of *rural* stations scattered around the globe.

    The algorithm that produced the results was a brain-dead-simple anomaly averaging procedure applied to (at the risk of sounding like a broken record here) *raw* temperature data.

    The plot shows results produced from 4, 9, 21, 33, and 68 rural stations, respectively. Also shown on the plot are the official NASA/GHCN results, copy/pasted directly from the NASA/GISS web-site.

    Now, how did I select the particular rural stations used to generate the results? Simple.

    For the 4-stations results, I divided up the world into 4 giant lat-long grid-cells (2 per hemisphere). I then searched each grid-cell for the rural station with the longest temperature record, and selected that single station. For subsequent runs, I increased the number of grid-cells by shrinking down the grid-cell latitude/longitude dimensions in a step-wise fashion. Grid-cell longitude dimensions were adjusted to keep grid-cell areas as nearly constant as possible as I moved N/S from the equator (remember that longitude lines get closer together as you move from the Equator to the poles). That’s why the number of grid-cells didn’t simply double for each run.

    I didn’t do any trial/error “cherry-picking” of the results — the above results are exactly what I got from my first set of processing runs with the above station-selection algorithm.

    As you can see, you need to process only a very few stations (as in few enough for a denier to count on his fingers/toes) to see the global-warming signal emerge. Once you get past 30 stations or so, the results start looking *very* similar to the official NASA results. That’s right — process as few as 30-odd rural stations, and you will get results that look very similar to the results that NASA gets from *thousands* of stations.

    So let’s summarize this for the particularly obtuse deniers:

    1) Raw data

    2) Tiny numbers of *rural* stations.

    3) Straightforward averaging algorithm that a college freshman could code up.

    4) Results that very closely match the official NASA results.

    5) Denier UHI and “data homogenization” claims completely shot down with a “college freshman”
    data analysis project.

    Forward this entire message to your favorite denier and ask him/her why nobody in the denier crowd, in spite of the fact that deniers have spent *years* attacking the global temperature record, could figure out how to peform a simple, straightforward data analysis job like the one described above.

  4. […] Unbelievably, …OK, well, not so unbelievably – I still get people posting here telling me to watch Richard Muller’s libelous rants against climate science and the various teams th…  […]

  5. […] dei killer ambientalisti,  diceva l’Istituto Heartland il pio portavoce di Forza Gn-UK e dei mercanti di dubbio,  ”Cristiano e Cattolico” nonché “guidato dalla Bibbia nella sua […]

  6. […] Muller: Warming Real, “We will be in agreement” with Human Cause […]

  7. […] dei killer ambientalisti,  diceva l’Istituto Heartland il pio portavoce di Forza Gn-UK e dei mercanti di dubbio,  ”Cristiano e Cattolico” nonché “guidato dalla Bibbia nella sua […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: