READER COMMENTS ON
"Skeptical Believer: Our Interview with the Kochs' Former Global Warming Skeptic, Dr. Richard Muller"
(28 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
...
Davey Crocket
said on 8/3/2012 @ 5:55 pm PT...
Well David, Brad, Desi, RACHEL, Earnest, et al.,
I guess it is the LBH all over again.
Rachel was having an orgasm when she presented Dr. Muller. I am now wondering about the morning after. With whom did she wake up????
Hey, I applaud you for posting this at least, because somewhere in the back of your mind, you must have thought of old Davey.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9440#comment-474683
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9440#comment-474686
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9442#comment-474805
Now, in just a few days, Dr. Muller has gone from "darling" to "devil"
Where I sit, this red hot moment, was once completely underwater. I know because I can can show you oodles of salt-water fossils on my property. Must have frozen somewhere since then because currently I am high and dry. The earth cycles between cold-hot-colt-hot...etc. Five ice ages so far (I think).
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
...
Davey Crocket
said on 8/3/2012 @ 6:03 pm PT...
Moreover...
David...once I alerted you, I think you were smart enough to sniff this out.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9442#comment-474860
...but only after I told you to watch the longer video.
OK, you guys may hate on me because I do not buy the AGW argument but you should give me credit for alerting you to the fact that you were dancing in the endzone prematurely.
I am not stupid!
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
...
Davey Crocket
said on 8/3/2012 @ 6:05 pm PT...
More...moreover...
This all started with:
CLIMATE BOMBSHELL: Koch-Backed Scientist a Skeptic No More
Is he? Or is he not? Only his hairdresser knows for sure.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
...
Karen v,H,
said on 8/3/2012 @ 6:18 pm PT...
Dr. Muller came across as arrogant, self-centered, and primarily interested in promoting his book. I was disappointed, because I thought he might have a fresh perspective. Each time he mentioned that he disagreed with someone, I got my hopes up that we would have some substantive explanation of the why's and wherefore's. But instead he just fired off attacks left and right and showed no interest in helping the listener to understand anything at all. He repeatedly stated that everything was explained in his book, but frankly, I got tired of hearing him plug the book and by the end of this performance, I had zero confidence that he would show any sincere interest in helping anyone understand anything even in the book. I'm glad he's caught up to where climate science was 20 years ago, but if he has anything substantive to add to the conversation --- other than ten tons of ego --- that certainly wasn't clear from this interview.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
...
Davey Crocket
said on 8/3/2012 @ 6:30 pm PT...
Karen,
Anakin Skywalker
You're asking me to be rational. That is something I know I cannot do. Believe me, I wish I could just wish away my feelings, but I can't.
RICHARD MULLER: Well, I don’t expect people to say, oh Muller has changed his mind, therefore I do. What we have done, I think, is an exceptional level of transparency. We have five detailed, scientific papers which we have placed online — these have all been submitted to peer-reviewed journals — we have put all of the data online, we’ve put all of our computer programs online, along with a lot of supplemental information that your watchers and listeners might like. If you go to Berkeleyearth.org and you can look up your temperature record in your home town or your home state. But by putting this online, we have a transparency where people who think we did something wrong can find, well, this is your assumption right on this line here, this is what we don’t like. Our responses is, OK change it and see if it makes a difference, or we can change it for you and see if it makes a difference. So, this is, I think, the wonderful thing about science is that it’s that narrow realm of knowledge on which we expect to achieve universal agreement.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
...
Brad Friedman
said on 8/3/2012 @ 8:02 pm PT...
Davey Crocket @ 1:
Now, in just a few days, Dr. Muller has gone from "darling" to "devil"
It must be very sad for you in the black and white fortress in which you live. If it isn't, someday you'll discover that it is.
Perhaps I missed the "darling" part. And even the "devil" part, for that matter. A man who works for and with the Kochs, who has been a denier (who calls himself a "skeptic", so I generally use that, out of respect) for years, actually bothered to look at the data that others have collected, and warned about for years, and found, lo and behold, their claims about that data were correct.
Is he still funded by the Kochs? Yes. Is he still wrong about many things? Clearly. But, as he finally came around years later to realize that he had been wrong on his central belief (as Michael Mann notes above), we'll hope it won't take as many years to realize that he's wrong on so many of the others that he still holds. "Clean fracking"? Seriously, dude?
In any event, as I said, I guess I missed the "darling" part. The only thing that was "darling" about it was that the Kochs' money went towards disproving their own bullshit, and one more obstacle in the way of braindead, propagandized suckers (yes, like yourself) has fallen, so that the rest of us can get on with fixing the shit you people fucked up so thoroughly, cruelly, arrogantly and (probably) irreparably.
