webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Muller, Richard sci

---

merri ok

hired by koch

2011 180? effect?

benji conundrum origin myth: i tried everything until only C)2 and match curve exactly, who knew?

---

WIKI 3 26 180

Following people who have changed their position

Some climate change skeptics have changed their positions regarding global warming. Ronald Bailey, author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (published in 2002), stated in 2005, "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up."[331] By 2007, he wrote "Details like sea level rise will continue to be debated by researchers, but if the debate over whether or not humanity is contributing to global warming wasn't over before, it is now.... as the new IPCC Summary makes clear, climate change Pollyannaism is no longer looking very tenable."[332]

Jerry Taylor promoted climate denialism for 20 years as former staff director for the energy and environment task force at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and former vice president of the Cato Institute. Taylor began to change his mind after climate scientist James Hansen challenged him to reread some Senate testimony. He became President of the Niskanen Center in 2014, where he is involved in turning climate skeptics into climate activists, and making the business case for climate action.[333][334][335]

Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic magazine, reached a tipping point in 2006 as a result of his increasing familiarity with scientific evidence, and decided there was "overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic global warming". Journalist Gregg Easterbrook, an early skeptic of climate change who authored the influential book A Moment on the Earth, also changed his mind in 2006, and wrote an essay titled "Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over".[336] In 2006, he stated, "based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert."[337]

In 2009, Russian president Dmitri Medvedev expressed his opinion that climate change was "some kind of tricky campaign made up by some commercial structures to promote their business projects". After the devastating 2010 Russian wildfires damaged agriculture and left Moscow choking in smoke, Medvedev commented, "Unfortunately, what is happening now in our central regions is evidence of this global climate change."[336]

Bob Inglis, a former US representative for South Carolina, changed his mind in around 2010 after appeals from his son on his environmental positions, and after spending time with climate scientist Scott Heron studying coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef.[338]

Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and the co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, funded by Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, had been a prominent critic of prevailing climate science. In 2011, he stated that "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."[339]

"I used to be a climate-change skeptic", conservative columnist Max Boot admitted in 2018, one who believed that "the science was inconclusive" and that worry was "overblown". Now, he says, referencing the Fourth National Climate Assessment, "the scientific consensus is so clear and convincing."[340]

---

wow, must be how he got koch gig:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/02/15/97-an-inconvenient-truth-about-the-oft-cited-polling-of-climate-scientists/#134478a9205a

note he pretends this is a poll, whereas he must know origin in meta-analysis?

no lnx grafic

Feb 15, 2017,

97%: An Inconvenient Truth About The Oft-Cited Polling Of Climate Scientists

Quora

Contributor

What are some widely cited studies in the news that are false? originally appeared on Quora: the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.

Answer by Richard Muller, Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley, on Quora:

What are some widely cited studies in the news that are false? That 97% of all climate scientists accept that climate change is real, large and a threat to the future of humanity. That 97% basically concur with the vast majority of claims made by Vice President Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize winning film, An Inconvenient Truth.

The question asked in typical surveys is neither of those. It is this: “Do you believe that humans are affecting climate?” My answer would be yes. Humans are responsible for about a 1degree Celsius rise in the average temperature in the last 100 years. So I would be included as one of the 97% who believe.

Yet the observed changes that are scientifically established, in my vast survey of the science, are confined to temperature rise and the resulting small (4-inch) rise in sea level. (The huge “sea level rise” seen in Florida is actually subsidence of the land mass, and is not related to global warming.) There is no significant change in the rate of storms, or of violent storms, including hurricanes and volcanoes.The temperature variability is not increasing.There is no scientifically significant increase in floods or droughts.Even the widely reported warming of Alaska (“the canary in the mine”) doesn’t match the pattern of carbon dioxide increase--it may have an explanation in terms of changes in the northern Pacific and Atlantic currents. Moreover, the standard climate models have done a very poor job of predicting the temperature rise in Antarctica, so we must be cautious about the danger of confirmation bias.

My friend Will Happer believes that humans do affect the climate, particularly in cities where concrete and energy use cause what is called the “urban heat island effect.” So he would be included in the 97% who believe that humans affect climate, even though he is usually included among the more intense skeptics of the IPCC. He also feels that humans cause a small amount of global warming (he isn’t convinced it is as large as 1 degree), but he does not think it is heading towards a disaster; he has concluded that the increase in carbon dioxide is good for food production, and has helped mitigate global hunger. Yet he would be included in the 97%.

The problem is not with the survey, which asked a very general question. The problem is that many writers (and scientists!) look at that number and mischaracterize it. The 97% number is typically interpreted to mean that 97% accept the conclusions presented in An Inconvenient Truth by former Vice President Al Gore. That’s certainly not true; even many scientists who are deeply concerned by the small global warming (such as me) reject over 70% of the claims made by Mr. Gore in that movie (as did a judge in the UK; see the following link: Gore climate film's nine "errors").

The pollsters aren’t to blame. Well, some of them are; they too can do a good poll and then misrepresent what it means. The real problem is that many people who fear global warming (include me) feel that it is necessary to exaggerate the meaning of the polls in order to get action from the public (don’t include me).

There is another way to misrepresent the results of the polls. Yes, 97% of those polled believe that there is human caused climate change. How did they reach that decision? Was it based on a careful reading of the IPCC report? Was it based on their knowledge of the potential systematic uncertainties inherent in the data? Or was it based on their fear that opponents to action are anti-science, so we scientists have to get together and support each other. There is a real danger in people with Ph.D.s joining a consensus that they haven’t vetted professionally.

I like to ask scientists who “believe” in global warming what they think of the data. Do they believe hurricanes are increasing? Almost never do I get the answer “Yes, I looked at that, and they are.” Of course they don’t say that, because if they did I would show them the actual data! Do they say, “I’ve looked at the temperature record, and I agree that the variability is going up”? No. Sometimes they will say, “There was a paper by Jim Hansen that showed the variability was increasing.” To which I reply, “I’ve written to Jim Hansen about that paper, and he agrees with me that it shows no such thing. He even expressed surprise that his paper has been so misinterpreted.”

A really good question would be: “Have you studied climate change enough that you would put your scientific credentials on the line that most of what is said in An Inconvenient Truth is based on accurate scientific results?" My guess is that a large majority of the climate scientists would answer no to that question, and the true percentage of scientists who support the statement I made in the opening paragraph of this comment, that true percentage would be under 30%. That is an unscientific guesstimate,based on my experience in asking many scientists about the claims of Al Gore.

This question originally appeared on Quora. the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. More questions:

==

February, 2017

2014 tax filings for Mercer’s family foundation revealed that the foundation was a major donor of work by Richard Muller,a University of California physics professor who initially founded the Berkeley Earth project. The project set out to conduct an independent review of global warming data, and was initially funded by Charles Koch. Mercer Family Foundation’s 2014 tax return listed a donation of $250,000 to the project, as *Bloomberg*reported. [22], [23]

To many’s surprise, Muller’s project confirmed (PDF) what the majority of climate scientists had already found related to changing climate. After announcing the findings in *The New York Times* in 2012, calling it a “total turnaround,” Mueller declared himself as a “converted skeptic.” [24], [25]

Connor Gibson, a researcher at the environmentalist group Greenpeace, said he was “thoroughly confused” by the development that Robert Mercer’s foundation was a major backer of Muller’s research. [23]

However,Bloombergnoted that since his “conversion,” Muller has endorsed fracking. According to his website, Muller's second-biggest funder in 2014 was America's Natural Gas Alliance, at $200,000.  [23]

In an interview, Muller said he meets regularly with Mercer to discuss the group's research. “Never has he ever criticized anything that we've published or done. Never has he indicated any hope for any conclusions we could reach,” Muller said. “He is one of the world's experts at data analysis – that's what he did at his company. And my sense is he felt the data out there – the big data – was not being analyzed properly and that we would do so.” [23]

==

mann bk: defended sallie and willie soon late 2003

---

https://environmentaljusticetv.wordpress.com/**2015/04**/22/richard-muller-i-was-wrong-on-climate-change/

---

https://deepclimate.org/2012/09/17/richard-muller-radio-rambles-part-1-kochs-very-deep-very-thoughtful-and-properly-skeptical/#more-5138

9/12

no lnx many

Richard Muller Radio Rambles, part 1: Kochs “very deep”, “very thoughtful” and “properly skeptical”

Posted on September 17,2012

A recent Canadian radio appearance by Berkeley Earth founder Richard Muller has shed additional light on the role of Charles Koch, a major funder of the Berkeley Earth effort (and arguably the top funder of climate contrarians over the last several years). In the interview on CBC’s Sunday Edition, Muller mounted his most spirited and detailed defence of Koch yet, describing the oil billionaire as “very thoughtful” and “properly skeptical” of climate science. And the Berkeley Earth website goes even further, linking to an official Koch statement that makes the preposterous claim that the Charles Koch Foundation supports “sound, nonpartisan, scientific research”. That rings especially hollow this election season, given the current massive pro-Republican and anti-regulation push by fossil fuel interests, led as usual by Koch Industries.

The Berkeley Earth project is of mild scientific interest, but its leadership has proven adept at garnering intense media interest with each update (one can only imagine the media explosion once actual scientific publication is achieved). In the wake of the latest Berkeley Earth release, self-proclaimed “converted skeptic” Richard Muller has once again made the media rounds.  Thus it came to be that the CBC brought Muller into my home, and I’ve since taken in a lot of his notions about climate science from a number of sources. Those range from his 2009 “Naked Copenhagen” WSJ op-ed piece and the 2010 head-exploding i4energy presentation (where the dubious rationale for the Berkeley Earth project was first made public), to his recent New York Times op-ed, and his interviews with Diane Rehm and Amy Goodman.

