So they really believed they wouldn't find anything? And even though they are backed by the fossile fuel industry, they were able to announce their findings? I am waiting for some greater story to unfold...
I'm not going to comment on the contents of the story as it's really just a formal announcement of long-leaked information, but the descripion of Muller as some type of 'climate sceptic' is a PR stunt. He has always been a firm believer in the catastrophic human caused global warming movement.
Some quotes going back over time:
"It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic — only a scientific skeptic. Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller ‘Physics for Future Presidents’ I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.” - Richard Muller in an email to Huffington Post, 2011
“If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion – which he does, but he’s very effective at it – then let him fly any plane he wants.” – Richard Muller, 2008
“There is a consensus that global warming is real. …it’s going to get much, much worse.” – Richard Muller, 2008
“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.” – Richard Muller, 2003
It would seem that Dr Muller is more intent on creating a headline and grabbing publicity than contributing to the body of knowledge. This would be great PR for a startup, but I find it a questionable tactic in this field.
Muller is absolutely enraging in that respect. Nothing he does scientifically is really that controversial, but he's really, really big on making a media splash.
For climate change, his modus seems to be make contrarian sounding statements, criticize the mainstream scientific opinion, do some studies, echo the scientific consensus, and then claim that the scientific consensus was right but only right because of his results.
It has been amusing to see the Koch's get played by a media huckster, though.
In addition to the disingenuous origins of the story told in this article (ably covered by other commenters), we also have here the usual implicit assumption that anthropogenic global warming == impending disaster. But the "evidence" for this is hopelessly tainted by politics. Indeed, suppose you were an up-and-coming young climate scientist angling for tenure at your university of choice. How best would you advance your career: by investigating the benefits of global warming, or by examining its costs? Alas, alarmism has long been adaptive in the race for status among climate researchers. The result is that, even though many of them are both smart and sincere, their conclusions are essentially useless.
5 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 27.1 ms ] threadSome quotes going back over time:
"It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic — only a scientific skeptic. Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller ‘Physics for Future Presidents’ I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.” - Richard Muller in an email to Huffington Post, 2011
“If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion – which he does, but he’s very effective at it – then let him fly any plane he wants.” – Richard Muller, 2008
“There is a consensus that global warming is real. …it’s going to get much, much worse.” – Richard Muller, 2008
“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.” – Richard Muller, 2003
It would seem that Dr Muller is more intent on creating a headline and grabbing publicity than contributing to the body of knowledge. This would be great PR for a startup, but I find it a questionable tactic in this field.
For climate change, his modus seems to be make contrarian sounding statements, criticize the mainstream scientific opinion, do some studies, echo the scientific consensus, and then claim that the scientific consensus was right but only right because of his results.
It has been amusing to see the Koch's get played by a media huckster, though.