New quotes from Richard Muller: (On "An Inconvenient Truth") "essentially 90% of what he presented was exaggerated or distorted or just false"; also "One-third of the cities in the U.S. have cooled in the last 100 years"

Climate Skeptic, Koch-Funded Scientist Richard Muller Admits Global Warming Real & Humans The Cause

RICHARD MULLER [2009]: One, you have to recognize how bad it is. The surprising answer is that, so far it hasn’t been very bad. We’ve had about one degree Fahrenheit of global warming so far. None whatsoever in the last 10 years. You need to know that, because otherwise, you will misunderstand when people criticize global warming and say it’s not real, the reason they’re saying it’s not real is there hasn’t been any in 10 years. But, we don’t expect it to happen every year. It’s gradual thing that builds up.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Richard Muller, that was you speaking in 2009. Is this still your opinion?

RICHARD MULLER: Oh, yes. In fact my former book, "Physics for Future Presidents" goes through Vice-President Al Gore’s movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" and I think it correctly shows that essentially 90% of what he presented was exaggerated or distorted or just false. But, I think part of the problem is that when we attribute every change in the weather to climate change, we engender a lot of skepticism, and that, I think, in the and that has done some harm. I think science has hurt itself by exaggerating the case. Global warming, so far, has not been very much. In the last 50 years it’s been two-thirds of a degree Celsius, while one degree Fahrenheit, and that hasn’t been much. One-third of the cities in the U.S. have cooled in the last 100 years. Astonishing statistic, but not surprising when you realize local variations are much larger than this one degree change. The danger isn’t that we have done harm, the danger is that we understand that this will continue to go up, that in the future, what is now two-thirds of the degree will become one, two, three degrees. And that will be warmer than Homo sapiens have ever experienced.
...my new book discusses in detail the many places where you can get a profit of 20%, 30% per year just by investing in energy conservation...
AMY GOODMAN:...Your response to Michael Mann and to your Koch-funded research and what this means for them?

RICHARD MULLER: Well, The Koch Foundation provided about one quarter or maybe it was one-sixth of our funding and they made it clear to us that the reason they funded us was that we did recognize that these issues were real, issues that Michael Mann did not accept as real. But, I think he was wrong. I think there were valid questions and we addressed them, and they’ve expressed nothing but delight that we have been able to reach a conclusion. So, I think this cartoon-like characterization of the Koch Foundation as being right-wing deniers, I found that to be completely wrong.

Michael Mann on the other hand has published a lot of things that I disagree with. He has claimed that there was no Medieval warm period, that it’s been the warmest now that it has been 1000 years, and I was part of that National Academy study that basically demonstrated that his conclusions were wrong. So, no, he and I don’t agree on lots of things, but I think now, the key thing in science is that small realm of knowledge on which there can be universal agreement...

Earth to Richard Muller: We know that your incessant "I was skeptical until recently" schtick is complete BS. If it's not, then explain your quotes from 2008, and 2006, and 2003

2012: The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic - NYTimes.com

[Richard Muller] CALL me a converted skeptic.

Popular Technology.net: The Truth about Richard Muller

"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, 2006

..."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

Interesting article on Richard Muller

Richard Muller, converted climate change sceptic, still a maverick | South China Morning Post

Tomorrow, the University of Hong Kong will host a lecture by one of the most colourful characters in climate science, Richard Muller. T
...
Though he obtained his PhD in elementary particle physics, Muller's research interests span astrophysics, including the cosmic microwave background and supernovae, along with aspects of geophysics. He has espoused a theory that our sun is partnered by an undiscovered small star he calls Nemesis, "the death star". Muller has written a historical novel, The Sins of Jesus ("he slowly slips deeper and deeper into sin") and a short essay titled "Why Dumbledore is Gay" - on the headmaster of fictional wizarding school Hogwarts. Muller even opened a restaurant; you won't be surprised that the cuisine was "eclectic".

...Monckton's piece supposedly answered "Muller's propaganda", yet was rambling, inconsistent, and threw in debunked notions like the correlation between sunspot activity and temperatures.
...
Notwithstanding his conversion, Muller remains a maverick, ready to express views against mainstream climate science. "Is the Arctic melting due to global warming?" he pondered in a recent radio interview. "You know, the evidence for that is very, very flimsy. I'm not even sure it's true."
...
Interestingly, Muller is president of a company with expertise in fields including natural gas and shale oil.