But for now I’ll concentrate on the first part of Muller’s interview with CBC host Kevin Sylvester (of which I’ve  prepared a partial transcript).

Out of the gate, Muller’s appalling self-congratulation and arrogance are on display, as he hopes the Berkeley Earth team papers – none of which had even been accepted yet by a peer-reviewed journal – will “settle the science” about global warming. And why has this task fallen to Muller and the Berkeley Earth team, after thousands of papers and four comprehensive IPCC reports carefully documenting anthropogenic climate change? Well, it turns out “valid issues raised by thoughtful skeptics” had not been “clearly answered”. Those issues included station quality, data adjustments and selection of a “tiny fraction” of temperature stations.

If this were just more of Muller’s self-aggrandizement accompanied by his usual dismissal of real climate scientists, one could simply roll one’s eyes and tune out. At least this time out, Muller did not accuse other scientists of misconduct and “data hiding”, as he has done in the past.

But then Sylvester asked about Koch involvement, and things got really bizarre. Unbelievably, Charles Koch turns out to be one of those “thoughtful skeptics”. And not just “thoughtful”, but “very deep” as well.

Q:  I guess a lot of surprise for a number of people as well as was that the funding for this was from the Koch brothers. … Was there ever any influence … Was there anything that surprised them and maybe angered them about your results?

A: No not at all. I mean, they’re made caricatures in the media. They’re actually very thoughtful people. You should read some of the books  that Charles Koch has written. He’s very thoughtful, very deep. And from the beginning, he and I shared a concern there were issues that had not been addressed in a clearly transparent and objective way. And he wanted those answered. And no he never gave any hint whatsoever what answer he was hoping for, if any.

However, there is little evidence that Charles Koch has accepted the Berkeley Earth findings, especially regarding anthropogenic genesis of global warming. After the release of the Berkeley Earth findings in October 2011, the Charles Koch Foundation gave this decidedly lukewarm comment on the Berkeley Earth results.

The research examined recent global surface temperature trends. It did not examine ocean temperature data or the cause of warming on our climate, as some have claimed.

That statement is still linked from the Berkeley Earth website FAQ entry on funding. But now that Berkeley Earth has gone even beyond the IPCC in attributing warming to human greenhouse gas emissions, the Koch Foundation has issued a second, truncated statement avoiding any discussion of the most recent findings. Even more telling is the apparent absence of Koch Foundation support in the second phase of Berkeley Earth (presuming that the Anonymous Foundation donating $250,000 is not associated with the Kochs).

In the CBC interview, Muller went on to defend Charles Koch against accusations of being a climate change “denier”.

He knew that the science was in trouble, there were things wrong with it. People called him a denier because he was being properly skeptical about things that hadn’t been answered. That was silly. And from the beginning he made it absolutely clear all he wanted to do was good science.

No, despite Muller’s protestations, the Kochs have been labeled deniers, not because they are “properly skeptical”, but  because they have poured tens of millions into supporting contrarian think tanks and politicians who deny the primacy of anthropogenic influences,  chiefly greenhouse gas emissions, in current and future global warming. And the Kochs will reportedly raise up to $400 million to support a Republican Party that has increasingly committed itself to inaction on climate change, among a whole set of extreme Tea Party inspired policies.

It’s understandable that Berkeley Earth would defend its own acceptance of Koch money. And it should be emphasized that there is absolutely no hint of improper influence on the project, from Koch or anyone else.

But by linking to an official Koch statement, Berkeley Earth implicitly endorses this deceitful description of Koch funding policy (as presented in both Koch statements).

The Charles Koch Foundation has long supported and will continue to support sound, nonpartisan, scientific research.

This simply can not be squared with the Koch record, from the establishment of the Cato Institute through to Koch funding for the Heartland Institute and the Fraser Institute, to name just three examples. None of the $60 million that the Kochs have poured into such organizations over the years can conceivably be termed support for “scientific research”, let alone sound scientific research. As for the laughable claim that the “research” is non-partisan, all of the supported organizations are allied with Republican policies and politicians (or Conservative ones in the case of the Canadian Fraser Institute).

A more realistic self-assessment (and rationale) for Koch activities can be found behind closed doors. For years, the Kochs have convened secretive biannual seminars that bring together like-minded Republican patrons with politicians and media boosters, as first reported by the New York Times in 2010. Audio tapes of the January 2011 seminar in Palm Springs, obtained by Mother Jones, feature Charles Koch in full rhetorical flight, with an  oblique reference to Saddam Hussein and a warning that the 2012 election would be “the mother of all wars.”

