2011-04-10 11:22:40Upcoming blog posts: 11 Apr to 17 Apr 2011
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

Mon 11

Zebras? In Greenland? Really? (DB & Mauri Pelto)

Tues 12

SeaMonster: an awesome new blog about the oceans (John Bruno)

Wed 13

Solar Hockey Stick (cyborg)

More wind, bigger waves, changing marine ecosystems (John Bruno)

Thurs 14

Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level (cyborg)

Cristy Crock #3: Internal Variability (cyborg & Alby)

Fri 15

Muller Misinformation #2: 'leaked' tree-ring data (borg)

Video on why record-breaking snow doesn't mean global warming has stopped (borg)

David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold (cyborg)

Sat 16

What was it like the last time co2 levels were this high? (borg)

Debunking Economic Myths from the Climate Hearing (cyborg)

Sun 17

Muller Misinformation #3: Al Gore and polar bears (Brad Johnson)

The Climate Show (borg)

Too much of a good thing is a bad thing. Increasing Carbon Dioxide is not good for plants. (villabola)

Pending

Irregular Climate Podcast (borg)

SkS Housekeeping: Short URLs for graphics and moderation policy (borg)

Why 450 ppm is not a safe target (Agnostic)

CO2 – SOME FACTS, FIGURES AND OUTCOMES (Agnostic)

Basic rebuttal of 'CO2 is plant food' (villabolo)

Advanced rebuttal of 'CO2 is plant food' (dawei)

Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act (cyborg)

Christy Crock #4: Do the observations match the models? (James)

2011-04-13 16:42:19Muller is back on again
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

New Muller interview where he repeats MM2:

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/11/135320209/climate-change-skeptic-says-warming-is-real

"I think that Climategate is a very unfortunate thing that happened, that the scientists who were involved in that, from what I've read, didn't trust the public, didn't even trust the scientific public. They were not showing the discordant data. That's something that - as a scientist I was trained you always have to show the negative data, the data that disagrees with you, and then make the case that your case is stronger. And they were hiding the data, and a whole discussion of suppressing publications, I thought, was really unfortunate."

Ok, yes, I was just looking for any excuse to restart this series :-)

2011-04-13 18:03:25
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.77

Yeah, it looks as though Muller has tossed the Climategate people to the wolves.

He also praised Michael Crighton for "raising some good issues". What a POS that book is!

He just seems to play to the audience: I would have told the questioner that Crighton lists a lot of scientific references, but doesn't rely on any of their science or conclusions; his hero actually says that this is the case, because HE (the imaginary hero) understands the science better than these little authors.

I don't really like the way he's doing this, but he is trying to put himself out there as an objective party; the silver lining is that the BEST study will still show that GW is happening.

2011-04-14 01:00:47again
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

That's almost identical to his one really bad comment in the congressional hearing.  I agree, if he's going to keep repeating this myth, he's asking for it.  The other bad comment he keeps making is similar to this:

"An issue, though, that isn't really settled yet is how much of that is due to humans?...How much is due to varying solar activity and how much due to humans is a scientific issue that we're trying to address."

First of all, who is "we"?  BEST isn't doing anything related to attribution.  Muller later claims otherwise, but I don't see how BEST is going to make that determination.

Secondly, varying solar activity?  Really?  Come on, Muller. 

Thirdly, when he makes comments on this issue, he never discusses what we do know.  Like the fact that the CO2 forcing is huge, the solar forcing over the past 50 years is approximately zero, etc. etc.  The way he's phrasing it, it's like a huge uncertainty.  He made similar comments on attribution during the hearing, but not quite as bad as this one.

"I was impressed with the Congress. I felt that the people there were listening sincerely."

Yeah right!  WTF Congress was he watching?  Then he kept hammering this BS that many climate scientists have become advocates who aren't presenting data accurately to the public, then like neal said, he praised Chrichton's 'State of Fear'.  WTF?

2011-04-14 07:35:20Yep, Muller is back on the table big time
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165
Definitely needs to be accountable for his misinformation. Neal is right, we have to be careful not to be too strident. But keep the steady drum beat and build a resource of misinfo for others to refer to - hopefully a chorus of voices pointing out Muller's errors will influence him into being more accurate with his public remarks.
2011-04-14 09:22:26
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.77

Well, dana1981, what the heck is Muller supposed to say? "Congress - what a bunch of clowns!"?

He wants to be invited back...

2011-04-14 10:15:27hah
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Well, he could have just not commented on Congress' receptiveness to the testimony.  He wasn't asked, he volunteered the information.

2011-04-14 17:14:08
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.36.115

That's not how the game is played...