The following is a video on Democracy Now in which Muller makes a number of claims:
“After years of denying global warming, physicist Richard Muller now says “global warming is real and humans are almost entirely the cause.”
So now you have heard Professor Muller in his own words say he was a “global warming” skeptic. Here is a quote from Professor Muller from an article he wrote in 2003.
December 17, 2003
“Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.” –
Clearly Muller points out several issues with the global warming argument but you cannot be a sceptic if you believe that CO2 emitted by man is the most significant cause of global warming and will have severe consequences . Or can you?
Then in November of 2011
“It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic — only a scientific skeptic,” he said in a recent email exchange with The Huffington Post. “Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller ‘Physics for Future Presidents’ I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.”
So what do we actually have here. Professor Muller got his tail in a ringer with the Man made global warming crowd by being critical of Al Gore, their making every weather event related to global warming, the viability of the temperature monitoring system, not to mention Hansen’s Hockey Stick chart which was the premier piece of “evidence” for man-made global warming. He also applauded sceptics for fighting for real science. Yet he claims he never was a climate sceptic. What is going on here!!?? Is anyone out there confused? Hopefully I can make some sense of this.
Clearly Professor Muller is parsing his words very carefully. As he said in the interview with Democracy Now, he was careful to say he was a “global warming” sceptic only and now accepts global warming is happening and we are the cause! He was sceptical that the planet had even warmed until his “landmark” study showed it had. Bottom line he was never a “climate sceptic”. Pray tell, what does that mean? Again, he did say in 2003:
It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate.
So he does believe that there are consequences and one must assume he means climate will change. He has never been a climate sceptic and has repeatedly claimed so over the years. On this point he has never changed and continues to be consistent. The shady area here is that he was a global warming sceptic meaning,according to him, that he was sceptical of the measurement system as well as many of the claims being made by climate advocates. It sure seems a bit odd that someone who wasn’t too sure that the planet had even warmed, and doesn’t buy into much of the hype, would have already assumed that man was responsible and there would be severe consequences.
It makes less than no sense but wasn’t it a coup that the climate change coalition would be able to claim that a sceptic had converted to the Church of Man-Made Global Warming? Then there is the title of his Op-Ed, “Conversion of a climate-Change Sceptic”. ??????? Something he says he never was…
Converted from What??