But the most revealing insights into the Koch mind set come from a ThinkProgress package containing the letter of invitation for the 2011 Palm Springs meeting, along with the agenda for the previous 2010 meeting held in Vail, Colorado.

Here are a couple of tidbits from theVail agenda.

Small group dinner:

Energy and Climate: What drives the regulatory assault on energy? What are the economic and political consequences of this? How discredited is the climate change argument? What effect does this have on the electorate, especially in key states? [p. 6]

That makes the real Koch agenda very clear: climate science (or the “climate change argument” in Koch speak) must be “discredited” in order to blunt the “regulatory assault on energy”.

Another session focused on a familiar litany of “significant threats” from the Obama administration.

Understanding the Persistent Threats We Face

The current administration swept into office with a promise to “fundamentally transform America.” From the nationalization of health care to the rising power of unions, as well as a push for major new climate and energy regulations, financial regulation, and even more government spending, there is no lack of significant threats for us to understand and address. [p. 7] [Emphasis added]

The program summary for the “action oriented” 2011 meeting refers to past efforts to “counter”  such “critical threats”  as “climate change alarmism”.

This action-oriented program brings together top experts and leaders to discuss – and offer solutions to counter – the most critical threats to our free society. Recent sessions have focused on addressing rapid government growth, countering climate change alarmism and the move toward socialized healthcare, developing strategies to advance liberty on college campuses, strengthening our state-based capabilities, and promoting judicial reform. Past meetings have featured such notable leaders as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas; Governors Bobby Jindal and Haley Barbour; commentators John Stossel, Charles Krauthammer, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh; Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn; and Representatives Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, and Torn Price. [Emphasis added]

The featured presence of right-wing media stars like Beck and Limbaugh is fairly predictable, but the attendance of two sitting Supreme Court Justices is frankly shocking.  And look who made a surprise appearance towards the end of that list: none other than then vice-presidential candidate in training (and climate change contrarian) Paul Ryan.

So much for “non-partisan scientific research”.

But just because Muller doesn’t accept that Koch is a “denier”, doesn’t mean “deniers” don’t exist – far from it.

If we take the standard, the consensus prior to our work  as being what the IPCC had reported, then there are deniers who say: “There’s no global warming it’s all political”.  And there are also deniers who say: “Oh, the IPCC is completely wrong – the situation is much, much worse than they say”. If they are denying the IPCC  by saying it’s worse, they should be called deniers too. And that includes Al Gore and Tom Freidman as people who deny the IPCC report.

It’s a good thing we have Muller and the Kochs to occupy the middle ground between the “deniers” on both sides.

As I’ve said before, Muller’s belated “conversion” to scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is positive, albeit woefully late. But he clings to many of his previous fallacious positions on a range of issues, beyond his absurd characterization of the Koch Brothers. Proper treatment of these could keep an assiduous blogger busy for a long time, so I’ll just summarize some of Muller’s most problematic points briefly.

At the top of the list is Muller’s repeated insistence that “climategate” revealed gross scientific misconduct on the part of scientists at East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit. Those accusations are completely unjustified, and based on a faulty grasp of the facts to boot. Berkeley Earth team member Zeke Hausfather has repudiated accusations of scientific malfeasance against CRU’s Phil Jones and Keith Briffa from the beginning. And even Chip Knappenberger rejected Steve McIntyre’s “analysis” of the Climategate email exchange concerning the IPCC TAR chart that showed reconstructions by Briffa and Jones, along with the MBH99 “hockey stick”, terming it “normal scientific discourse”.  (I’ve discussed this particular aspect of “climategate” and the “hide-the-decline” controversy several times, notably here and here).

Of course, it should also be pointed out that misinformation about “climategate” was assiduously promulgated by several groups funded by the Koch Brothers, notably Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.

Climategate aside, though, here are some of the other gaffes and questionable “facts” that may occasion more detailed commentary. According to Muller:

Hansen’s recent work on seasonal temperature extremes is “not correct” (and Hansen “predicts” his findings in Gistemp “ahead of time” which makes Muller “very uncomfortable”). [Sources: CBC, i4energy.]

“Is the Arctic melting due to global warming? You know, the evidence for that is very, very flimsy. I’m not even sure it’s true.” Enough said  – for now. [Source: Diane Rehm show]

China’s  greenhouse gas emissions will increase more than five-fold by 2040, even with a 4% reduction in carbon intensity each and every year. [Sources: Wall Street Journal and many others]

And, last but not least, we have an oldie but goodie (again via the CBC).

“[T]he globe isn’t warming, at least not in recent years”.

I don’t see anything in that list to which Charles Koch would take the slightest exception.

---

berk earth BS

Richard Muller is Professor of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley, Faculty Senior Scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, President of Muller & Associates LLC, and a Managing Partner at Global Shale.

