Deep Climate Blog
see one word
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.
https://www.desmog.com/2010/03/17/crescendo-climategate-cacophony/ pointer fail
https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/files/crescendo%20climategate%20cacophony%20v1%200.pdf185 pp 2/22
2010
John Mashey: Crescendo Climategate Cacophony
...de Freitas, Chris (New Zealand)
www.sges.auckland.ac.nz/the_school/our_people/defreitas_chris/index.shtm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_de_Freitas
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chris_de_Freitas
www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3
web.archive.org/web/20030526163750/www.cspg.org/deFreitas_climate.pdf [DEF2002]
deepclimate.org/2009/12/02/in-the-beginning-friends-of-science-talisman-energy-and-the-de-freitas-broth
ers Support from Talisman energy, possible involvement by others. Much below is due to DC.
Activities: Leipzig, HeartExp#1
Organizations: FoS, ICSC, NZCSC, ICECAP, Lavoisier, Climate Research (journal).
The Bulletin of the Canadian Petroleum Geology published a de Freitas anti-science paper [DEF2002] via
an interesting process.
The Editor, his Canadian geologist brother Tim had recused himself, but had paper
reviewed by Soon and Boehmer-Christiansen, contemporaneously with De Freitas reviewing a
badly-flawed paper by Soon and Baliunas [SOO2003] for the journal Climate Research.De Freitas was
then an editor of that journal, whose publication of that paper eventually led to resignation of
Editor-in-Chief Hans von Storch and about half other editors. All this was the impetus for some
complaints found in Climategate emails. (read DC‘s account). At various times, Balling, Davis, De
Freitas and Legates have been editors for Climate Research, but none currently.
As for the original [DEF2002], it was described by Tim de Freitas, p27:
www.cspg.org/volunteer/files/reports/2002-CSPG-Report-of-Activities.pdf (emboldening mine).
...
People familiar with climate anti-science PR campaigns Those familiar with the general topic and primarily interested in recent discoveries about the Wegman Report (WR) can examine Figures 2.1 and 3.1 for context, then skip to §5, read it and Appendices A.10 and A.11, and selected parts of other Appendices. They should read posts of Canadian blogger Deep Climate (DC) to whom much is owed for unearthing key facts. However, the WR was just one tactic in a two-decades-long campaign, and the rest of the document collects much detail to let people follow any subset of threads they wish to explore. Some readers might be familiar with the organizations, tactics, and individuals of A.2, A.3, A.4 and A.7, but might consult A.6 for detailed maps of relationships among these...
2001 [GUT2009], pp.251-259 covers the back-history of the M&M connection, and its context within Fraser Institute efforts, ―its biggest coup.‖ DC covered this in more detail in [DEE2010d].
...
2010.01 Reality strikes back, thanks to “Deep Climate” Canadian blogger ―Deep Climate‖ (DC) published clear evidence that Bradley‘s classic book [BRA199] was not only plagiarized in the WR, but was sometimes changed in ways to cast doubt on credibility of tree-ring research. This subject was very important to the whole issue, but the WP lacked that expertise, by at least one of the member‘s own words. See [DEE2009, DEE2009a, DEE2010, DEE2010a] or just check [DEE2009a, DEE2010a] for side-by-side comparisons. Exactly which combination of people copied and changed Bradley‘s text is unclear, but there are 6 obvious people to ask first. DC then unearthed a few more key facts. See A.10 for detailed notes on the purposeful, deceptive plagiarism, inclusion of ‖grey literature‖ references, and generally shoddy scholarship. DC later found evidence of additional substantial plagiarism in the social network material.
...
2007.09.07 Said gave a talk at GMU [SAI2007], analyzed in some detail in A.11. DC had already found the plagiarism and the P.Spencer connection, enough to cast serious doubts on any claim of ―independence‖, but then found this talk. It mentioned additional people, gave more insight into the WP worldview and confirmed a strong P.Spencer role. His hints helped me find it as well...
―Deep Climate‘s diligent sleuthing and posts on Canadian climate anti-science were critical. He found crucial facts and gave some good hints on where to look further. This document would not have happened without his work. I‘ve been accumulating information over the last few years, trying to understand the patterns and connections in data I already had. DC‘s work suddenly helped make much better sense of existing information, and helped me look in the right places for more....