Knowledge is a deadly friend
When no one sets the rules.The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools.
Let me begin by saying I have enormous respect for William M. Connolley (aka Stoat) and generally do not significantly disagree with him.
However, in his Apr 5th piece “Muller is rubbish” Stoat said “But he [Muller] isn’t a tosser.”
Stoat, you’re just plain wrong, Muller most definitely is a well bad tosser, a “denialist chumming complete bollocks.”
Short Prologue
(more documentation at bottom)
Richard Muller is a Berkeley physicist of some minor notoriety in climate change circles for being critical of “the Hockey Stick” (ie historical temperature reconstructions). By “critical” I mean calling it “phoney.”
Earlier this year the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group began a project to re-examine the existing temperature data. The project drew criticism for, among other things:
- consisting exclusively of people with a poor track record for:
- discussing the science honestly.
- actually understanding the science.
- being funded in part by Koch Industries.
On March 31 Muller testified before Congress and affirmed the high quality of the existing climate science which sent the climate change Deniers into a frenzy.
The Muller sideshow has been one I have been largely ignoring, but then a repeat commenter brought this video clip to my attention:
The full talk may be found here.
MULLER: “What they did was, and there is a quote. A quote came out on the emails, these leaked emails that said, let’s use Mike’s trick “Hide The Decline.” That is the word. Let us use Mike’s trick “Hide The Decline.”
Except of course that is not the quote. The actual quote is:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [Sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Of course Muller never clearly states “This is the exact quote”, so strictly speaking he is not actually lying. What we are dealing with here is the tactic typical of more than a few Deniers of presenting information in a way that pretty much guarantees that the audience will be completely misled and draw all of the wrong conclusions, but if challenged the presenter plays coy and disingenuously asks “Who? me?”
It’s just more of the “I did not have sex with that Red Herring” plausible deniabilty defence of what can only be described as lies. Indeed the whole presentation is in this form.
Watch the clip as though you were a naive viewer and see if these are not the interpretations that a reasonable person would draw from how Muller presents it, even though all of them are false:
- the data in question is the basis for the “hockey stick” ie both documented recent temperature rise, and the pre-instrumental record;
- the tree ring proxy data undermines climate change science and/or “the hockey stick”;
- the “Nature” trick is what was used on Brifa’s tree ring proxy data;
- the adjusted data/graphic was published in a peer reviewed journal;
- as a consequence of #4, the scientific community was fooled about climate change, particularly the faculty at Berkeley;
- the “decline” was a secret until exposed by the Deniers;
- CRU was not hacked, but rather it was a leak by an insider;
- That the tree ring data came out through the CRU hack
1) It’s not of course. For the past 130 years the record is based largely on direct measurement, or is Muller unaware of that amazing new scientific instrument known as “the thermometer”? It’s only been around for about four centuries.
The historical record is based on a wide range of proxies using many different data sets from many different studies.
2) The tree ring proxy data can be dropped entirely and it makes no difference worth mentioning, a fact published in 2007.
3) As the full, accurate quote clearly shows, the “trick” is in reference to a different data set from Brifa’s tree ring proxies. Further, as I noted at the time, if you don’t immediately spot that “Mike’s Nature trick” is a reference to a technique published in the Journal Nature, then you probably don’t do science. (but note how Muller never mentions “Nature”, he just says “Mike’s trick.”)
4) The graphic in question was for the cover illustration of a report, not as the presentation of scientific data. When presenting the actual science the decline is clearly shown in the graphs and discussed in the text (eg 1995 here, 2000 here and 2007 here).
5) I don’t know how things are done at Berkeley, but most scientists read the scientific literature for information rather than basing their knowledge on a cover illustration.
Insomuch as Berkeley has an excellent reputation I am going to assume that the faculty there routinely follow this standard practice and it is only Muller’s misrepresentation of their competence that is the problem.