Rich has been awarded the MacArthur Prize, the National Science Foundation Alan T. Waterman Award, the Texas Instruments Foundation Founders Prize, the Distinguished Teaching Award, and the Donald Sterling Noyce Prize. He was named by Newsweek as one of top 25 innovators in the US in all fields in 1989, and featured in Forbes Magazine in March 2009. He is a fellow of the American Physical Society, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the California Academy of Sciences. He is the author of over 120 scientific articles and eight books, including Physics for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines (Norton, 2008).

While Rich is best known for his work in astrophysics and geophysics, he also spent over a decade researching paleoclimate. His primary interest was in the Milankovitch cycles, and is the author of a technical book "Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes" (co-author: the late Gordon MacDonald), published by Springer, which emphasizes methods of mathematical climate analysis. He also published a series of papers on the subject in Nature, Science, Geology, Paleoceanography and elsewhere, and was a referee for the National Academy of Sciences on IPCC work. He is now focusing all of his research effort on recent climate, particularly the surface temperature records.

Rich has over three decades of high level advising to the US Government (Dept. of Energy, NASA, Dept. of Defense, others) on science and technology issues relating to energy and national security. He is also an advisor/consultant to many companies on energy and high-tech.

Richard has been married to Rosemary Muller for over 40 years, and has two daughters, Elizabeth and Melinda.

==

If you oppose fracking, then you are not a “serious environmentalist.”

So say U.C. Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller and his daughter Elizabeth Muller in a new opinion paper with a none-too-subtle title: "Why Every Serious Environmentalist Should Favor Fracking."

Until recently, Muller wasn't much of an environmentalist himself. He was a prominent climate denier. But last year he wrote in *The New York Times* that he came to realize the error of his ways after an intensive review of the science.

Now this self-described "converted skeptic" has appointed himself the arbiter of serious environmentalism.

THIS STORY CONTINUES

==

on npr/kqed the other day? 7/31?

extensive coveragehttp://deepclimate.org/

---

wiki

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project is an effort to resolve criticism of the current records of the Earth's surface temperatures by preparing an open database and analysis of these temperatures and temperature trends, to be available online, with all calculations, methods and results also to be freely available online. BEST is a project conceived of and funded by the Novim group at University of California at Santa Barbara.[1] BEST's stated aim is a "transparent approach, based on data analysis."[1]"Our results will include not only our best estimate for the global temperature change, but estimates of the uncertainties in the record."[2]

BEST founder Richard A. Muller told The Guardian "...we are bringing the spirit of science back to a subject that has become too argumentative and too contentious, ....we are an independent, non-political, non-partisan group. We will gather the data, do the analysis, present the results and make all of it available. There will be no spin, whatever we find. We are doing this because it is the most important project in the world today. Nothing else comes close."[3]

The BEST project is funded by unrestricted educational grants totalling (as of March 2011) about $635,000. Large donors include Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER),[4] and the William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation.[5] The donors have no control over how BEST conducts the research or what they publish.[6]

The team's preliminary findings, data sets and programs were made available to the public in October 2011, and their results have been published as peer-reviewed scientific papers beginning in December 2012.[7][8][9] The study addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The Berkeley Earth group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years (between the decades of the 1950s and 2000s) the land surface warmed by 0.91±0.05°C, and their results mirrors those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The study also found that the urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies.[10][11][12][13]

Scientific team

Scientific team[

Berkeley Earth team members include:[14]

Initial results[

After completing the analysis of the full land temperature data set, consisting of more than 1.6 billion temperature measurements dating back to the 1800s from 15 sources around the world, and originated from more than 39,000 temperature stations worldwide, the group submitted four papers for peer-review and publication in scientific journals. The Berkeley Earth study did not assess temperature changes in the oceans, nor tried to assess how much of the observed warming is due to human action.[12] The Berkeley Earth team also released the preliminary findings to the public on October 20, 2011 in order to promote additional scrutiny. The data sets and programs used to analyze the information, and the papers undergoing peer review were also made available to the public.[10][11][12]

The Berkeley Earth study addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The team's initial conclusions are the following:[10][11][12][13]

The BEST analysis uses a new methodology and was tested against much of the same data as NOAA and NASA. The group uses an algorithm that attaches an automatic weighting to every data point, according to its consistency with comparable readings. The team claims this approach allows the inclusion of outlandish readings without distorting the result and standard statistical techniques were used to remove outliers. The methodology also avoids traditional procedures that require long, continuous data segments, thus accommodating for short sequences, such as those provided by temporary weather stations. This innovation allowed the group to compile an earlier record than its predecessors, starting from 1800, but with a high degree of uncertainty because at the time there were only two weather stations in America, just a few in Europe and one in Asia.[11][17]

Reactions[

Given project leader Muller's well-publicised concerns regarding of the quality of climate change research, other critics anticipated that the BEST study would be a vindication of their stance. For example when the study team was announced, blogger Anthony Watts, who popularized several of the issues addressed by the Berkeley Earth group study, stated[18]

"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."