Whether he is deluded into believing there is such a thing as "clean fracking" any more than there is such a thing as "clean coal" has absolutely nothing to do with anything. His study corroborates what so many of us have been shouting about for so long, while yutzes like you have been (and still are) in self-destructive denial.
Where I sit, this red hot moment, was once completely underwater. I know because I can can show you oodles of salt-water fossils on my property. Must have frozen somewhere since then because currently I am high and dry. The earth cycles between cold-hot-colt-hot...etc. Five ice ages so far (I think).
Well, sorry, but Richard Muller, and virtually every other scientist in the world disagrees with you. You should really try reading some science some day. Like Muller did. Like D.R. Tucker did (yes, he used to agree with you, until he bothered to, ya know, inform himself.)
As Muller, and so many before him found, what is happening now can be explained no other way other than man is causing it. Yes, the earth does go through cycles of change. But there are reasons when it does and it usually takes a few thousand or a few million years, rather than a few decades. When you are able to offer a reason for the change that is occurring now, I'm sure you'll let us know. Perhaps you're smarter than Muller, or have access to secret information that he doesn't.
But I'm glad you are so proud of your utter ignorance. Seems to be a trend for folks from Texas these days. I'd be embarrassed. But that's just me.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 8/3/2012 @ 8:08 pm PT...
No Davey,
Hate you? I don't know you. But yeah, I do at times hate what you write when you come across as a mocking, smarmy, arrogant, ignorant ass. Like in the comments above.
Nice of you to take credit for my critique. I'd suggest you stick it up your ass on that one but I wouldn't want it to get overly crowded up there with your head already taking up so much space.
Where did you ever come up with the deranged, arrogant, self-serving fantasy that I had no problems with Muller? Did Rush phone that one in to ya? Or did you dial it up yourself?
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 8/3/2012 @ 8:36 pm PT...
D.R.Tucker,
Nice post! I was hoping somebody'd get to the problems with this guy. Love the the Sinclair ClimateCrocks video, too. Thanks for all of it.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
...
Davey Crocket
said on 8/4/2012 @ 3:34 am PT...
David #7,
Hurling a Rush bomb at me again?
Brad #6
The Green News banner for 7/31 says: "Thank you Koch Brothers! (Really!)" How should I interpret that?
Moving on...
Here is a quote from Muller on NPR...yesterday:
"It's much easier to clean fracking than it is, for example, to make cheap solar.
So I'm hoping that the environmentalists who have started to oppose fracking, I think prematurely, can be won over and recognize that this has to be part of a worldwide energy policy. Natural gas also helps the Chinese because their citizens are being choked by the soot and other emissions of their coal plants."
http://www.npr.org/2012/...about-a-changing-climate
Anyway, I watched the RM video again just to make sure that I did not miss something. I did not.
It seems that Muller is trying to bring everyone to the middle with sensible solutions. You know, I think I could sign on to AGW from a political sense if it resulted in sensible things like moving from coal to natural gas. Even though I don't buy the AGW argument I would be willing to compromise, if you will.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
...
Dredd
said on 8/4/2012 @ 3:51 am PT...
The denier's science book:
"Once upon a time there was a big volcano, and some earthquakes, therefore there is no such thing as global warming caused by human civilization's feverish pollution."
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
...
Nunyabiz
said on 8/4/2012 @ 4:42 am PT...
Well it is good that Muller has caught up to what climatologist have KNOWN at least 20+ years ago.
But his Reich wing is clearly showing about Climategate and the other nonsense he spews that has all been thoroughly debunked years ago.
There is really no need to correct such brain trust as Mr. Crocket here, as you can see all Reich wingers are simply incapable of understanding.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
...
John Puma
said on 8/4/2012 @ 7:59 am PT...
"Clean" fracking is as much a myth as "clean" coal.
That aside, fracking, (very) deep water drilling, shale sands oil, etc., all lower the EROEI - energy return on energy invested. That is, a greater fraction of the energy source recovered "for market" is expended in its discovery, extraction and transport to the consumer.
When the EROEI ratio goes to 1.0, the game is over. There MAY a lot more fossil fuel remaining in the earth but there would be NO logical, physical or scientific justification for trying to recover it.
The existence of fracking, therefore, is NOT our "salvation" but, rather, clear warning that the fossil fuels that still can be recovered, without net energy loss, must be devoted to developing and deploying a solar based system. (Or, even nuclear, if Fukushima is of no importance to you.)
