We haven’t heard from him for a while. Just wondering if he is currently a Koch Brothers funded skeptic, ex-skeptic, or never was a skeptic.
Didn’t they finally publish his BEST BS in some new made-for-muller journal? 😉
Who cares what journal it is published in? Supposedly it was peer reviewed and when it sees the light of day, it can be properly reviewed. I am interested in their claim that the UHI has negligible effect on the anomaly trends. What “pristine” stations did they select to test for UHI effects? And it will be interesting to see better minds than mine look into the BEST slice and dice method of treating data errors.
I’m not into propaganda. AGW is a failed hypothesis, UHI is a fact.
Remove the “E” and “T” from the title of that study and you have the proper answer.
B-S Slice and Dice of historic temperature records.
To recap, my original understanding was that he was going to recheck all the calculations for the temperature record, because this couldn’t he done for HardCRUT3. As Phil Jones explained, a dog ate his original raw data when he was trying to do some homework.
However, I don’t believe he questioned some of the basic assumptions in the temperature data, such as estimating UHI and other issues of concern to critics. For this he was heavily criticised and it was likely the reason why he couldn’t get his research work published in any of the established journals.
Subsequent to all this, he then came out and said some really really stupid things about global warming (implying his research “proved” global warming was anthropogenic, when it of course had no capacity to do any such thing). At this point he lost me completely, and I’m a Luke Warmer. 🙂
Who cares what journal it is published in? Supposedly it was peer reviewed and when it sees the light of day
I care. This is some outfit in India which has decided to come out with a slate of journals and has been spamming various mailing lists and web sites looking for reviewers. The quality of the “peer” matters in the review. They have no track record, they have no reputation. So publishing in that journal carries no more authority than having self-published.
“Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.”
Garth Jowett and Victoria O’Donnell, Propaganda and Persuasion
With Nature and Science soiling their reputations as of late, who you going to call?
Bizarro Robert, 😆
When it comes to ecology, Nature is about as credible as New Scientist these days.
Muller did, to his eternal credit, lay into Mann and his Hockey Stick. He really doesn’t pull any punches.
The first time I saw Muller, I thought to myself, “Hmmm…I’ve seen this guy before, somewhere…”
I wouldn’t call him a sceptic. Septic suits him better imho. The whole AGW-meme is septic btw.
Update at Climate etc. Still the problem with homogenation and more.
wrong spelling, sorry
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 1,926 other followers