When the initial results were released, and found to support the existing consensus, the study was widely decried. Watts spoke to the New York Times, which wrote: "Mr. Watts ... contended that the study's methodology was flawed because it examined data over a 60-year period instead of the 30-year-one that was the basis for his research and some other peer-reviewed studies. He also noted that the report had not yet been peer-reviewed and cited spelling errors as proof of sloppiness."[19] Steven Mosher, a co-author of a book critical of climate scientists, also disapproved saying that the study still lacked transparency. He said: "I'm not happy until the code is released and released in a language that people can use freely."[19] (The code and dataset are available from the BEST Dataset web page.) Stephen McIntyre, editor of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data, said that "the team deserves credit for going back to the primary data and doing the work" and even though he had not had an opportunity to read the papers in detail, he questioned the analyses of urban heating and weather station quality.[17][20]

By contrast, the study was well received by Muller's peers in climate science research. James Hansen, a leading climate scientist and head of NASAGoddard Institute for Space Studies commented that he had not read the research papers but was glad Muller was looking at the issue. He said "It should help inform those who have honest scepticism about global warming."[13]

Phil Jones the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), said: "I look forward to reading the finalised paper once it has been reviewed and published. These initial findings are very encouraging and echo our own results and our conclusion that the impact of urban heat islands on the overall global temperature is minimal."[13] Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, commented that "...they get the same result that everyone else has gotten," and "that said, I think it's at least useful to see that even a critic like Muller, when he takes an honest look, finds that climate science is robust."[20] Peter Thorne, from the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites in North Carolina and chair of the International Surface Temperature Initiative, said: "This takes a very distinct approach to the problem and comes up with the same answer, and that builds confidence that pre-existing estimates are in the right ballpark. There is very substantial value in having multiple groups looking at the same problem in different ways." ^[13] A scientist writing at RealClimate.org noted that it was unsurprising that BEST's results matched previous results so well. "Any of various simple statistical analyses of the freely available data ...show... that it was very very unlikely that the results would change," they wrote.[21]

July 2012 announcement[

In an op-ed published in the New York Times on 28 July 2012, Muller announced further findings from the project. He said their analysis showed that average global land temperatures had increased by 2.5 °F (1.4 °C) in 250 years, with the increase in the last 50 years being 1.5 °F (0.8 °C), and it seemed likely that this increase was entirely due to human caused greenhouse gas emissions. His opening paragraph stated:

"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."[16]

He said that their findings were stronger than those shown in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Their analysis, set out in five scientific papers now being subjected to scrutiny by others, had used statistical methods which Robert Rohde had developed and had paid particular attention to overcoming issues that skeptics had questioned, including the urban heat island effect, poor station quality, data selection and data adjustment. In the fifth paper which they now made public, they fitted the shape of the record to various forcings including volcanoes, solar activity and sunspots. They found that the shape best matched the curve of the calculated greenhouse effect from human caused greenhouse gas emissions. Muller said he still found "that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I've analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn't changed."[16]

See also

==

GOP’s only scientists at ‘Scopes’ climate hearing are Richard Muller and John Christy. Go figure!

By Joe Romm on March 31, 2011

Skeptical Science debunks more Muller disinformation

UPDATE:  GOP Chair Hall referred to the emails of “East Angeles“!

Muller says of surface temperature dataset, “Some of the most worrisome biases are less serious than I had thought.“  That’s because he doesn’t read the scientific literature!

There is a climate science -hearing- trial today at 10 am of the full House Science Committee, “Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy” (webcast here).

The Charter (here) makes clear this is a Scopes-like trial of Climategate, since it has an extended discussion of the stolen e-mails (which it claims were “leaked” — as if) along with innuendo-laden treatments of “Data Quality” and the “IPCC process.”  The Charter never mentions the multiple vindications of the scientists whose emails were stolen and of the IPCC itself — and it omits any discussion of the massive amount of data and independent analyses that underpin our understanding of climate science.  And those phony attacks  are then used to question EPA’s rather obvious finding that unrestricted emissions of greenhouse gases are a danger to the health and well-being of Americans.

The fossil fuel funded Tea Party and climate zombies of the GOP have turned it into the party of no science — see Tim Pawlenty: “Every one of us” running for president has flip-flopped on climate change and National Journal:** “The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones.” So rather than calling this the Scopes trial, let’s just call it the Nopes trial.

The Democrats were allowed one witness and invited a serious climate scientist, MIT’s Kerry Emanuel.  The GOP had five witnesses and invited 3 non-scientists to spread disinformation on greenhouse gas regulations and costs.  Of the two actual scientists they invited, Richard Muller and John Christy, only one is actually a climate scientist.  Christy, though, is also a serial disinformer.  Skeptical Science debunked point by point his last testimony (see “Should you believe anything John Christy says?“).  For more, see House GOP line up the usual disinformers for climate science hearing.