Lots of interesting Muller/BEST stuff here; new Muller quote: "90 per cent of what's said about climate change is nonsense"

The BEST is yet to come - Richard Muller on the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project, whether he's a 'skeptic', and BEST’s climate policy ambitions | Carbon Brief

We talk to Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project co-founder Richard Muller about plans to branch out into climate policy studies, and why he's confident BEST will encourage consensus between skeptics and mainstream climate scientists in the end.
...
Professor Muller's phone hasn't stopped ringing since his op-ed in the New York Times over the weekend, where he stated that BEST's new research has answered his own doubts about whether humans are causing global warming. His self-described conversion to the mainstream scientific view linking human activity to climate change has captured the imagination of a media often wary of reporting on climate change.
...
Asked if it's really accurate to say he was ever a skeptic, Muller replies: "I have considered myself only to be a properly skeptical scientist. Some people have called me a denier - no, that's completely wrong. If anything, I was agnostic.
...
That's not to say he still doesn't have problems with sweeping statements about climate change: "90 per cent of what's said about climate change is nonsense. That when people attribute Hurricane Katrina, or dying polar bears, that's not based on any science whatsoever. In fact in many cases, it's wrong. So there's plenty of room for skepticism.

[Muller]: "...we discovered that station quality does not affect the results. Even poor stations reflect temperature changes accurately."

"...The UK group purposefully hid the discordant data, and they did it in order to make sure that people drew the same conclusions that they drew. To me, that's misconduct."
...
Muller says Curry distanced herself from the paper because she disagrees with the findings, and that she has an alternative theory - that the climate is random, so any correlation between increases in carbon dioxide and warming is an accident. His response: "'I've said to her that the unfortunate aspect of her theory is that it's untestable. Now a theory that's untestable is not something I consider to be a theory."
...
But Muller dismisses the suggestion that Watts released his work to counter the new BEST study. "[Watts] didn't even know about our work," he says. "Our work on station quality agreed with [previous work Watts] published," he adds. "Now he's saying: 'If I use a different criterion I find that the uncorrected data can yield a bias'. Well, that sounds reasonable - if a station moves and you don't take that into account, yeah, you're likely to get a bias. I don't see any really strong objection to that. What he has done was interesting, but it doesn't affect our new conclusions."
...
Again, Muller is sanguine: "There were no mistakes in that paper. McKitrick had comments and found things he thought were mistakes, but we wrote back to him and told him he was wrong." He adds: "I think the conclusion that urban heat islands contribute essentially zero to the warming we see is on very solid ground." Indeed, due to BEST and studies that went before it, Muller says that the question of whether urban heating skews warming data is no longer a legitimate quibble with data that shows warming.
...
Meanwhile Elizabeth Muller, Professor Muller's daughter and the co-founder of the BEST project, is interested in "starting a new section to look at policy," Professor Muller says, to examine "in an objective scientific manner what can be done".

In a follow-up email, Elizabeth Muller, who is a former OECD policy advisor, fleshes out the plans. She says the idea is to focus on policy that could have an impact on future greenhouse gas emissions. These policies, she says, must be "low cost, cost-neutral or, ideally, profitable." Two examples she lays out in an op-ed article in the San Francisco Chronicle are clean fracking - making extracting unconventional natural gas greener - and energy efficiency.

This new direction - no matter how transparent the work - raises the possibility of a conflict between scientific objectivity and advocacy.

Daily Kos: Berkeley Physicist Flim Flams on Fracking

The same day (Monday, July 30) his daughter Elizabeth had a piece in the opinion section of the San Francisco Chronicle titled, "Fracking Helps Reduce Polluting Emissions." There she claims to be a co-founder with her father of this Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature organization. She goes through some nice green-sounding statements like energy efficiency, that we need to do things at low cost, etc. But she says that we need to get developing nations to switch to natural gas.

She then plugs her fathers book,"Energy for Future Presidents," and claims that, "Though some environmentalists still oppose fracking," it has helped lower greenhouse gas emissions- blah, blah, blah. Then today (July 31) the Chronicle comes out with a front-page article about this scientist who has changed his mind on global warming and touts how his research helped him reach this conclusion--years after most of the world's scientists--but there is not one word there about fracking.

Now I have had some expreience as an editor dealing with PR spin and this smells very much like it.