We are well beyond Muller's trite cliche about the high $ cost of solar. We are now into REAL economics, energy. That we have ignored the (complete) energy costs of our activities, in our worship of human "economic" theory, is THE reason we are in such severe trouble now.
We can only hope the use of fossil fuel top convert to solar based system, doesn't ultimately poach our successors.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 8/4/2012 @ 9:35 am PT...
Davey Crocket @9,
Yes, absolutely, I'm throwing another Rush bomb at you.
I think you are not hearing me. I'm looking for continuity and follow through. Reality and truth. Integrity of argument. There is every indication that Rush is not interested in any of that. In my opinion, as long as you are informed by him and others like him, you are not either.
I tried to address this issue with you in a recent comment thread on the previous Muller post here. I asked you to read and respond to the book "The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." I provided a link . Here it is again.
http://www.amazon.com/Th...trageously/dp/156584260X
Your non-sensical response was that you read everything. Really? You're not really saying you've read "The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error", are you? Cuz if you have read it, you're not responding in any way, shape, or form to its contents. Do you think that would be a reasonable response to my request? Should I be happy and satisfied with that type of non-response?
Or, more probably, you haven't read it which means you were not speaking truthfully/accurately on the reading everything claim. Continuity and follow through. Reality and truth. The sincere pursuit of these. Remember?
Your opinions are informed by at least one bullshit artist. That book documents Limbaugh's bullshit. The book also makes clear that documenting all of his bullshit was beyond the scope of their modest undertaking. For me, if you want to be taken seriously, you have some explaining to do. You are proudly choosing a bullshit artist as a primary information source. Why should anyone bother trying to dialogue with you?
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
...
Davey Crocket
said on 8/4/2012 @ 11:14 am PT...
David,
No, I was being figurative...I do not read everything. I think that would be impossible...even for Davey. It is unlikely that I will buy the book any time soon because I am really busy these days. But, honestly, I bet it would be an interesting read...not to different from reading the bradblog I bet.
Anyhow, this is going nowhere fast. Lets move on.
Have a great day!
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
...
anon
said on 8/4/2012 @ 12:50 pm PT...
This is truly a terribly misinformed post, starting from the claim that if a journalist says Katrina was about global warming than it's shocking if a physicist says otherwise. Then proceeding to the rationalization that the journalist didn't say Katrina was about global warming but was a portent of things to come.
It only gets worse from there.
Terrible blog post and you really should feel bad about yourself.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 8/4/2012 @ 1:11 pm PT...
Davey @14,
No, I'm not moving on. I'm tired of you disrupting conversations with misinformation, and misinformation delivered with extreme attitude at that. Your latest comment @14 is just the latest in a seemingly never ending series of pure baloney from you. Equating a book that details the misinformation and untruths of Rush Limbaugh, which are legion, with what Brad, Ernie, and others does here is complete horseshit.
That's my point. I'm tired of listening to people whose primary conversational currency is horseshit. Tired of argument that is all smoke and mirrors with no continuity. Your a hit and run conversationalist. You drop a shitbomb and then when taken to task you vaporize. Your contentions can't stand the light of day.
I'm tired of your laziness. Your a drag on intelligent conversation cuz you don't do your homework like most of us here.
Do some goddamn work if you wanna play.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 8/4/2012 @ 1:16 pm PT...
Anon @15,
No thanks. You can keep all that bile and ignorance for yourself.
Sorry, but we've already filled to overflowing our quota of random horseshit on this comment thread.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
...
Mark S
said on 8/4/2012 @ 1:16 pm PT...
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
...
Forrest Tanaka
said on 8/4/2012 @ 2:05 pm PT...
To be fair regarding Muller not supporting his statements in this conversation, Ross Gelbspan’s article D.R. Tucker linked to made many statements of fact without supporting *any* of them. Also, D.R. Tucker referred to Katrina as a “super storm.” But http://www.katrina.noaa.gov confirms what Muller said: it was a Cat 3 hurricane when it hit New Orleans, while Hurricane Andrew was Cat 4-5 when it hit Florida, and the Galveston hurricane of 1900 was Cat 4 when it hit. It seems Katrina was nothing special except that it hit an unprepared area that people had been saying was in danger for years (the Houston Chronicle among others published this in 2001).
The National Interagency Fire Center, an agency of the US federal government, blames the current wildfire situation on El Niño and drought (http://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/outlooks/monthly_seasonal_outlook.pdf). So maybe drought is a direct result of global warming. I found NOAA has historical drought data (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/drought/), and they find that this year is the worst drought conditions since 1956, which was worse. If you look at the graph they publish (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/drought/wetdry/bar-mod-110-00/190001-201206.gif) which goes from 1900 to June 2012, the spike we’re currently in is very high, though not as high as the mid '50s, late '30s, and nowhere near the early '30s. So again it seems Muller’s contentions are correct.
