Waldo Jaquith

While I would disagree that Muller is a “climate skeptic poster child“, this should move the ball further down the field for some people. Then again, even some of the most outspoken critics of the global warming media/industry agree that climate change is real (http://wattsupwiththat.com/ among others).

Now if we could get our presidential candidates on board in acknowledging the issue, we might be able to put this issue behind us.

Posted by Michael on 25 October 2011 @ 8am

It appears that Austin is making the succession move. No climate change here, move along.

Posted by Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh on 25 October 2011 @ 12pm

While I would disagree that Muller is a “climate skeptic poster child“, this should move the ball further down the field for some people.

I think it’s a fair description, Michael. His 2004 Technology Review article, “Global Warming Bombshell,” made him a hero to climate deniers. That article is dedicated to claiming that Michael Mann and the famous “hockey stick graph” is wrong. Of course, it’s not wrong, and that’s precisely what Muller discovered with his new research. Muller has made a small career for himself out of playing both sides, so that each side can say “see, even this guy agrees with us!” What’s changed here is that he’s actually conducted a study—committed science, you could say—instead of just talking a lot, and the numbers he came up with are the very numbers that he previously claimed were wrong.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 25 October 2011 @ 7pm

I just meant that he’s not the “poster child” for skeptics. That label would be better fitted for someone who had never accepted climate change at all.

Or maybe I am thinking more of “denial”, rather than “skepticism”.

Posted by Michael on 26 October 2011 @ 8am

Question: If Texas were to spin off four new states, how many of them would we be allowed to give back to Mexico?

Posted by Sam on 26 October 2011 @ 12pm

While it’s mostly funny, Texas splitting up would change the Senate dynamics to such an extent it would tilt the Congress toward the south. The house would be mostly unchanged

Posted by Perlogik on 26 October 2011 @ 8pm

Who doubts that the climate is changing? The debate is about the cause, specifically the degree of human impact.

Knocking down straw men doesn’t help save Algore from further embarrassment.

Posted by I. Publius on 26 October 2011 @ 10pm

I. Publius

“Algore”

What is this crap, anyway? Is it some kind of dig I’m not getting?

Posted by Ben C. on 27 October 2011 @ 9am

Who doubts that the climate is changing?

The Republican Party of Virginia.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 27 October 2011 @ 11am

Sam: If Texas were to spin off four states, at least one would be indistinguishable from Mexico. One would likely be the Peoples’ Republic of Austin. One would be East Texas, dominated by Houston. Only Dallas-Fort Worth and West Texas would be a total loss.

Posted by Steve Vaughan on 28 October 2011 @ 1pm

Ooooops. Gotta be harsh for their own data to come back and bite them in the ass.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

Posted by I. Publius on 31 October 2011 @ 9pm

Erm. You’re aware that The Daily Mail is a tabloid that invents stories out of whole cloth, aren’t you? (Or, failing that, simply plagiarizing.) On a near-daily basis they declare that some new substance cures and/or causes cancer, based on little or no evidence. They’re just a step up from the Weekly World News. Truly, they are not a valid citation for any information.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 31 October 2011 @ 10pm

Really? Ignore the facts and go after the source? Your Kung fu is weaker than usual.

Is the Telegraph a right-wing bag of lies, too?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100114292/lying-cheating-climate-scientists-caught-lying-cheating-again/

And I guess the Houston Chronicle and Washington Post are illegitimate as well. (use your google).

Posted by I. Publius on 1 November 2011 @ 9pm

I don’t know how to make it any clearer: The Daily Mail is worthless. There are very few other media outlets that I’d say that about. The Telegraph I know very little about, so given British tabloids, I tend to avoid their publications that I don’t know about. In the Google News search results I saw Reason, and figured that’d be a publication we could agree on. Here’s what Ron Bailey (disclosure: I have lunch with Ron occasionally) has to say about it:

Muller’s assertion about recent temperature trends incited skeptics and a member of Muller’s BEST team, Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry. An article with the provocative headline, “Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague,” in the Sunday Daily Mail (U.K.) reported that Curry was accusing Muller of “trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.” The article quotes Curry as asserting, “There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped. To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.”

[...]

However, it seems that Curry has learned a rueful lesson about answering leading questions from reporters. On her Climate Etc. blog she clearly states, “This is NOT a new scandal….There is NO comparison of this situation to Climategate.” In fact, Curry and Muller talked together for 90 minutes earlier this week at the Third Santa Fe Conference on Global and Regional Climate Change. “I have to say that there isn’t much that we disagree on,” reports Curry. “So all in all, I am ok with what is going on in the BEST project.” End of scandal.

Contacted via email, Curry tells me that she “does not regard their initial findings and analyses as the last word on any of this” but adds, “Their interpretation is not unreasonable.”

Like I said—The Daily Mail is a worthless rag.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 1 November 2011 @ 9pm

Publius: It is not impossible for the Daily Mail to say something true or agree with a reputable news source — after all, they apparently plagiarize from time to time — but it is very much worth bringing up their worthlessness when someone links to them as a source. It would be irresponsible not to.

Posted by Tim McCormack on 6 November 2011 @ 2pm

Rather the dissing the source and ignoring the article, there does seem to be some controversy concerning the data analysis for the BEST project.

Remember how it was the National Enquirer that broke the story about John Edward’s affair, the one that all the “respectable” sources ignored?

Posted by david on 7 November 2011 @ 10pm

Rather the dissing the source and ignoring the article, there does seem to be some controversy concerning the data analysis for the BEST project.

You seem to have missed the two comments prior to your own, David.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 7 November 2011 @ 10pm