Peas in a pod?: University of California, Berkeley PhDs Muller and (Solyndra booster) Chu both believe that solar power can help prevent bad weather, but both fail to understand the practical realities

Richard Muller & his delusions‏

An email from Ed Johnson, Ph.D, Physics below:

Thought you might like a clear-cut example of Professor Muller's irrationality. In recent years, he published two books popularizing Physics:

* "Physics for Future Presidents" (PffP, 2008)
* "The Instant Physicist" (TIP, 2011)

In both, he discusses commercial solar power.

Chapter 6 of PffP is illustrative of Muller's lack of contact with reality. The first section of this Chapter (p. 77), titled "An Anecdote" tells the quaint story of a dinner conversation between Liz, a former student, and an LLNL fusion physicist. In this tale, Muller (through Liz) compares a square kilometer of sunshine with a nuclear power plant.

Liz stuns the LLNL dude with the fact that one square kilometer of sunshine has 1,000 megawatts of power. Muller fails to inform the reader that this is true only on clear summer days and then only for a few hours around solar noon -- no power each night, low power each morning and afternoon and during overcast periods. He also ignores the realities of practical solar power plants.

What's ironic is that in Chapter 5, Muller warns the reader not to confuse power with energy. Yet that's the very error Muller is committing in his tale of Liz and the doofous physicist.

Almost nothing Muller says in Chapter 6 is accurate. He even screws up the history of NASA's Solar Airplanes (last section).

Flashback: Bay Area Nobel Prize winner named US Energy Czar | abc7news.com

Some have questioned whether a scientist is fit for a high-profile job traditionally held by political insiders. But, Berkeley physicist Richard Muller thinks Chu is perfect for the post.

"I think, quite frankly, we've had too much politics with regard to energy. It's time to get down to the science of it," he said.

Steven Chu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He went on to earn his Ph.D. in physics from the University of California, Berkeley

Richard A. Muller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ph.D. degree in physics from University of California, Berkeley

Don't miss this: In most of a quote-rich new interview, occasional warmist darling Richard Muller once again channels Marc Morano

Remember, this is Richard Muller (some history here):  Next time he needs some publicity, don't be surprised if he comes out yet again as a strong AGW believer sometime soon.

Bill Clinton's Hero: Former Climate Skeptic Dr. Richard Muller | Fresh Dialogues

van Diggelen: What’s your message to climate change skeptics?

Muller: Most of your skepticism is still valid. When something extraordinary happens in weather, such as the accidental occurrence of Hurricane Sandy hitting New Jersey and New York City just at the peak of tides — many people attribute the event to “Climate Change.” That’s not a scientific conclusion, and it is almost certainly wrong. Hurricanes are not increasing due to human causes (actually, they have been decreasing over the past 250 years). Tornadoes are not increasing due to human causes. (They too have been decreasing.) So please continue to be skeptical about most of the exaggerations you will continue to hear! Proper skepticism is at the heart of science, and attempts to suppress such skepticism represent the true anti-science movement.
...
van Diggelen: What are YOU doing to reduce your carbon footprint?

Muller: I am trying to get people to stop asking that question! It is very misleading.
...
van Diggelen: What should others be doing? If you could have President Obama’s ear for 5 minutes, what would you say?

Muller: Double (or more) our efforts to help China become more energy efficient. And equally important: develop “clean fracking” standards. Work with China to expedite and accelerate their switch from coal to natural gas. Devise market-based approaches that will guarantee that the developing world will apply clean methods to their natural gas production.
...
Muller: We need to act, but no need to panic. I see no tipping points that are scientifically valid...
Hurricane Sandy cannot be attributed to global warming. The rise over the oceans, in the last 50 years, has been about 0.5 degree C. That’s tiny! In those 50 years, sea level rose by 4 inches. So the high tide, if not for global warming, would not have been 14 feet but “only” 13 feet 8 inches. There was a similarly severe storm in 1938 (my parents lived through it out on Long Island). We should stop attributing all freak storms to climate change.
...
Unfortunately, there will always be scientists with some credentials that will exaggerate, maybe even convincing themselves. I recall back in the 1950s, when I was a kid in New York City, that the freak storms and changes in climate were attributed by some eminent scientists to atmospheric nuclear testing. (Maybe the freak storms and changes in climate should now be attributed to the nuclear test ban.) It is not science to list the bad things that have happened lately and claim that they “may be linked” to climate change. Even scientists, such as those who were passionately afraid of thermonuclear war, tend to see connections in things that aren’t there.

