He's back in SciAm and Joe Romm and Micheal Mann are quite upset, but that's all covered. Also, he seems pretty invested, business wise, in the whole energy climate thing, so the idea that he is an interested outsider is nonsense. But my interest is in his text book CH 10 which he so graciously made available on his energy consulting website.
Here's an example of the slipperiness:
Is there some kind of controversy here that I am unaware of? This was predicted through models, then observed in Volstok cores. Does he say that the only explanation for the extended warming is CO2? Nope. Kind of really important.
Oh, the hypocrisy!
I don't know the answer here, as the chart is absent from the page and I don't feel like looking into right now, but notice the references to cherry picking! And then he says, 'there's a paper somewhere".
I bring this to everyone's attention because this is denial, but swathed in some romantisized idea of science while kind of, sort of agreeing with the science, but designed to sow confusion. The entire chapter attempts to create a fake controversy and goes after Gore and the IPCC to bring the science down to his level. This clinches it for me. Muller Misinformation is a good idea. At one time I thought he just wanted to get it right, but I doubt that now.
This is what he teaches his students. Lots of commenters in the Professor Mandia thread would love this.
Thanks for this. Well, "thanks" might be the wrong choice of words...
To say the least this has pissed me off. Muller knows better; we know that, he cannot plead ignorance. Mike Mann and others are also furious, and rightly so. And note how he turns a blind eye to the antics of McIntyre and his ilk.....
The warming signs that Muller was up to no good appeared early, some of us called it then, others encouraged caution. Well, this has really has sealed his fate. What the hell is wrong with these people?!
Is there any of Muller's nonsense in the Scientific American piece that has not already been covered at SkS?
"....natural recovery from the Little Ice Age,"
"It is important to recognize that when a politician or scientist claims that the warming prior to 1957...."
Pardon my ignorance, but why is "1957" such a pinnacle moment?
"Well, it is very likely that some, maybe most of the warming of the past 50 years..."
Holy cow, how many weasel words can one possibly cram into such a short phrase? Grypo, you are right--slippery indeed. Fodder for the 'skeptics" and deniers....luscious, fodder.
Ugh, Grypo, you have just ruined my long weekend ;)
This chapter, in a sense, encapsulates the new lukewarmer, wait-and-see, oh-but-its-a-real-problem-maybe, denial. Denial 2.0. The tell-tale signs are picking on Al Gore, making the IPCC and scientific consensus out to be somehow conflicted and alarmist, then begin arguing from that standpoint, pointing out different uncertainties, whether important or not, as it's importance isn't as necessary to the tactic as the general confusion it fosters within non-experts. You need to make sure to not get into it too much, or the cover is blown. Dig far enough to make people think that something is amiss and stop. The CO2lag part in the chapter is good example of that.
Also, he says
This is not really what was said. http://www.hokeg.dyndns.org/AITruth.htm
Not that I really want to get into parsing Al Gore's movie communication style, but it's another example of tweeking an argument before arguing against it. Strawman.
As an aside, has anyone figured out where the hell he got that polar bear/Gore/Cicerone story from yet? I still find it hard to believe he would just make up a blatent, fairly detailed, easily checked lie like that.
He also gets his science from a oil think tank, disinformation artists: