2011-03-25 00:00:28Muller Misinformation: a blog series
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.20.55

I've been thinking a lot about Richard Muller - there's a vigorous discussion about how to handle him on the forum and I had a skype conversation with Dana that clarified my thinking somewhat. This is how I see the situation.

Muller is positioning himself as an authority on climate even though he has no expertise in climate science. I gather the goal is to be a go-to man for media and politicians. Already, the GOP have invited him to testify at a House hearing next Thursday. BEST seems to be a means to an end - establishing Muller as an authority figure on climate.

Why is this a bad result? Because while Muller paints himself as non-partisan, unbiased, disdainful of cherry picking and misinformation - his actual lectures are filled with partisan, biased, cherry picked misinformation. He casually and repeatedly slanders climate scientists with patently false information.

So Muller's biased, partisan views are fast getting mainstream exposure. His misinformation is being propagated by the denialosphere. This will only increase after BEST is released, regardless of the results. The chief result of BEST is it paints itself as "the final answer" on the temperature record, as if we didn't already have a definitive answer backed up by multiple lines of evidence (but I digress). I'm coming to the belief that BEST may actually be a macguffin, it's not that important but the more important consequence may be the making of Muller.

So I believe it's imperative that we make Muller accountable for his misinformation. It doesn't mean attacking Muller. But it means pointing out, dispassionately, n clinical SkS fashion, when he speaks untruths, without casting judgement or attacking the man. So I'm suggesting rather than just do two Muller blog posts about 'hide the decline', instead we do a blog series "Muller Misinformation", similar to Monckton Myths. We find other misinformation in his lectures, the most egregious errors, and do maybe half a dozen blog posts. Or more if there's plenty of errors to cover.

So we'll start with:

Note - I still plan to revise those posts, tone down the language a la Neal's feedback.

When we post the first post, we'll also launch a Muller Misinformation page:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Muller.htm

So thoughts, comments?

2011-03-25 00:37:09I wonder if we're overreacting
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.158.190

Muller is not one of the big fish like Lindzen, Christy, or Spencer. It seems disproportionate to single him out.

2011-03-25 01:34:53
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.110.91

As I've indicated before, I think we need to be careful about this.

In particular, I am concerned that there is too much focus on what Muller was saying about Climategate. Now, I have not spent as much time as many others on that topic; but reading the discussions on that topic at SkS, I get the impression that our articles are very defensive about protecting the protagonists against the charge of deliberate intent to deceive; and part of that is being very precise about exactly did exactly what and when: Jones/Mann/Briffa. What I didn't find in the articles (and maybe I have been slightly distracted listening to the radio when reading them; but that is very often the case) was a clear explanation of what the substantive point the attackers have been complaining about:

- Tree-ring proxy data from after 1961 were replaced by thermometer readings for the period, without clear display on the graph itself.

- If we don't have a clear-cut explanation for WHY the tree-ring proxies stop proxying after 1961 (and higher altitudes), HOW can we be sure that the proxies are still proxying before 1961 (and specifically during the periods for which we don't have thermometer measurements)?

By itself, the first point is just a caption misdemeanor, like jay-walking. It's the sort of thing that I would ding our own SkSers for doing ("What exactly is this graph intended to say?"); but perhaps a bit worse.

But in combination with the second point, it creates a sidestep of the deeper question about how to determine proxy reliability: For the non-expert reader, it creates the impression that an important question of principle is being elided. I am sure this was not intended by the authors, who have all (I'm sure) taught courses on temperature proxies; but as this broken record keeps repeating, we write these articles for the READERS, not for the AUTHORS.

The right way to handle it, in my opinion, would have been to:

- Clearly label, on the graph caption, that the temperatures presented on the graph were the best-guess values from several proxies AND from measurements;

- Create a comparison graph with both the temperature readings and the divergent proxy, in the same paper;

- Clearly explain that there is justification for relying on the earlier proxy values, and reference that explanation.

In the absence of any one of these factors, I think there is a valid complaint; not one that justifies the uproar, but nonetheless a valid complaint.

Now let's go to Muller's presentation of it: He gave his characterization in a public, more or less popular, talk. Maybe he also put it in his textbook, I'm not sure. If it's in his book, any quotes should be referenced explicitly, so you can definitely ding him for improper quotations; but if it's in his talk, I don't think you can hold him to that standard: Many people speak loosely in talks, and very few can quote something correctly word for word.

I am not saying that it is OK for Muller to misattribute something said by Briffa to Mann or Jones or whatever; but I am saying that what people were intended to get out of what he said was his anger at the two points that I mentioned above; and that is the issue we should focus on. The issue of attribution is too "inside baseball" for anyone to care about. You can eventually win this point on evidence, but I still don't think anyone aside from those three people will care.

I think it makes much more sense to:

- admit that there were problems with how the graph was handled;

- courteously correct the misattribution, just to correct the errors (which should be assumed to inadvertent); and

- address the real question regarding the reliability of proxies.

Muller is still not going to trust Mann/Jones/Briffa: That's his privilege, let it go. It is not our job to repair their reputations.

 

Now, I want to address another question: Why am I trying to tone down this war people want to start with Muller?

- It's not because he's a friend of mine: I've never communicated with him, and don't owe him any favors.

- It's not because he's from Berkeley, as I am: That would cut both ways.

The reason is that my background for the last decade or so has been in technical standards, where you have to make lots of technically based arguments to advance commercial interests. So I have had to evaluate the way people argue and the way they think, and figure out what is motivating them and what will make them change their position. Most people have an internal set of principles by which they navigate a discussion, and if you can figure this out, you can predict their general actions and even guide them. Muller is a reasonably high-profile scientist, and with this BEST study is raising his profile: To me this implies that he will stick even more closely to his principles & priorities.

I believe that this BEST study offers the opportunity to settle the issue of "Is GW happening?", because it incorporates the input of the WUWTers but seems most likely to lead to conventional results. Joe Romm seems to trying to screw this up, either from pig-headedness or because he wants the WUWTers not only to admit that GW is real, but that their own statements that it wasn't were false. So, basically pig-headedness.

I also think that Muller is someone who is amenable to reason: He does not enjoy being wrong, even though he probably has certain libertarian leanings. If we can correct his views without declaring war on him (au Romm), we can eventually make him into a positive force.

2011-03-25 01:59:46
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.107.62

Perhaps to be included here somewhere: Muller made an apparent straw-man argument in one of his videoed talks. This has to do with the "hide the decline" graph. Muller pointed to earlier part of the reconstruction and said sarcastically that there the reconstructions are certain (or something like that - I should check the video). His comment is delivered in such a manner there that it is implied that mainstream science would claim that the earlier parts of reconstuction are dead accurate. I know that there is a Briffa paper from 2000 where he writes that earlier parts of reconstructions are to be suspected also because of the divergence. So it seems that it is easy to show that Muller's argument is a straw-man but it would be nice to find a peer-reviewed quote published before 1999 (when WMO graph was published).

2011-03-25 02:47:18Muller Misinformation
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I was on the fence about a Muller Misinformation type of series, for a combination of James and Neal's reasons.  It seems like he's not yet a big fish, hasn't done anything particularly aggregious yet, etc.  But in our Skype convo, John made some good points.

It very much looks like Muller is positioning himself to become a go-to climate expert.  He's already testifying before Congress on the subject alongside Christy and another "skeptic" scientist (some yahoo who's challenged Gore to a bet on global temperatures), and BEST isn't even out yet!  If he's going to be considered some sort of climate expert, we need to keep him honest and make sure he gets the facts right.

His Congressional testimony will be very telling about what direction he's going to go in.  Depending on what he says, I may do a blog post in response, and we're also going to use it as a reason to launch the politician quotes page, because it's a good bet the Republicans at the hearing will give us some more dooseys.  The big question is what Muller will say in front of policymakers.