Climate change is real, and we need to do something to stop it. But it is not strong enough (0.6 C in the last 50 years) to be noticeable by individuals.

Michael Mann: "this is all really about Richard Muller's self-aggrandizement :("

Some additional... | Facebook

Some additional thoughts about Muller and 'BEST':
Muller's announcement last year that the Earth is indeed warming brought him up to date w/ where the scientific community was in the the 1980s. His announcement this week that the warming can only be explained by human influences, brings him up to date with where the science was in the mid 1990s. At this rate, Muller should be caught up to the current state of climate science within a matter of a few years!

Some additional... | Facebook

My view is that Muller's efforts to promote himself by belittling the collective efforts of the entire atmospheric/climate research community over several decades, though, really does the scientific community a disservice. Its great that he's reaffirmed what we already knew. But for him to pretend that we couldn't trust this entire scientific field until Richard Muller put his personal stamp of approval on their conclusions is, in my view, a very dangerously misguided philosophical take on how science works. It seems, in the end--quite sadly--that this is all really about Richard Muller's self-aggrandizement :(

Confused warmist Muller: You shouldn't be a skeptic of anthropogenic global warming; by the way, we didn't assess the anthropogenic component of global warming

William M. Briggs, Statistician » Richard Muller Gives Permission To Be Climate Skeptic, Shows Why

Physicist Richard Muller has a piece in today’s Wall Street Journal that should be read by everyone (The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism).

Richard MullerMuller concedes—in public—what many skeptics have claimed for years: that our temperature record is poor, especially over the oceans, that it is limited, filled with errors and biases, and when used as a basis for judgment, leads to over-certainty.
...
Even more delightfully, Muller admits that it has not been growing stormier (sorry, Big Al):
...
From that he insists, “you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.” Somebody has to remind Mr Muller that skeptics aren’t skeptical of that some warming (and some cooling) has occurred. We are skeptics about our ability to explain this warming (and cooling), and to predict skillfully future warming (and cooling).

The fallacy—and it is a fallacy Mr Muller commits—is to suppose that because many climatologists have offered one theory for the observed warming (and cooling), and that, at least for the moment, they cannot think of one better, that therefore their theory is true. Thus, I remain skeptical.

Richard A. Muller: The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism - WSJ.com

Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.

Popular Technology.net: The Truth about Richard Muller

"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, 2006

..."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

Muller: "I never said you shouldn't be a skeptic. I never said that."

Richard Muller interview, Part 1 - YouTube

Interviewed by Rob Nikolewski of Capitol Report New Mexico, 10/31/11.

Richard Muller interview, Part 2 - YouTube

Around the 2:45 mark of Part 1, referring to his recent Wall Street Journal article, Muller says "I never said you shouldn't be a skeptic. I never said that."

From his article:

Without good answers to all these complaints, global-warming skepticism seems sensible. But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.

Just before the 5-minute mark, Muller is asked if he's in the Al Gore camp. Muller: "Al Gore camp? That's ridiculous...what I point out is that most of what appears in An Inconvenient Truth is absolutely either wrong, exaggerated, or misleading."

At the 8:45 mark, he says scientists will "endorse Al Gore, even though they know what he's saying is exaggerated and misleading. He'll talk about polar bears dying even though we know they're not dying...".

In Part 2, he's asked about Eugene Robinson's Washington Post piece.

[Q] It says "What Dr Muller says proves that the skeptics are wrong and they've got to get on the cap and trade train".

Muller: "That's ridiculous. I mean, some people say I proved that there was no ClimateGate. No. NO! The ClimateGate thing was a scandal. It's terrible what they did. It's shameful the way they hid the data."

Catfight at the Consensus Corral: After being accused of scientific malpractice by fellow "consensus" scientist Richard Muller, "consensus" scientist Michael Mann accuses Muller of repeatedly lying

Twitter / MichaelEMann: Richard Muller lies about me ...

Richard Muller lies about me again (@KQED). Same lies, same responses: http://on.fb.me/OYhidg  #RichMullerFibs http://fb.me/1NRH8kPfM

Flashback: New Muller quote on the hockey team: "What they did was, I think shameful, and it was scientific malpractice. If they were licensed scientists, they should have to lose their license. What they did is they held back the discordant data...if they had done this at Berkeley or Stanford, I think, they would have been shamed"

It gets worse--Two-time fake converted "skeptic" Richard Muller: Hey, did I mention that I'm publishing a new climate hoax policy book this week?