6) as noted in #4, the decline was known and freely discussed in the literature for a decade and a half before the CRU hack. Muller even says “in their paper” (suggesting he is referring to the 2007 Mann et al paper, published years before the CRU hack) “if you dig into it” (Muller means ‘if you just read it’ since they explicitly discuss the issue), etc.
7) The investigation into the incident is ongoing and there is no definitive answer as yet, but all of the actual evidence points to a hack, not a leak. Note that is evidence, something scientists rely on rather than just breezily claiming that some unidentified group “most people who know this business believe… .”
8 ) The data was available on the CRU web site and had been for years.
And so on. Completely exposing every misleading statement of Muller’s in just that five minute clip is far from done, but I think I have made my point; he is a disingenuous wanker. The references below document at much greater length the degree and extent to which Muller is misleading the public and anyone who mistakenly takes him at face value.
Notwithstanding the predictable defences of Muller (rebutted here), I find his presentation to be disingenuous to the point of being outright dishonest.
Make no mistake here, this is a formal presentation that we are watching, not idle faculty lounge banter.
Even if it were a casual discussion I think most scientists would agree that it is still inexcusably sloppy and misleading.
Just another example where the informal nature of a Denier presentation led to some unintended mischaracterizations and poor phrasing that just happened to leave the audience completely misinformed. No lies were told, and it’s just unfortunate that the result bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to reality. Yeah, right.
What makes the whole thing particularly nauseating is his feigned indignation at any scientist who would ever dare to misrepresent fact and mislead people, his supposed outrage at such deception.
Naturally if the climate scientists were actually guilty of the acts that Muller implies then his indignation would be understandable. However, those supposed acts are actually the creation of Muller misrepresenting the facts and misleading people. As I keep noting, the Denialosphere is never low on irony.
So Dr Muller, if a scientist who glosses up a cover graphic deserves such vehement condemnation and opprobrium as you have been dishing out, what would you say is appropriate for someone giving outrageously dishonest, misleading presentations as you have been doing? Surely watching your own performances you must be in fits of apoplexy at the inexcusable charlatanry, never mind the flaming hypocrisy, no?
Given his track record Muller was invited to testify to Congress by the House Republicans in the full expectation that he would affirm their idiotic delusion that climate change is a hoax. “In the hands of fools” indeed.
Muller Redeemed?
There has been much sturm und drang about Muller’s Congressional testimony on the preliminary analysis of the data and how his affirmation of the validity and quality of the science somehow shows him to be, at the end of the day, a real scientist of integrity and substance.
Here is my question, given how BEST has painted themselves into a corner, what the hell else was he going to do?
The whole premise of BEST is that they are doing a completely transparent, totally accountable review of the data. Everything would be available, everything would be public. The data, the code, the methodology, all of it laid out for everyone to see.
So BEST is absolutely committed to revealing everything when they release their conclusions. That is the only justification for the very existence of BEST, and they knew that whatever they release will come under intense scrutiny by the entire scientific community.
They have put themselves in a position where any withholding or fudging will be immediately exposed and the entire project and staff utterly discreditied.
Since the existing science is of high quality and valid, and the data do clearly show the reality of climate change, Muller was stuck. What were his options? Lie to Congress and have that exposed shortly thereafter? thereby finishing off whatever academic credibility he has left? Refuse to testify even though it would later be revealed that preliminary results were available?
So I repeat, what the hell else was he going to do?
I am glad that he did what he did, but insomuch as he really had no other option I find I cannot interpret it as evidence of his essential good character and scientific integrity. For that I am going to need him to stop giving misleading presentations and interviews and start presenting the facts honestly, accurately, in context and in good faith.
Even better would be if he made some effort to correct his earlier misrepresentations and admit to the disingenuous and dishonest nature of them. Until then, as far as I am concerned he is nothing more than a well bad tosser.
UPDATE 28/4: see “Hide the decline” … in Denier intelligence for a new Greenman3610 video debunking Muller.