John and I both agree with Neal - we need to be careful about how we approach this in terms of tone.  Don't attack Muller, but just point out his errors, and hope we can sway him to be more careful about what he says in the future.  Bear in mind he made a lot of misleading and wrong statements in his lecture.

We're also not alone on this.  Peter Sinclair and RealClimate are also going to address Muller's statements.

Coincidentally, would it be better if we named it "Muller Mistakes" rather than "Muller Misinformation"?  Mistakes seems more neutral to me.

2011-03-25 03:02:58hearing
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Here's the Congressional hearing info, FYI:

Thursday March 31, 2011

Full Committee – Hearing

Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy

Witnesses:

Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, Professor, The Wharton School , University of Pennsylvania

Dr. Richard Muller, Professor, University of California , Berkley and Faculty Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

Dr. John Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center , University of Alabama in Huntsville

Mr. Peter Glaser, Partner, Troutman Sanders, LLP.

            Additional Witnesses TBA

10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

2318 Rayburn House Office Building (WEBCAST)

2011-03-25 03:03:55
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.110.91

Another point I would like to make: It's my impression that a large % of Muller's errors are from "shooting from the hip". He has been influenced by skeptical blogs, and he hasn't looked into the matter as carefully as he should. He's used to being able to get oriented on his own pretty quickly; but in the natural world, the phenomena are not actively trying to fool you.

By contrast, think of Monckton, who studies the situation very carefully and deliberately crafts arguments designed to be misleading: This is a completely different order of error.

Muller's errors do not, in my view, begin to compare with Monckton's. Probably the bias he has is towards anything that will give him a chance to make a splash - one way or the other.

2011-03-25 04:24:15
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.110.91

dana1981,

That's not a balanced array of witnesses, so far.

Is that it, or is there another follow-up day?

2011-03-25 04:54:43unbalanced
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

That's all they've go so far, Neal, though it does say additional witnesses are TBA.  I hope the Democrats can call some.

2011-03-25 06:40:33Regarding Muller..
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.110.91

John,

 

I would suggest:

- Corrections to Muller's errors should be pretty dry and brief, with the idea that these are points that he might correct in future talks. You cannot change the fact that he's going to say SOMETHING.

- "Muller's Mistakes" => "Corrections to Muller's presentation": Lose the alliteration. As mentioned before, I think Muller's errors are a different category of error than Monckton's or Christy's: Monckton knows he's lying, and Christy knows he's stretching it; and don't get me started on Lindzen. Muller, I believe, is just shooting from the hip. To treat him in the same way way may be a self-fulfilling judgment.

2011-03-25 20:19:52Background on Muller
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.106.251

Has anyone looked into the following material? from http://www.berkeleyearth.org/FAQ:

 

What is Richard Muller’s expertise in climate?


Richard Muller, the project chair, has published papers in climate in some of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals. Examples include:

  1. Science (vol 277, pp 215-218, 11 July 1997; vol 288, p 2143-2144, 23 June 2000).
  2. Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences (vol. 94, pp 8329-8334, Aug 5, 1997).
  3. Geology (vol. 25, p. 3-6, 1997; vol. 25, p. 859-861 ,1997).
  4. Paleoceanography (vol 17, p. 2-1 to 2-12 , 2002).
  5. Geoch. Cosmochim. Acta (vol. 67, pp 751-763, 2003).
  6. Nature (vol.377, pp 107-108, 14 September 1995).

and also in other journals such as Eos. He has been active in the American Geophysical Union on climate research, and also wrote a technical book "Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes" published by Springer.

Richard was also deeply involved in the hockey stick issue, and was a named referee chosen to review the report of the National Research Council of the US National Academy of Sciences.

2011-03-26 01:15:35Muller's publications
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.106.251

I have taken a quick look at what I could obtain of the climate-related research that Muller seems most interested in advertising. I cannot see everything, but most of it relates to detailed critique of the Milankovitch mechanisms, studied by radioisotope methods and spectral analysis; and proposing some additional mechanisms, involving orbital tilt and solar-system dust (http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/archive/ice-age-sediments.html).