Extra: Former skeptic concedes humans are causing climate change — now what? - YouTube

In this "Viewpoint" Web exclusive, UC Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller, founder and scientific director of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project and author of "Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines," offers policy suggestions to combat climate change.

Amazon.com: Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines (9780393081619): Richard A. Muller: Books

[Publication date: August 6, 2012] The author of Physics for Future Presidents returns to educate all of us on the most crucial conundrum facing the nation: energy.
The near-meltdown of Fukushima, the upheavals in the Middle East, the BP oil rig explosion, and the looming reality of global warming have reminded the president and all U.S. citizens that nothing has more impact on our lives than the supply of and demand for energy. Its procurement dominates our economy and foreign policy more than any other factor. But the “energy question” is more confusing, contentious, and complicated than ever before. We need to know if nuclear power will ever really be safe. We need to know if solar and wind power will ever really be viable. And we desperately need to know if the natural gas deposits in Pennsylvania are a windfall of historic proportions or a false hope that will create more problems than solutions. Richard A. Muller provides all the answers in this must-read guide to our energy priorities now and in the coming years.

Flashback: Elizabeth Muller (Director of BEST) ran a “Green government” consultancy. Just how impartial was BEST? « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

From the BEST FAQ (my bolding)

“Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature aims to contribute to a clearer understanding of global warming based on a more extensive and rigorous analysis of available historical data.”

“We believe that science is nonpartisan and our interest is in getting a clear view of the pace of climate change in order to help policy makers to evaluate and implement an effective response. In choosing team members, we engage people whose primary interests are finding answers to the current issues and addressing the legitimate concerns of the critics on all sides. None of the scientists involved has taken a public political stand on global warming. “

It also tells us something about people who write off skeptical results because they are supposedly “funded by big oil”, but rave about the BEST project. If they are so concerned about “vested interests” why do they only protest about one sort of “interest”?

Muller claims his 'statistical methods' prove man-made warming --'How definite is the attribution to humans? The CO2 curve gives a better match than anything else we've tried' ramuller@lbl.gov | Climate Depot

Climate Depot Response: 'Did your 'statistical methods' rule out the hundreds of factors that make up global temps? Did you rule out the Sun, volcanoes, tilt of Earth's axis, water vapor, methane, clouds, ocean cycles, plate tectonics, albedo, atmospheric dust, Atmospheric circulation, cosmic rays, carbon soot, forests & land use, etc.? Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, not just CO2, so please spare us your attempt at fingerprint modeling.'

Quark Soup by David Appell: Stoat, Caldiera: BEST Results Nothing New

Stoat finds these new BEST results "rubbish" (by which he means the data analysis is nothing new, and the attribution claims not very scientific), calls Muller a "prima donna," and quotes Ken Caldiera via Romm:

"I am glad that Muller et al have taken a look at the data and have come to essentially the same conclusion that nearly everyone else had come to more than a decade ago. The basic scientific results have been established for a long time now, so I do not see the results of Muller et al as being scientifically important. However, their result may be politically important."

A Tale Of Two Countries : The Richard Muller GIGO Story | Real Science

So how did Richard Muller come to the conclusion that the world is heating up due and it is due to man-made CO2?

Simple : he used crap data from GHCN to generate the trend. CO2 must be very powerful stuff, as it appears to have corrupted the GHCN database. Garbage in, garbage out.

It’s A Carbon Fine, Not A Tax | Real Science

Obama promised not to tax anyone making less than $250,000, so this must be a breathing fine, rather than a breathing tax.

When an elected official tells you that they plan to return money, you can be pretty certain that your bank account is about to be raided.

The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Blog: Idiocy on two continents

Half the country without power because of environmental protests and pandering to the watermelon environmental movement. Thank Heavens that couldn't happen in Australia.

Or Could It?

Elizabeth Muller (Director of BEST) ran a “Green government” consultancy. Just how impartial was BEST? « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

How independent is this project?

Would BEST have ever seriously published a study showing anything other than a scary warming trend?

This is emblematic of how fans of Climate Change Scares present their efforts with half-truths — lines that are technically “correct” but leave an impression that may be the opposite of the real situation.