Muller likes to claim he is an independent, apolitical physicist trying to restore “credibility” to the temperature record.  But in fact, like Christy, the Koch-funded Muller has also launched phony attacks on climate science for years (see here).  Like Christy, Muller is a serial disinformer, as we’ve seen (see “Koch-funded scientist Richard Muller makes up story about Al Gore, Ralph Cicerone, and polar bears“).  Indeed, Skeptical Science has begun a multipart debunking of Muller, which I repost below:

[Note:  SkS accuses Mueller of "misinformation" -- but the charge below has been debunked so many times in the past two years, including by the independent commissions reviewing the emails -- that it must now qualify as disinformation.  Willful ignorance of the facts -- like ignorance of the law -- is no defense.]

The most cited ‘Climategate‘ email is one from Phil Jones discussing a graph he produced for a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report, where he discusses “Mike’s trick” and “hide the decline”. A number of misconceptions have arisen concerning this email. Unfortunately a prominent source of ‘hide the decline’ misinformation Professor Richard Muller from Berkeley. One of Muller’s errors is confusing several separate techniques, blurring them into a single “hide the decline”. Muller commits this error in apublic lecture (emphasis added):

A quote came out of the emails, these leaked emails, that said “let’s use Mike’s trick to hide the decline”. That’s the words, “let’s use Mike’s trick to hide the decline”. Mike is Michael Mann, said “hey, trick just means mathematical trick. That’s all.” My response is I’m not worried about the word trick. I’m worried about the decline.

Muller uses the phrase “Mike’s nature trick to hide the decline” as if it’s Phil Jones’s actual words. In a lecture recorded last weekend at Berkeley, Muller continues to expound on how Michael Mann’s trick was used to hide the decline (emphasis added):

What they said is “how can we hide the decline?” And the suggestion came back from Phil Jones at the UK, “Let’s use Mike’s trick to hide the decline”. Mike’s trick consisted of erasing that data, calling it unreliable, and then substituting the temperature data from thereon.

However, the original text from Phil Jone’s email indicates otherwise:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

It’s clear that “Mike’s Nature trick” is quite separate to Keith Briffa’s “hide the decline”. Muller has taken different sections of Phil Jone’s emails and morphed them into a single phrase. To understand how this is a misleading characterisation, it’s helpful to examine exactly what “Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline” refer to.

What does “hide the decline” refer to?....

==

... 

Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the “Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase....

http://www.**nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion**/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=4

---

http://www.prwatch.org/node/11077

---

SETH BORENSTEIN   10/30/11

WASHINGTON — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.

What's different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to "The Daily Show" is paying attention is who is behind the study.

One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.

Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.

"The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said in a telephone interview. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."

Muller said that he came into the study "with a proper skepticism," something scientists "should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism" before.

There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, a place friendly to skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.

Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.

"Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world," he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is.

On Monday, Muller was taking his results – four separate papers that are not yet published or peer-reviewed, but will be, he says – to a conference in Santa Fe, N.M., expected to include many prominent skeptics as well as mainstream scientists.

"Of course he'll be welcome," said Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Lab, a noted skeptic and the conference organizer. "The purpose of our conference is to bring people with different views on climate together, so they can talk and clarify things."

Shawn Lawrence Otto, author of the book "Fool Me Twice" that criticizes science skeptics, said Muller should expect to be harshly treated by global warming deniers. "Now he's considered a traitor. For the skeptic community, this isn't about data or fact. It's about team sports. He's been traded to the Indians. He's playing for the wrong team now."

Muller's study found that skeptics' concerns about poor weather station quality didn't skew the results of his analysis because temperature increases rose similarly in reliable and unreliable weather stations. He also found that while there is an urban heat island effect making cities warmer, rural areas, which are more abundant, are warming, too.

Among many climate scientists, the reaction was somewhat of a yawn.

"After lots of work he found exactly what was already known and accepted in the climate community," said Jerry North, a Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor who headed a National Academy of Sciences climate science review in 2006. "I am hoping their study will have a positive impact. But some folks will never change."

Chris Field, a Carnegie Institution scientist who is chief author of an upcoming intergovernmental climate change report, said Muller's study "may help the world's citizens focus less on whether climate change is real and more on smart options for addressing it."

Some of the most noted scientific skeptics are no longer saying the world isn't warming. Instead, they question how much of it is man-made, view it as less a threat and argue it's too expensive to do something about, Otto said.

Skeptical MIT scientist Richard Lindzen said it is a fact and nothing new that global average temperatures have been rising since 1950, as Muller shows. "It's hard to see how any serious scientist (skeptical, denier or believer – frequently depending on the exact question) will view it otherwise," he wrote in an email.

