Richard Muller claimed he was a converted skeptic.
The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic
By RICHARD A. MULLER Published: July 28, 2012
Berkeley, Calif.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.
Less than a year earlier, Muller said he never was a skeptic.
11/03/2011
“It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic“
Richard Muller, Climate Researcher, Navigates The Volatile Line Between Science And Skepticism
A decade earlier he made it clear that he was a flaming alarmist who wanted to prove global warming.
By Richard Muller on December 17, 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. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.
I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct,
Post modern science, Love to Believe, says it all.
I don’t give a rat’s royal behind what he says he is.
Internet is a bitch, Doctor.
Spot the real Muller
http://www2.lbl.gov/publicinfo/newscenter/tabl/2009/january/01-28-09/muller.png
or
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Business/Pix/pictures/2012/1/13/1326467137782/Muller-Light-Strawberry-y-007.jpg
To give him his due, this is what about Hokey Shtick Mann:
McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called “Monte Carlo” analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen?
So he can’t be all bad, just mostly…
He wanted to be top alarmist, and needed credentials to legitimize himself with naive skeptics.
Yea ‘legitimize’.. it’s called “slight of hand” it’s sad when the most naive skeptics get swept away and fall for these attempted legitimization of a faulty premise.
Yep, poor AW really allowed himself to get conned !!
Naïve is a good word, SG.
BEST is run by some of the most rabid alarmists that exist. Not just the conman Muller, but his daughter is also part of the deal, and she’s total wacko in the CAGNW area.
Then they hired Mosh as a mouthpiece.. !!!
Every Which Way But Loose.
Do not forget that the skeptic argument was being driven very successfully by ex-warmists such as Anothony Watts, Joanne Nova and Tony Heller to name a few. It is a very powerful argument when a person says “I used to believe that but then I looked at the facts and changed my opinion”. The alarmists desperately needed someone to go in the other direction.
Up pops Richard Muller right on cue …
It seems that every few years Muller changes his mind. If he can’t pick a side and stay with it, he can’t be too smart. I doubt he’s being tied to a chair with a gun in his face though.
So he takes a land only dataset and digs up 10,000 times (or whatever it was) as much land data as had ever been tabulated before, finds nothing new, and declares, “Ah, global warming is real.”
Dude, Richard, you are talking about a hot 30% of the planet (20% if one is inclined to discount Antarctica which is basically a Frosty).