Judith Curry tries (unsuccessfully) to walk back some of the heat she’s unleashed on Richard Muller.
On her blog, Judith Curry writes,
… Showing preliminary results is of course fine, but overselling them at this point was a mistake IMO…
I also suggested a FAQ on [Muller's] “end of skepticism” claim… “Our study addressed only one area of the concerns: was the temperature rise on land improperly affected by the four key biases (station quality, homogenization, urban heat island, and station selection)? The answer turned out to be no – but they were questions worthy of investigation. Berkeley Earth has not addressed issues of the tree ring and proxy data, climate model accuracy, or human attribution.” This is a reasonable statement, but comes across very differently from the WSJ editorial.
Curry also says,
And finally, this is NOT a new scandal. An important new data set has been released. Some new papers have been posted for comments, which are not surprisingly drawing criticism and controversy. The main issue seems to be Richard Muller’s public statements. All this does not constitute a new scientific scandal in any way.
The only way that Mullergate is not a new scandal is if one considers global warming alarmism to be one giant, ongoing scandal.