In a brief email statement, the Koch Foundation noted that Muller's team didn't examine ocean temperature or the cause of warming and said it will continue to fund such research. "The project is ongoing and entering peer review, and we're proud to support this strong, transparent research," said foundation spokeswoman Tonya Mullins.

---

Online:

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature site: http://www.berkeleyearth.org/index.php

Santa Fe climate conference: http://bit.ly/rQknVi

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/30/richard-muller-global-warming_n_1066029.html

---

Science bites climate skeptics in the ass on the House floor 8

by Jess Zimmerman

1 Apr 2011

If you’re a climate hawk, or even a climate hobbyist, this graph should look familiar -- it’s the warming trend over the last 100-odd years. Except the guy who busted this out at the House climate science hearing yesterday was brought in by the Republicans to debunk global warming. (The black line is his data.) Haha, whoops!

This graph is the result of physicist Richard Muller’s project to get maximally accurate temperature data. Climate change deniers assumed that his skepticism about existing temperature data meant he was on their side (well, that and he’s also been spreading misinformation about the “Climategate” emails). The Kochs were so convinced of this that they donated $150,000 to his lab -- which makes it all the more delightful that Muller is now all “thanks, suckers, here’s the same data everyone else already had.” (Okay, he put it like this: “We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups. … I believe that some of the most worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought.” But you know what he meant.)

Muller was one of the only scientists the Republicans brought in -- among their five experts were an economist, a lawyer, and a professor of marketing. But hey, when there are so few scientists who are actually on your side, you have to go with what you’ve got. And evidently, even that doesn’t always work.

The Mild-Mannered Climate Study That's Got Everyone Upset

By Alex Eichler Mar 31, 2011

There's a new climate study whose preliminary results are out today, authored by a team of Berkeley scientists. On the face of it, this study is not really a big deal: it says that the world is getting warmer, and that the preponderance of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere play a role in that process. These are conclusions with which virtually every scientist on the topic agrees.

The study is controversial because of who conducted it: a team of Berkeley scientists, led by a guy named Richard Muller. And it's controversial because of who funded it: the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. That's Koch, as in *those*Kochs.

Back to Muller for a second: He's a physics professor at Berkeley, and he's known for butting heads with passionate members of the world-is-warming crowd. (For the sake of clarity, and because it bears repeating: virtually every scientist on Earth is a member of the world-is-warming crowd.) Muller believes the world is warming, too--but not as much as some people say it is. He's called Al Gore an "extremist" and an "alarmist," and he thinks the climate data that the U.N. works from has some major holes in it.

That's how this latest study came about--it's Muller's attempt to patch up those holes. "There are all kinds of things that can bias temperature readings, making them cooler or warmer than they should be," explains Ian Sample at The Guardian. "An oft-cited example is that a temperature station that was in a rural environment fifty years ago might today be on the fringes of a city, and feel more heat as a result."

Muller's team collected a bunch of data with the aim of correcting for those biases. Today, the team released a preliminary verson of their findings, and Muller himself testified before the House Science Committee. He told them that according to the Berkeley team's research, they found "a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."

Yup! So far, Muller's numbers hew pretty closely to those of the other groups he'd set out to improve upon. You can see a chart of Muller's data at The New York Times, where Andrew Revkin notes, with a hint of an air of victory, that "if the lawmakers, and/or Charles Koch... hoped it would undercut the credibility of climate science, they must be disappointed."

Still, the left probably won't be letting Muller off the hook so easily. Joseph Romm at Climate Progress calls him "a serial disinformer," and Revkin notes that he still considers Muller's past criticisms of Gore and fellow scientists to have been "oversimplified and grossly overstated." At any rate, the data that Muller presented today is still very much initial-stage--it has yet to go through peer review and publication--so it'll probably be a while yet before we see how this all shakes out.

---

The urban heat island effect was first noted in 1833 by Luke Howard, an amateur meteorologist, who noticed that urban London was at night about 3.7o F warmer than the surrounding countryside. One of the favorite arguments of climate change deniers is that the urban heat island effect is unduly biasing global temperature readings.

Because of this, climate change deniers have been especially excited about the prospects for the BEST project (Berkeley Earth Surface Group, a part of the Novim Group, which is friendly to the idea of geoengineering) headed by physicist Richard Muller. Judith Curry is also involved, as is 2011 physics Nobel laurate Saul Perlmutter. It is funded by, among others, the Koch Brothers. The project's goal is to create a separate global temperature estimate, and to carefully examine whether urban heating has had any impact on global temperatures. To do this, they analyzed temperature data from 39,028 meauring stations around the world.

The bombshell is that this Koch-funded group has not been able to show that the urban heat island effect has had any influence on temperature measurements of global warming. In fact, the group found in a paper just released that both urban and rural areas "show significant warming."

This is significant because the BEST group was widely expected to take a contrarian stand.

Another favorite climate change denial argument bites the dust....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/another-climate-denial-argument_b_1021171.html