When every man is torn apart
With nightmares and with dreams,
Will no one lay the laurel wreath
When silence drowns the screams.Confusion will be my epitaph.
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back
and laugh.But I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying,
Yes I fear tomorrow I’ll be crying
.
.
Denouement: This post was originally (and more correctly) titled “Confusion will be my epitaph” but I thought that might be too opaque. Listening to this King Crimson classic the other day I was struck by how well it describes this historical moment. I trust the last couplet requires no explication.
The Muller’s Tale
Muller
B.E.S.T.
- BEST project at Berkeley
- Koch-funded WORST Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project implodes
Congressional Testimony
- Muller is rubbish
- Climate myths at the U.S. House Hearing on climate change
- Learning from the Climate Hearing
- Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike’s trick with hide the decline
- Muller Misinformation #2: ‘leaked’ tree-ring data
- Muller Misinformation #3: Al Gore and polar bears
- Muller Misinformation #4: Time to Act
- The Truth, Still Inconvenient
- Bombshell 1: Climate science deniers claim to have full access to Berkeley temperature study work-product
- Koch-Funded Climate Skeptic’s Own Data Confirms Warming
- GOP’s only scientists at ‘Scopes’ climate hearing are Richard Muller and John Christy
Denialosphere reaction
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Image Credits:
Banksy – Chav and dog by David J Lowe
Germany’s answer to Chavs By Mai Le
Comment Policy
–
It is worth knowing and abiding by whether you comment on this blog or not.
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
- The “Spam” Comment Thread is for comments posted by people who think that they can ignore site policy.
If I don’t agree – I say so. However… this is SUPERB. 🙂
The photo essay is a priceless support to the analysis.
I agree, it is more of the “I did not have sex with that Red Herring” that we are looking at, with Muller and friends.
I also have to say that I am increasingly considering all of this denier, chauvinistic crap, to be jingoism. Yes, jingoism. Plain and simple. Everything points to it. It explains the deliberate lies, the not-remotely-subtle ideological rhetoric, the self-presentation – and why it appeals to a certain sector of the ‘American pride’ culture — more than anything else. The sector it appeals to is small, but influential. Curry’s ridiculous blog is a case in point: it engenders all of this.
—-
Muller made a serious mistake when he started the BEST project. The evidence was already present and correctly analyzed. How the hell did he think he’d find a “transparent” way to change it to suit his bias?
Denialist hubris, I guess.
—-
It’s a delaying tactic, Ben. AIUI the next step will be to try to get funding for a study calculating sensitivity based on their temp results. That will, of course, result in a low estimate with large error bars. Lather, rinse, repeat.
—-
Ben — Interesting angle to consider.
Re “What is it that the Deniers can think?”, interesting to consider within the context of ‘the science of why we don’t believe science” (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney?page=2)
PS: An excellent post, yet again. Thank you for the high-quality work well worth reading.
—-
Sorry Ben, but Greenfyre presents an earlier opportunity… for this idea originally meant for Wottsupwiththat.
Our usual response is to remind deniers that the Divergence Problem (high-latitude tree ring proxies vs. thermometers after 1960) isn’t Keith Briffa’s personal ethical failing, but an issue much discussed in dendrochronological circles. Skeptical Science reviews the topic here.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm
Our side needs to compile and present a list of all these many divergence problem papers, so that we can count them. So that we can remind deniers that their criticisms should be presented in terms of the concerns mentioned in these “XX” papers. Instead of Climategate’s Biblical-good-and-evil.
The deniers are like religious zealots. They clap their hands over their ears and don’t want to know, for example, that DNA supports evolution.
It’s not just Berkeley that is infested with disgraceful charlatans. I sent this letter to Princeton last June and still have had no response:
Dear President Tilghman, Dr. Austin, and Dr. Happer,
I am writing in reference to this undated letter to which Drs. Austin and Happer are purportedly signatories. (http://sppiblog.org/news/many-leading-scientists-tell-the-epa-to-think-again)
As a proud Princeton parent, I am dismayed that anyone affiliated with this institution would trample on its prestige, reputation, and academic integrity by being party to this fraudulent folly. I can only hope that the names of Drs. Austin and Happer were attached to this screed without their knowledge.