Elizabeth Muller is listed as “Founder and Executive Director” of the Berkeley Earth Team along with her father Richard Muller. But since 2008 it appears she’s been earning money as a consultant telling governments how to implement green policies, how to reduce their carbon footprint and how to pick “the right technologies” – presumably meaning the right “Green” technologies.
...
Muller and Associates repeat that they are “politically neutral” and “non-partisan”, but it’s obvious that they benefit from big-government policies, and the bigger the better. It would hard to imagine them welcoming a political policies aiming for a smaller government. That would rather turn off the tap, eh?

Perhaps most damning of all (in terms of their judgement) is that Richard Muller and Elizabeth Muller thought they could get away with it. Did it really not occur to them that skeptics would not find their alarmist comments and green companies on the world wide web? Did they really think they would escape with their credibility intact?

Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds | Science | guardian.co.uk

Prof Richard Muller, a climate sceptic physicist who founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (Best) project, said he was "surprised" by the findings. "We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds." He added that he now considers himself a "converted sceptic" and that his views had received a "total turnaround" in a short space of time.
...It analysed the warming impact of solar activity – a popular theory among climate sceptics – but found that, over the past 250 years, the contribution of the sun is "consistent with zero"...
"Much to my surprise, by far the best match came to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice," said Muller....
Early indications suggest that climate sceptics are unlikely to fully accept Best's latest results. Prof Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology who runs a blog popular with climate sceptics and who is a consulting member of the Best team, told the Guardian that the method used to attribute human emissions to the warming was "way over simplistic and not at all convincing in my opinion".

Richard Muller: 'Humans Are Almost Entirely The Cause' Of Climate Change

"Humans are almost entirely the cause" of climate change, according to a scientist who once doubted that global warming even existed.

Mulling Over Muller | Power Line

But just how much of a “skeptic” was Muller? Here’s the opening from his 2008 interview with Grist.org:

Grist: What should a President McCain or Obama know about global warming?

Muller: The bottom line is that there is a consensus — the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] — and the president needs to know what the IPCC says. Second, they say that most of the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to humans. You need to know that this is from carbon dioxide, and you need to understand which technologies can reduce this and which can’t.

Müller lite: Why Every Scientist Needs a Classical Training « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

[Monkcton] In this reply to Dr. Müller’s much-touted editorials in the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle, I shall demonstrate by Classical methods that his principal conclusion “that global warming is real, that the prior estimates of the rate were correct, and that the cause is human” is incorrect a priori.

The Truth about Richard Muller: 'I was never a skeptic' declared Richard Muller in 2011 | Climate Depot

'No wonder Muller endorsed 'The Earth is the Great Ship Titanic', Steven Chu as 'perfect' for U.S. Energy Secretary and Al Gore's hypocritical alarmism'

Twitter / RyanMaue: U.S. media loves conservat ...

U.S. media loves conservatives/Republicans/skeptics that "see the light" & adopt liberal/left ideas, irresistible, e.g. Hunstman, McCain

Twitter / RyanMaue: Dr. Muller has "evolved" i ...

Dr. Muller has "evolved" into an entirely new being, an omniscient overseer of climate science with a Thomas L. Friedman writing style. Ugh

Australian Psychologists Now Claim Climate Science Skeptics Are The True Moon-Landing Conspiracy Theorists

The other point is that climate skeptics are not the ones who are paranoid and obsessed with the notion that human lifestyles are pushing the planet over the brink. Skeptics are not the ones who become hysterical with every wind gust. The true nuts are the extreme warmists.n

The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Blog: Steffen: AGW and LIES

AGW is an issue which is based on exaggerations, hypocrisy, scare-mongering, failed predictions, in short lying. To a lesser or greater extent all its leading exponents use these tactics to promote the cause. Steffen is one of those leading exponents.

New Muller quote: "In the end, a really good match came to the greenhouse gases. That came as a surprise to me, because I'd really thought that the ocean currents and the variability of the sun would dominate, but it wasn't the case. It was purely greenhouse gases. At that point, my conclusion was not only is global warming real, but essentially all of it is caused by humans"

Former Global Warming Skeptic Changes Views - YouTube

UC Berkeley Physics Professor and energy consultant Richard Muller's new study finds that climate change is real and caused by humans. Muller gained notoriety for previously stating that there was not enough evidence to come to that conclusion. (Aug. 1)

Muller, just past the 1:00 mark: "[we looked for] fingerprints, if you like, of volcanoes, of solar variability, of ocean currents, of greenhouse gases. To our shock, the volcanic eruptions were all very short-lived, so they had an effect, but only for a few years. The long-term trend, there was no component of that due to the solar variability. In the end, a really good match came to the greenhouse gases. That came as a surprise to me, because I'd really thought that the ocean currents and the variability of the sun would dominate, but it wasn't the case. It was purely greenhouse gases. At that point, my conclusion was not only is global warming real, but essentially all of it is caused by humans".

