Muller: ‘I never said you shouldn’t be a skeptic’

Berkeley’s Richard Muller is a now an unambiguous liar for all the world to see.

Related reading:

In an October 31 interview with Capitol Report New Mexico (on YouTube), Muller states,

But I never said you shouldn’t be a skeptic. I never said that. Are you [the interviewer] looking at the op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal?

Then the interviewer asks,

You would say there is reason for skepticism?

Muller responds,

The Wall Street Journal article… they changed it… they changed the title, My original title was “Let’s Cool the Warming Debate”. They changed the title to “An End of Skepticism”. That was not me. They didn’t seek my approval.

The interviewers then asks,

So you disagree with that?

Muller responds.

Oh yeah. It doesn’t represent the article. If you read the article, it doesn’t say what that title says. That was their contribution…

But whatever happened with the title of Muller’s op-ed, he stated in the op-ed:

But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.

So he did say, “you should not be a skeptic” — and so he told an unambiguous falsehood to the interviewer.

Watch the YouTube video below. The relevant exchange begins at about 2:45.

Click to read Muller’s WSJ op-ed.

(h/t Tom Nelson)

One thought on “Muller: ‘I never said you shouldn’t be a skeptic’”

  1. Muller’s revised opinion if that is what it now is, is much more believable from the gentleman.

    I have seen him demolish the grifter from Penn State and disqualify the purveyor of the Hockey Stick as a non-scientific fraud. He easily shows the methodology and consequences of the “hide the decline”.

    I must caution Mr. Muller that re-plotting biased, tampered and questionable data that purports to report a slightly higher temperature in the Northern Hemsiphere over a 16 year period from 1979 to 1996 is still not proof of anything save an affirmation of GARBAGE (data) IN, GARBAGE OUT.

    The premise of CAGW was a qualitative hypothesis that many including myself accepted, as a working theory. Until quantitative measurements discredited the whole CAGW thesis in the measured Science of the 21st Century.

    The discrediting information was produced by these experiments:

    1) The Ocean buoy system revealed that the Oceans were NOT storing any heat and might actually be cooling. Despite mr trenbert’s diogenic and quixotic search in the depths for the supposedly “missing heat”.
    2) The CERES satellites revealed that LW heat radiation was escaping to Space at a rate and in amounts, that CAGW theory asserted could not occur. The theory of the Greenhouse effect needs some modification, IMHO.
    3) The profile of the atmosphere with the “fingerprint of CAGW”, the characteristic moderate tropospheric “hot spot” could not be found.
    4) As a Scientist I am always suspect when analyzing data down in the NOISE level. Using historical weather data, with questionable accuracy and geographic dispersion, never designed for the purpose of Climatic measurements, is a Fool’s errand.

Comments are closed.