2011-04-13 22:38:50Muller interview
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

I'm interested in a Muller Misinformation update, if possible.  I had thought he was done with his meme's, but apparently not.  Here is his interview on NPR.  It's not quite as detailed as before, but mostly the same rhetoric.  I agree with the decision to hold off posting on him and I agree with nealjking that we should be careful how we handle him.  I think a cordial relationship on helping him understand why we think his misinformation is damaging is the best tactic.  While he doesn't seem to know the in-outs of climate science, he's a well established scientist at a great university.  

 

Here's is Keith Kloor's take - important because this will be how the "middle" is drawn for the public to see

 

And Micheal Tobis' very good piece.

2011-04-13 22:46:44
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

Ok, nevermind, I see John already saw the NPR interview,  I guess we are going ahead with the posts.  After reading them, I think these are two pieces of information that need to get out there.

2011-04-13 23:32:47
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.77

I admit to being disappointed in Muller's interview: I never expected him to actually recant on Climategate, but I thought he would give the BS a rest. But apparently not: it gives him the cover to call himself "in the objective middle".

Nonetheless, I still believe he is more dangerous to the deniers than to the AGW-concerned. He's not a Monckton, Christy or a Lindzen.

2011-04-14 01:10:11
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

And he calls Anthony Watts a hero while spreading McIntyrisms.

 

 

Nonetheless, I still believe he is more dangerous to the deniers than to the AGW-concerned. He's not a Monckton, Christy or a Lindzen.

 If you look at his last statement:

"The global warming attributed by the IPCC, the big U.N. Council that makes this consensus report, attributes about half a degree, half a degree Celsius of warming to humans. But is it .4? Is it .3? If so, we have a lot more time. Is it .6 or.7? If so, we're in a big rush."

If this becomes the new mantra, even with his temp reconstruction, he can be damaging.  Basing our policy on any one measurement of one indicator, without any attribution or effect studies is just bad.  I understand it is an easy number for people to understand but laying out the policy debate over thermometers isn't sound science or policy, whichever way his data leans.

2011-04-14 01:38:43attribution
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Agreed, grypo.  Muller's comments on attribution and his inflation of the related uncertainty can be quite damaging.  It allows the "skeptics" to accept the BEST results that the planet is warming, but continue claiming that the warming is natural.  I'll probably do a Muller Misinformation post using this quote in the near future.  Maybe even today, since I have the day off.  I'm trying to decide if this or continuing with Christy is the higher priority.  Probably this one, since we already hit some of Christy's worst comments.

2011-04-14 01:46:52
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.56.151

I'd try and get it out before his "official" report comes out, just so everyone knows that it isn't a reaction to results that we don't like, or whatever else people want to make up.   Our problem is with the premise of his policy argument, not his study.

2011-04-14 01:56:12BEST
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

I don't think BEST results are due out for a number of months yet, but it's a good point that we should try to get out Muller Misinformation posts before that happens.