Flashback: Earth to Richard Muller: We know that your incessant "I was skeptical until recently" schtick is complete BS. If it's not, then explain your quotes from 2008, and 2006, and 2003

Flashback: On ocean heat content, Pinatubo, Hansen, Bulldogs, cherrypicking and all that | Watts Up With That?

[Hansen, 2011] A recent decrease in ocean heat uptake was caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo [1991] aerosols…

Remember that day that we all elected Richard Muller "lead skeptic scientist"? I don't

Lead Climate Change Skeptic Scientist Richard Muller Admits Global Warming is Real! | Inhabitat - Green Design Will Save the World

Climate change naysayers may now have to face the writing on the green wall, as lead skeptic scientist Richard Muller recently changed his mind and now believes that global warming is real.

New Muller quote on the hockey team: "What they did was, I think shameful, and it was scientific malpractice. If they were licensed scientists, they should have to lose their license. What they did is they held back the discordant data...if they had done this at Berkeley or Stanford, I think, they would have been shamed"

The BRAD BLOG : Skeptical Believer: Our Interview with the Kochs' Former Global Warming Skeptic, Dr. Richard Muller

But the interview's friendly climate changed and really began to heat up when I asked Muller if his findings finally put to rest the far Right's claim that the cockamamie (and debunked-many times-over) "Climategate" affair "proved" that climate scientists linked to the pseudo-scandal were fudging their global warming data.

Incredibly, Muller asserted that "Climategate" was not a settled issue, and that the scientists involved were found to have "hidden" data. (He also asserted, without evidence to support it, that the "controversial" e-mails at the center of the pseudo-scandal were intentionally "leaked by a member of the team," rather than hacked. He claims that "most people" believe that to be the case, though he was unable or unwilling to back up that element of his charge either.) I pointed out that eight different investigations all found that no data manipulation took place; he asserted that temperature data had been "hidden", not manipulated. When I asked if "hiding" data was not a form of manipulation, he gave a muddled non-answer (though he made sure to get in some particularly nasty, and seemingly personal, shots at acclaimed Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann).

Rosenberg then addressed America's recently-shattered temperature records, wildfires and unrelenting drought, asking Muller if there was a clear link between these extreme weather events and climate change; Muller, again, curiously downplayed any connection, ultimately suggesting that the drought wasn't that much different from the 1930s Dust Bowl.
...
Even as Muller's own scientific findings continue to come closer and closer to Mann's long-standing and well-documented assertions, there is clearly no love lost between the two men, as evidenced by the shots Muller took at Mann during our interview

Muller on the hockey team [13:00 mark of the audio]: "What they did was, I think shameful, and it was scientific malpractice.  If they were licensed scientists, they should have to lose their license.  What they did is they held back the discordant data...if they had done this at Berkeley or Stanford, I think, they would have been shamed.  The standards that they have over there at the University of East Anglia are just not up to what we consider standard scientific methods.  When you withhold data that is discordant, and they refused to release it until it came out in this leak..."

Climate Watch: Conversation With Richard Muller - YouTube

Richard Muller is not a climatologist, yet he is one of the most controversial figures in climate science. Climate Watch Senior Editor sat down with Muller to talk about his upcoming book, "Energy for Future Presidents," his view of global warming as "secular religion."  [Maybe I missed it, but I didn't hear Muller say "secular religion" in this one-minute segment.]

Twitter / KHayhoe: RT @CFigueres On my way to

RT @CFigueres On my way to ‪#RioPlus20‬. I will be looking for true commitment to change.

British Baby-Boomers Are Beginning To Be More Rational About Eco-Hype

More than 1,000 people aged 55 or over - nearly three quarters of them 55 to 69 - responded to the online survey. The greatest number of respondents were from the UK followed by Australia, Canada and the U.S.

Only one in five of those in the UK were very concerned about the effects of climate change on their country, compared to 60 per cent in Australia, 57 per cent in Canada and 50 per cent in the U.S.