We might want to be careful before saying that Muller has no background in climate science!

2011-03-26 06:55:34Yes I jumped the gun there
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.20.55
Thanks for looking this up, Neal. I was wrong to say Muller has no climate expertise. Call it "shooting from the hip" :-)

Fortunately I said it on a private forum while Muller says his misinformation at public lectures which then go viral on the web.

2011-03-26 07:29:03
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.106.251

The benefit of internal review.

2011-03-27 09:43:44Muller & Associates
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.55.213

Romm is always brooding darkly about how Muller could manipulate the output of the BEST project to drive business towards his consulting company. Looking at the website, I don't see too much to get worried about. A collection of Muller's essays are also included in the site. I think there may be a few problems missed in them (he makes a big deal about how US energy consumption over has dropped at a rate of 2% per year (or was it per decade); but he doesn't seem to have considered the point that US has moved manufacturing off-shore), but I don't see a systematic bias towards points of view that would be favored, for example, by the Koch brothers.

2011-03-27 13:21:22leave it to Peter Sinclair?
apsmith
Arthur Smith
arthurpsmith@gmail...
69.112.189.11

Although I understand Romm and Mann's worries about this, I have to agree with the comments here that Muller's mistakes seem to be of a lesser order from even Spencer or Christy so far, and certainly less than Monckton, McIntyre or Watts. He presents a narrative that is at least in part poorly researched, it sounds like he's been misinformed by listening to Fox News or some bloggers. Your first suggested post here seems like just a rewrite of this one:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline-intermediate.htm

which already discusses Muller's comments quite well, I think (and this was from several months ago). Now the fact that Muller continues to repeat things which are wrong on this subject is disturbing - perhaps somebody should contact him to try to clear up why he's so confused about this? But I think the best approach would be to use humor, which seems more suited to the sort of thing Peter Sinclair does well with his videos, than to SkS...

2011-03-27 21:18:26
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.15

I don't think it's a bad idea to correct Muller from SkS, but I think we can try to point things out without picking a fight. I think there is the potential to convert him into a beneficial inflluence.

2011-03-27 23:31:10Need for an in-between category?
apsmith
Arthur Smith
arthurpsmith@gmail...
72.80.8.227

I've been working on adding some quotes from politicians, and it seems to me it's slightly unfair to only quote them when they repeat one of the skeptical arguments, when on balance some of them sound quite reasonable otherwise; Muller might be another case.

That is, maybe SkS should have one category for people who seem to manufacture or thrive on this stuff, repeating one argument after another, and another category for people who seem to generally support the science but have been misled in one or two areas by believing some of the arguments from the manufacturers...

For example I've been looking at W. Todd Akin (by the way, some bug wouldn't let me add him just now to the skeptics list), R-MO. His statement on the environment and global warming is here: http://akin.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=20&Itemid=16

which, along with variations on a few standard "skeptic" arguments (misleading in that context but not strictly wrong), includes the statement that "scientists understand that increased levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases work to trap heat" and "the Congressman believes we can take common-sense steps to reduce CO2 emissions, without harming economic stability."

Given those reasonable comments it doesn't seem right to classify him in the same list as Joe Barton or Dana Rohrabacher, not to mention people like Watts. I think Muller seems to be (at least for now) in the same category - i.e. repeating a few "skeptic" arguments but otherwise being reasonable on the science. Are they really "skeptics"? What else can we call them?

2011-03-28 05:44:41
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.15

apsmith,

Well, there is the concept of an honest skeptic: Someone who is reasonable but perhaps not convinced; or maybe not 100% convinced of 100% of all points of concern.

And to be fair, there are points in the picture that I haven't looked into myself, and would have trouble justifying without additional time for researching. On such matters, we need to be honest; lest we paint ourselves into a corner.

2011-03-29 06:05:46Gore, polar bears
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Another fabrication to add to Muller's list - claiming that Ralph Cicerone (head of NAS) told Al Gore

"Well, lots of things [are wrong with your film], like the polar bears. We track polar bears. Not a single polar bear has died because of retreating ice."

Muller then claims Gore's producer said he added it to the film because "it really gets people emotionally involved"

In reality, Bill Skane, the Executive Director of News & Public Information for the National Academy of Sciences explained that the supposed conversation never took place.  “Dr. Muller’s remarks regarding Dr. Cicerone were in error.”  Gore's office confirms that this supposed meeting never took place.

On top of that, Gore's film didn't even claim any polar bears have died as a result of retreating ice (although some certainly have by now, and I wouldn't be surprised if some had at the time of the film).  What the film actually says is that melting sea ice is bad for polar bears (a 'no duh' statement).

Muller is weaving a tangled web of lies here.  Fabricating an entire meeting between Gore and Cicerone - seriously, WTF?  Not to mention lying about the contents of the film.  There's a serious pattern emerging here in Muller's behavior.  For a guy accusing others (Mann, Briffa, Jones, Gore) of dishonesty, the hypocrisy is pretty mind-boggling.

2011-03-29 07:48:14Making stuff up is not shooting from the hip
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.238.238

He seriously needs to be accountable for his lies, half-truths and misleading misinformation. I'm holding off on MM1 cause I'm waiting for Peter Sinclair but if he doesn't get the video finished by tomorrow, we post Wednesday morning.

2011-03-29 07:56:10Brad Johnson
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

What do you think about inviting Brad Johnson (the ThinkProgress guy who wrote the Muller/Gore/polar bear article) to do a guest post for Muller Misinformation?  It could basically be a re-post of his ThinkProgress article.  He did a really nice job with it.  Very thorough.

Think Progress contact page

2011-03-29 08:22:58I've got Brad's email
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.238.238
I might ask him.

BTW, Peter let me know the video won't be done until next week. So I posted MM1 now. Hopefully some accountability will have Muller tempering his misinformation at Thursday's hearing.

2011-03-29 08:25:42
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.45.168

As I've indicated before, I think this entire approach is a mistake.

We shall see.

2011-03-29 13:48:46Sorry Neal, I decided to go a different way
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.238.238

If this blows up in our faces, you are on the record and you're quite in your right to say "I told you so" :-) One thing I like about this forum is that we can have disagreements but the discussion is always good faith and we are all working to the same goal - a refreshing contrast to the bad faith discussions we have on public forums about climate change.

Other possible topics for Muller Misinformation posts if anyone is interested:

His depiction of "glaciergate," upon which he pins his call for Pachauri to be fired, is nonsense.

His assertion that there aren't any discernible effects of global warming at the regional/ecosystem level is also nonsense.

He says that we won't be able to detect *any* effect on ocean life for another 70 or 80 years, that coral bleaching, etc. has nothing to do with warming/acidification. I haven't seen this quote yet but if someone tracks it down, maybe I'll ask John Bruno or Ove Hoegh-Guldberg - or one of our SkS authors who've written acidification posts - to look at this.

He attacks the historical CO2-temperature link pretty strongly as well.

"What we know is when it gets warmer carbon dioxide leaves the oceans. When it gets cooler it goes back in. It dissolves better. So carbon dioxide is a result of climate change not a driver of climate change in that period. You can even see this in the delay because when it warms up it takes 800 years before the carbon dioxide comes back out. There's a slight delay that Al Gore never talks about. That old linkage is simply junk science."

19 March 2011 (Source)
Calling the link between CO2 and temp "junk science"?!? This might be worth revisiting the CO2 lag issue.
2011-03-29 13:57:55Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.163.105

I hate his stuff on glaciergate. The WG1 people were right and the WG2 people weren't. Bet he doesn't point that out...

2011-03-29 14:02:29
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203
Wow, those are some pretty denier-ish claims.
2011-03-29 14:35:50on MM1 as posted
apsmith
Arthur Smith
arthurpsmith@gmail...
69.112.189.11

I like the way this ended up, I think the tone is just right. Maybe too gentle on Muller given the latest things quoted, but better to be biased that way. However, there's something wrong with this sentence in your lead paragraph: "Unfortunately a prominent source of 'hide the decline' misinformation Professor Richard Muller from Berkeley." - missing "is"?