Their entire premise of asking the EPA to hold hearings on the CO2 endangerment finding is based on this crucial lie:
“In our view, particularly with temperatures now falling, the argument for CO2 regulation rests solely on the “validity” of the climate models relied upon by the IPCC and the EPA.”
Global average temperatures are NOT falling, they are demonstrably, irrefutably rising, as stated by NASA – reputable, reliable corroboration for which any undergraduate could find in the most trivial search attempt. For Drs. Austin and Happer to state otherwise is pure drivel. It is either unforgivably inept at best, or mendacious at worst.
I am looking forward to a public statement by them repudiating this dangerous, deliberately misleading political propaganda; or to an announcement that their employment with Princeton has been terminated on grounds of moral turpitude.
Of what value will my child’s Princeton education be when she inherits a world dominated by climate catastrophe thanks to her elders, those charged with her education, disseminating and perpetrating lies that benefit no one other than energy corporations?
How incisive was it for the speaker at Class Day, Charlie Gibson, to basically admit that “our” generation has abdicated any responsibility for the existential threats we have created – insurmountable debt, increasing income inequality, squandering energy and polluting the Earth’s air, land and water? The hapless graduates and future generations are left to contend with rising seas and global warming likely to render many regions uninhabitable.
And I might add, from observing the many students I have met, their Princeton education has left them woefully uninformed about the most important challenge facing humanity ever, and thus less prepared than a third-world peasant on a subsistence diet to survive in a rapidly and radically changing world.
The university’s approach to educating students about the perils of climate change has been wholly inadequate. If history is not to judge your enterprise as nothing more than a sham to prop up the status quo, there must be a fundamental effort to disseminate the facts throughout the curriculum, and professors who lie about the facts must be, at the least, called out and disciplined.
Sincerely,
Gail Zawacki
Princeton Parent 2010
—-
Gail
Have you ever looked into Happer past that one item? One of my two favorite Barbara Boxer moments came with him (video here: http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/03/04/you-just-dont-seem-to-think-the-times-have-changed/)
Happer: Many people don’t realize that over geological time we’re really living in a CO2 famine. Almost never have Co2 levels been as low … 285, that’s almost unheard of, most of the time its at least 1000. .. The Earth was just fine in those times. We evolved as a species when Co2 levels were 3 or 4 times what they are now. [Interruption for a fact break: FALSE. See below.] Oceans were fine. Plants were fine. … So its baffling to me that we’re so frightened.
Boxer: This is a weird kind of place you’ve taken us to. You’re taking us back how many years to when we were fine.
Happer. About 80 million year
Boxer. I don’t know how to say this. A lot has happened since then in terms of where people are living and working. We have a society now. So, to say go back to those days, … either I’m missing something or you just don’t seem to think times have changed.
Happer: While I don’t think that the laws of nature or physics have changed. [Said snidely …] or chemistry have changed in 80 million years. 80 million years ago the Earth was a prosperous place. There is no reason to think that it will suddenly become bad now …
Ha! No I never looked beyond that letter – what a great video clip, thank you! It made me want to laugh and cry at the same time.
To be fair, Robert Rohde, who’s doing most of the actual work on the project, seems to be a straight shooter. How he puts up with Muller is a mystery to me.
It’s amusing that Muller would imply that when it comes to climate science matters at Berkeley we would first want to ask… a physicist!
He is indeed a tosser.
King Crimson’s Epitaph has been added to a YouTube song list of similar music that has been written and performed during the past century.
Thanks! And enjoy.
More Earth Fail Warnings (70 + songs)
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=327E5F312C238644
Earth Fail Warnings (nearly 200 songs)
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F021912A3436BA08
Catman’s link to fabulous collection of music:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F021912A3436BA08
—-
@gail, misplaced modifier? These are collections of fabulous, environmentally aware, music.
Perhaps physicists aren’t always the best scientists to evaluate science which lies outside of their area of expertise?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/aaargh_physicists.php
—-
This is just an incredibly great way of expressing the truth of the situation with regard to Muller and BEST.
I do expect, however, that Muller will figure out some way to stretch out his 15 minutes of fame and funding — after all, he is extremely well practiced at this type of thing.
At least this time round, experienced eyes are all over him.
Again, great job!
—-
Love all your stuff. It’s such a pleasure to read about the truth in good English!
However, I believe Bob Austin has been persuaded to think straight. Perhaps he’s backslid again (if so I’d like to know), but it might be worth a check before you include him in all this.
Also, it’s “Berkeley” not “Berkley”. Since we’re worry about accuracy, probably a good idea to straighten that out.
—-
Hey Susan,
Please tell me what new news you have about Robert Austin. 🙂
Only a year and a half ago, he said:
“The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN’T EXIST.” (emphasis his)
It is hard to see him as a credible scientist in his own field, never mind in another field, when he signed his name to something this inaccurate regarding the evidence.
He also said:
“The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not just computer projections, and not false claims about the state of the science.”
That was in response to proposed legislation to put reasonable caps on emissions, and reduce the burning of oil and coal. He was against diversification of the U.S. economy and energy-related pollution control. As we know, only oil industry leaders are pretending there will be no growth in their sector if climate change legislation is introduced. Economists calculate continued growth. He had a very narrow, neocon view of things. And aggressively attacked the credibility of climate scientists.
And he said:
“Science is guided by proof, not consensus”
So that gets into his demonstrated knowledge of science, theory and history. Only someone without the most basic understanding of objective science (and no knowledge of the history of science) would say this, post Popper..
And there’s his pronouncement:
“Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Alarmists are rolling in wealth from the billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken. It is always instructive to follow the money.”
😦
If he has suddenly found science, and learned to correctly follow the most relevant money matters at this time, I’m afraid I would still view him as incompetent… overall… and very damaging.
What news do you have, about his liberation from whatever has ailed him? 🙂
[…] nega se stesso, già parecchio rovinato dalle recensioni di parecchi altri scienziati e Greenfyre demolisce Richard Muller, vale la visita non fosse che per le foto e le canzoni; Climalteranti spiega come […]
Martha: A year and a half ago sounds about right. Please *do* let me know if anything he has done recently is on the fake skeptic side.
Greenfyre has my permission to give you my email or contact me with yours if you want to pursue it and he is willing; I cannot share more on a public forum.
ps. I am strictly amateur; almost flunked differential equations and decided to do art. (sounds like an interesting path, but coincidence only)
—-
Hi Susan,
I think the evidence question is for you. When did he stop?
😉
After the APS summer 2009 nonsense, he continued to make the same claims. He likes to sign things, so there was the Feb 2010 letter to the EPA (Bob, Monckton and friends) and his follow up letter to the APS around the same time. Also his March 2010 interview for Princeton (Bob with Happy Happer).
His comments at Nature May 2010:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/465135b.html
(Fred Sing-Song, then Bob)
He is now a self-declared energy expert for OurEnergyPolicy.org, but that’s not significant: he was not against some increase in energy diversification for the sake of American competitiveness (unrelated to climate change policy). And other experts for the Foundation’s internet-based, nonpartisan open mic include the Heritage Foundation frontgroup.
If you have something newer, and positive, please post it here so we will all be aware. Thanks!
Martha, I have a good reason for being so vague. I promise to limit my communication with you to this issue if that is a problem for you. I agree that Fred Singer is and has always been a bad influence. We have enough professional doubt merchants that it would be better not to attack those who might be rethinking their positions. Thanks.
I guess we are just seeing this kind of issue differently.
Robert Austin’s climate change denial and false accusations against scientists were used as recently as two months ago in a Congressional hearing to argue against de-funding the IPCC. This is just an example of why it is important for someone with his positioning to think about his speaking responsibilities. He is free to publicly decide to change and correct his position. Better yet — explain why he has been moved to shift his position, since you suggest you believe he has. The is that he hasn’t done so publicly, where it matters.
I appreciate that we all privately consider (and privately discuss) our actions, and the settings in which we find ourselves. But public actions – which is what we are talking about, because he chose to act and use speaking opportunities in the public sphere, with power and a position of accountability – is not a private matter. I don’t think it’s totally unreasonable to expect him to now take responsibility publicly and professionally, if he has started to ensure that his opinions on climate change are well-informed and he is no longer trying to persuade based on unethical accusations against climate scientists.
Whether or not he does, is a matter of how he sees his speaking responsibilities. Since I am not in his life, I have no idea how he sees that part of it. But it is the public part, that is my concern: because who gets to speak, who has influence, and what information is shared, are all questions that are raised from the perspective of democracy work.
Thank you for this discussion.
p.s. I only use the internet for public interaction. I don’t email. It’s just my choice about how I like to use the internet. 😉
Martha,
Thanks for clarifying – i respect your privacy. We are talking across each other, but the more specific recent information I might be able to use to encourage a checkback.
You cannot tell me much about the disinformation movement; I’ve been weighing in since 2004 and regard Republican War on Science, Merchants of Doubt entirely accurate, helped on by the likes of SourceWatch and Koch watchers, more recently.
A friend says she doesn’t know if it’s a “civic duty or a colossal waste of time”. It saddens me to see falsehood inflated but talking to the choir doesn’t get much of anywhere as far as I can see.
I hope we’ve listened past our differing concerns, and understood one another. I feel open to a new understanding. The pause button is pressed.
On a side note, artists’ sensitivities and contributions are very important to me. I really like that you bring this, in addition to your other knowledge. Do you have a public site for your artwork? I doubt Greenfyre would object to you posting it here.
Right, Greenfyre? 🙂
—-
This post is about Muller and belongs to Greenfyre. This has become too much about you and me. I appreciate your goodwill; can we stop here?
I was commenting in support of Gail’s letter, actually.
In the end, I continue to support Gail’s letter writing since there is nothing in the public sphere to substantiate your judgment.
Greenfyre can move it to the posts/threads about Austin and the APS, if he feels the need. There is a correct thread for your concerns.
All the best, Susan.
Well done! I have Tweeted and Face Booked so I hope more people read this excellent piece and also visit Peter Sinclair’s excellent video on Hide the Decline.
—-
I have a sneaking suspicion about how this all came about with Muller and the BEST project.
I think Muller got hold of McIntyre’s book, read it and got all riled up thinking that McIntyre had nailed the issue. So, then Muller, obviously a non-climate scientist (evidenced by his many many errors) allowed himself to get dragged into the debate by the denier crowd. I bet he started regularly reading WUWT, started thinking that Anthony was onto something with his UHI ideas…
Now I believe Muller understands what Hansen, Jones and Mann feel like being the subject of the ire of the denial community.
Will he ever fess up to his errors? Probably not. Too much ego involved. I think they will release the BEST data and it’s going to show exactly what all the other data sets show and that will be it. Why waste money maintaining one more data set? The Koch’s aren’t going to fund it. Gates isn’t going to fund it. It tracks something like 10X the number of stations so is likely much more difficult to maintain.
Nah, the BEST project (IMHO) is going to fade away. But in the mean time it should be the final nail in the UHI coffin. Not that we won’t continue to hear the spirit of UHI knocking from inside, but it will be conclusively pronounced dead. Deceased. Pushing up daisies. Demised.
—-
[…] […]
[…] Spencer nega se stesso, già parecchio rovinato dalle recensioni di altri scienziati, e Greenfyre demolisce Richard Muller, vale la visita non fosse che per le foto e le canzoni; Climalteranti spiega come […]