Incredible admission. My biggest problem with the whole climate change debate was the complete abrogation of open scientific debate, ie, the foundation of the scientific method. I appreciate this good man for speaking truth to power.
This reminds me of a point you often make about the Soviet Union. That is, they polluted just about every part of the world with their toxic ideology.
One aspect is the idea that everything is political - must be political. Here we see the politicization of science on a grand scale. These scientist were so committed to their religious/political sect, they were willing to violate the the basic rules of science and decency.
Probably the worst part is many, many Americans continue to *believe* in anthropomorphic global warming, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary.
If you've been following this debate AT ALL, you wouldn't be surprised by the difference in the two graphs. It doesn't take a PhD to appreciate the difference.
What is remarkable about the debate, though, has been the extent to which otherwise generally honest scientists have pretended that they can't draw the MORAL INFERENCE that is presented by the difference in the two charts.
So here's a scientist who's willing to admit that fraud is fraud, even when done by fellow scientists. He STILL pulled his punches. "Won't read their papers"? Pah, that's weak sauce indeed. These researchers were lying in part to protect their fame and prestige, but mostly to protect their government grants. And for that, they should be in PRISON.
Bring me a Berkeley professor who admits that and I'll be impressed.
Watch the whole video. It is very, very, very good. This guy should replace Chu as Energy Secretary.
On natural gas, the area I grew up in back in PA is generating new millionaires because of the new gas fracking technique. Muller is probably correct, and we will see major natural gas conversions in the future.
Joe Romm at Climate Progress is already attacking him, and the new temperature calculation product he is working on.
That aside, he is easy to dismiss because he gets some basic facts wrong. There is no WMO Magazine, and this was not an important chart in the big scheme of things.
"He STILL pulled his punches. "Won't read their papers"? Pah, that's weak sauce indeed."
Bill Dyer, sometimes you have to accept your victories in the form that they come. While he might be confident that he would win any lawsuit, there's still the aggravation of being sued when you flat out call someone's work product a fraud or a lie.
But saying that he won't read their papers condemns* not only their past work, but everything they do in the future as well. Not bad at all.
* I used a perfectly good word here that was rejected by the auto-editor. Seriously.
His "Physics for Future Presidents" lectures are great. Well, the first couple where he teaches non-science majors the ins and outs of the energy content of various substances and how to do order of magnitude estimations are great for anyone who wants to have a clue about energy policy.
The later lectures follow a pretty standard outline...hitting all the major topics in physics - light, gravity, waves, quantum theory. Probably too heavy for "normal people."
However, the two lectures on the basics of radioactivity are must listens. He lays out what the various forms of particles or waves are, what they do, where they come from, how and whether they are dangerous, how to think about risk. Excellent.
I think I first listened to the set from ~2004 because that's what came up on Google Listen (podcatcher) on my Android phone. There are a couple "newer seasons" on iTunes.
I was tempted to forward this to my "science is settled" friend, but thought better of it. Between him and anything that challenges liberal orthodoxy is a very strong suit of deconstructionist armor.
Data and reason don't work with someone who operates strictly on appeal to emotion, fad, and "authority". Perhaps the most corrosive damage to liberty done by American liberalism has been the technocrat fetish.
Amen to the comment at 3:58. Only we need to hear that from 1,000's of other true scientists!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I won't read their papers anymore."
Incredible admission. My biggest problem with the whole climate change debate was the complete abrogation of open scientific debate, ie, the foundation of the scientific method. I appreciate this good man for speaking truth to power.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseG,
This reminds me of a point you often make about the Soviet Union. That is, they polluted just about every part of the world with their toxic ideology.
One aspect is the idea that everything is political - must be political. Here we see the politicization of science on a grand scale. These scientist were so committed to their religious/political sect, they were willing to violate the the basic rules of science and decency.
Probably the worst part is many, many Americans continue to *believe* in anthropomorphic global warming, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDr. Mueller, it's called lying.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMuller led on O'Rielly tonight regarding the Nuke in Japan. Worth a watch.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe was great on O'Rielly tonight. Most sane voice on the Japan Nuke issue I've heard.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you've been following this debate AT ALL, you wouldn't be surprised by the difference in the two graphs. It doesn't take a PhD to appreciate the difference.
What is remarkable about the debate, though, has been the extent to which otherwise generally honest scientists have pretended that they can't draw the MORAL INFERENCE that is presented by the difference in the two charts.
So here's a scientist who's willing to admit that fraud is fraud, even when done by fellow scientists. He STILL pulled his punches. "Won't read their papers"? Pah, that's weak sauce indeed. These researchers were lying in part to protect their fame and prestige, but mostly to protect their government grants. And for that, they should be in PRISON.
Bring me a Berkeley professor who admits that and I'll be impressed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut, but, but, the scientists investigated themselves, and they cleared themselves of any wrong doing!
Very, very gutsy of this guy to speak up. He will become a target.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWatch the whole video. It is very, very, very good. This guy should replace Chu as Energy Secretary.
On natural gas, the area I grew up in back in PA is generating new millionaires because of the new gas fracking technique. Muller is probably correct, and we will see major natural gas conversions in the future.
Very proud to see that this guy is a Physicist!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJoe Romm at Climate Progress is already attacking him, and the new temperature calculation product he is working on.
That aside, he is easy to dismiss because he gets some basic facts wrong. There is no WMO Magazine, and this was not an important chart in the big scheme of things.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"He STILL pulled his punches. "Won't read their papers"? Pah, that's weak sauce indeed."
Bill Dyer, sometimes you have to accept your victories in the form that they come. While he might be confident that he would win any lawsuit, there's still the aggravation of being sued when you flat out call someone's work product a fraud or a lie.
But saying that he won't read their papers condemns* not only their past work, but everything they do in the future as well. Not bad at all.
* I used a perfectly good word here that was rejected by the auto-editor. Seriously.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHis "Physics for Future Presidents" lectures are great. Well, the first couple where he teaches non-science majors the ins and outs of the energy content of various substances and how to do order of magnitude estimations are great for anyone who wants to have a clue about energy policy.
The later lectures follow a pretty standard outline...hitting all the major topics in physics - light, gravity, waves, quantum theory. Probably too heavy for "normal people."
However, the two lectures on the basics of radioactivity are must listens. He lays out what the various forms of particles or waves are, what they do, where they come from, how and whether they are dangerous, how to think about risk. Excellent.
I think I first listened to the set from ~2004 because that's what came up on Google Listen (podcatcher) on my Android phone. There are a couple "newer seasons" on iTunes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was tempted to forward this to my "science is settled" friend, but thought better of it. Between him and anything that challenges liberal orthodoxy is a very strong suit of deconstructionist armor.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseData and reason don't work with someone who operates strictly on appeal to emotion, fad, and "authority". Perhaps the most corrosive damage to liberty done by American liberalism has been the technocrat fetish.