Sigh… Richard Muller: The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.


Here’s what PopTech has to say about one of the world’s least skeptical “skeptics”

9 responses to “Sigh… Richard Muller: The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

  1. Bruce of Newcastle

    Here’s what Hillary Ostrov found last year:

    Will the real Richard Muller please stand up

    Dr Muller a climate sceptic 3 years ago? Sounded awfully like someone advocating radical action before Copenhagen in 2009…three years ago.

  2. “…the Berkeley project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G Koch, has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change.”

    “I am a big believer in reason and facts and science and feedback—everything that allows you to do what you do. That’s what we should be doing in our government.”

    When the consensus is for man-made climate change, unless you have had a personal revelation, it’s time to start acting like there is climate change, and stop trying to impede necessary action to ameliorate the negative consequences. To do otherwise is contrary to rational behavior.

    The people here are becoming the next Flat Earth Society.

    • Harold you might want to fact check a little – even rabid warmists like William Connolley are posting “Muller is still rubbish”. Andrew Revkin wasn’t too flattering either.

  3. Dear editor, I’m not suggesting that Muller is an accepted authority, he spent too long doing the Koch brothers bidding for me to believe that.
    But it’s also a bad sign for you and the people you front for when even a shill like him has to admit that facts overcome propaganda.

    The water is rising…

    • Oh for heaven’s sake Harold, try actually reading some of Muller’s statements over the last decade. He’s more of a global warming loon than you are – and that’s not a bad feat. It’s obvious to all but you apparently that you are highly susceptible to propaganda and are a shining product of it.

  4. Does ‘global warming loon’ qualify as an ad hominem attack?

    Usually when someone says,”It’s obvious to all…” or,”It goes without saying”, or things like that, it’s to cover the fact that it isn’t obvious at all, and in fact is very doubtful.

    I could admire your intention to go down with the ship, except that you can’t admit that it’s sinking. That makes you something other than stalwart defenders of The Right.

    • Does ‘global warming loon’ qualify as an ad hominem attack?

      If applied as a bald comment without reference then it technically would be argumentum ad hominem Harold but a we both know it was a simple comparator:

      Oh for heaven’s sake Harold, try actually reading some of Müller’s statements over the last decade. He’s more of a global warming loon than you are – and that’s not a bad feat. It’s obvious to all but you apparently that you are highly susceptible to propaganda and are a shining product of it.

      In this case Müller’s CAGC lunacy is rebuttal against which you are being scaled. Sadly you seem incapable of discerning between arguing a case and verbal assault – which is why you are one of two people held for moderation at present and the other is a borderline spammer prone to advertising dubious product in his comments.

      By the way, could you please try clicking “Reply” in the heading of the comment to which you are supposedly replying, it keeps comments associated so people have less trouble trying to work out what you are talking about.

      • I don’t think anyone has any problem working out what I’m talking about.
        In case there’s any residual doubt, I’m talking about people who make a living being Judas goats for interests who have a need to delay effective action on climate change for as long as possible.

        Climate deniers are the Ku Klux Klan is environmentalism, a desperate attempt to turn back the clock.

        • Harold, how lovely to see you cooperate with a comment threading request.

          Wrt your paranoia there’s not much I can do about that. You are determined to believe this is a paid front site or at least pretend to do so, although if anyone is paid to be here you’d actually be my first suspect – trolls are not normally so dedicated.

          Now, you’ve never bothered to respond previously but once more into the breach:

          The IPCC’s climate sensitivity parameter (global mean surface temperature response ∆Ts to the radiative forcing ∆F) is defined as: ∆Ts / ∆F = λ (6.1).

          If you need I can lay out the calculation of Earth’s expected temperature with and without ‘native’ greenhouse effect but I think most of us would be content with 33 °C as pre-IR greenhouse effect, no?

          I can also recycle Trenberth’s papers and pretty graphic if you are in need of color pictures but “Back Radiation” (downwelling longwave flux) is specified as 333 W/m2CDIAC says we have added ~3 W/m2 from increased greenhouse gases so call it 330 W/m2 for ‘native’ ghe.

          Substituting 33 for ∆Ts and 330 for ∆F we have 33/330 = 0.1 °C per Watt per meter squared, true?

          The IPCC’s simplified formula for 2xCO2 is 5.35LN(2) or ~3.7 W/m2.

          Multiplying that by our previously derived λ value of 0.1 we find the IPCC’s expectation of warming from 2xCO2 is just +0.37 °C.

          Remind me again Harold, how is it that we are the ones being ‘deceptive’ by not being panicked over variation too small to distinguish from the noise of natural variability?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s