2011-03-29 15:13:05Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.163.105

John,
I think that he is a one man disinformation machine and that not only should we debunk all of those aforementioned claims, we should email him after we had and ask him if he is willing to accept that he made mistakes and correct the record in the future. I actually have received an email from him before when I was asking about BEST so he will likely answer. Could prove to be a learning moment for him?

Robert Way

2011-03-29 15:18:48Contacting Muller
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.185.238.238

Hmm, it might be interesting to ask for a response from Muller - if we haven't already burned that bridge. But we may have backed him into a corner, a la Neal.

However, I did tone down the language considerably so if some say its too harsh, some say its too gentle, maybe it strikes the right balance. I'd say we need to come up with a couple more MM posts, publish them then perhaps Robert might email him. Would be good Robert if you then did a MM post. Glaciergate might be something you could post about.

2011-03-29 16:46:15Are you sure the glaciergate warrants a post?
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.163.105

If glaciergate warrants a post it is fine but isn't it a subject that is rather easy to deal with? I mean it would be better served as an addition to another post rather than its own one as it seems pretty straightforward?

2011-03-29 19:47:56
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.112.245

John,

Yes, the issue is tone: Now that we have taken a very harsh tone in public, I think it makes it harder to engage him in correction of such blatant errors as the ecological ones, for which he is clearly off-base. I think this is a missed opportunity, to have turned him point by point.

2011-03-30 02:24:55Glaciergate
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

John already did the Glaciergate rebuttal.  It was almost a year ago though - we could use this opportunity to update the rebuttal, or perhaps do an Advanced version.

2011-04-10 08:41:58Comment on RC
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

Just keeping this for future reference:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/unforced-variations-apr-2011/comment-page-4/#comment-204771

Remember when Richard Muller said, re: cutting off the Briffa proxy data when it stopped tracking temps and adding the instrumental record, “You’re not allowed to do this in science”?

Here’s Muller in an interview with ScienceInsider describing how the BEST project deals with problematic temperature data:

R.M.: [NOAA, GISS, HadCRU's goal is] to generate long continuous methods. … If there was a change, [like] a station moved, they would adjust the data to try to eliminate that. [But] it makes me very uncomfortable when you adjust the data. … [So] we just cut the data at that point [and create two shorter records].

So, it’s perfectly fine for him to drop data after he believes they have been compromised, but when the paleo people did it, it was completely unscientific.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/04/qa-with-richard-muller-a-physicist.html?ref=hp

2011-04-10 09:30:59Hah
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203
Ironic!
2011-04-15 10:32:30
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.145.235.170

Although I agree with much of what Muller has to say about the scientific method and citizen science, I am deeply suspicious of his overall motivation.  The fact that he endorses Anthony Watts in such glowing terms is sufficient in my book to label him as an agendist.  Not only does Watts himself distort facts to suit his agenda, he also posts guest articles by Goddard, Monckton and Morner - three of the most unscientific and egregious 'climate experts' on the planet.

If Watts is not a trustworthy source then the whole of his temperature-monitoring data set is suspect.

If Muller accepts Watts' data as worthy of scientific examination, then by implication he accepts Watts as a trusted source of scientifically useful information.

Muller should be asked directly - by SkS - if he considers WUWT to be a reliable source of information - especially about climate science.

 

I must declare my bias.  In reference to a WUWT story dated August 06 2010, WUWT says:

"Readers will surely recall when WUWT was the first climate news outlet to publish this story:"

That claim remains unaltered, even though it was pointed out to WUWT that my article was published August 05 and picked up by Neven the same day, making us the first two people in the world to publish the news.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/13/ice-capades-island-not-what-it-is-cracked-up-to-be/#comment-457015

Watts' response was to try to move the goalposts to make room for a red herring:

"The comment was that WUWT was I believe the first to publish the press release From University of Delaware..."