Muller states that the IPCC said that sea level rise will be 1' or 2'. Peter Sinclair (not a scientist, which hurts but doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong) actually confirms this, saying the IPCC said it will be a maximum of 0.59m, or just under 2'. Will 2' flood NYC? That part I don’t know. Muller says no, and he may or may not be right. He certainly provided more specific data than D.R. Tucker did in this interview and blog post. Did Al Gore said NYC would flood? I saw the movie and thought it was well-done artistically, but I simply don’t remember if he said this. But how Sinclair debunks Muller when they both say 2', I'm not clear.
On Climategate, Tucker says Muller doesn’t back up his statements, which he didn’t. Having listened to this part of the interview twice, neither Tucker nor Rosenberg asked him to, and maybe he would have been able to, or not. I would like to know where he gets this too, but Tucker and Rosenberg didn’t pursue this, maybe because of time.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
...
Charlie
said on 8/4/2012 @ 2:48 pm PT...
You are "stunned" by Muller's comments on climategate. Well perhaps you should listen to him. I am stunned that so few scientists have come out and spoken out against the obvious unacceptable behaviour of so-called climate scientists. It's interesting that some people remain in denial about hiding data. The clue is in the phrase "hide the decline".
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
...
D. R. Tucker
said on 8/4/2012 @ 2:51 pm PT...
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 8/4/2012 @ 2:56 pm PT...
Forrest Tanaka @19--
You wondered--But how Sinclair debunks Muller when they both say 2', I'm not clear.--
It's right there at the end of the Sinclair link from the article. The IPCC came up with the .59m number by being conservative(as I believe they are want to do) in their calculations and leaving out the hard to estimate variable of the possible consequences of ice shelf and polar cap melting. When you begin factoring those in, things start going way off chart.
Check it out for yourself but I think that's how Sinclair explains it.
Besides all that, I'm under the impression that even the 2 feet part would bring about radical
change. Isn't two feet in the context a shitload?
Anybody know what a 2 feet increase would mean in demonstrable terms?
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 8/4/2012 @ 2:59 pm PT...
Charlie @ 20,
No, I think the clue is in subsequent investigation after subsequent investigation finding they weren't hiding anything.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 8/4/2012 @ 3:25 pm PT...
Mark S @ 18,
Thanks! Great link! Muller is nicely taken to task in it. Sloppy scientist.
note to Charlie--the fact-based narrative about the "hide the decline" red herring is right in that link. Check it out.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
...
Forrest Tanaka
said on 8/4/2012 @ 3:58 pm PT...
David @ 22
I cut the video off too soon, but I've completed it now. Still I think "debunking" is rather strong. Muller uses the IPCC report because that's the concensus. Anything beyond it is speculative, as the USGS article Sinclair uses just says “may” be higher than the IPCC.
Is Muller a sloppy scientist? I showed examples where he seems to be using data more properly than Tucker and Rosenburg. He has been saying for years that global warming is a reality (iTunes U has his Physics for Future Presidents classes going back years where he's been saying this). His main qualm was that the temperature data was exaggerated because of construction around temperature stations. So he and BEST tested that hypothesis and found it to be wrong, and he came right out and said it. To me, that's the height of proper science.
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
...
Nunyabiz
said on 8/4/2012 @ 4:26 pm PT...
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
...
David Lasagna
said on 8/4/2012 @ 5:10 pm PT...
Forrest @ 25-
My sloppy scientist remark was in response to watching the other Peter Sinclair link about Unwinding Hide the Decline(it's now up in the comments twice). Muller is shown repeating decidedly unscientific and misleading remarks egregiously misrepresenting the "hide the decline" false issue. Judge for yourself. Looks pretty sloppy and agenda driven to me. He not only misquotes but appears to completely misunderstand the whole issue. I would expect a good, careful scientist to know better.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
...
Davey Crocket
said on 8/4/2012 @ 9:35 pm PT...
Been feelin really bad for David...being wound so tight as he is...so I am going to throw him and Nunya a bone. I am heading for Tahoe to COOOOOOL of next week. Just toooooooo dang hot here in TEXAS. So, I guess you guys win on this whole global warming thang...as thay say, the proof of the pudding is in the eatin. I'll be entin in Tahoe next week in much cooooooooler weather.
Nighty night!