‘Richard Muller was a climate skeptic for many years’

People are excited that Richard Muller, lead scientist on the BEST group, was a ‘skeptic’.

Why do they think he was a skeptic? Because at one time, Muller criticized the makers of the hockey stick and supported McIntyre.

Just pointing out that there is something wrong with the hockey stick does not make you a skeptic. You can be a supporter of the consensus (i.e., ‘warmist’) and still point out dishonesty. It is allowed.


  • Funny, I always wondered why it’s not OK to “break ranks”.

    Look what happened to Dr Curry. A heretic, burn her at the stake!

  • It is funny. Here we had, stories and quotes showing how Muller was in no way skeptical of the climate orthodoxy, and then we have the media outlets declaring that he was a ‘lead climate skeptic’ (for many years). The only thing to support that is his criticism of the hockey stick.

  • Shub,
    I have posted similar questions on new Zealand “astroturf” blogs that are claiming that Muller was a sceptic.

    e.g this one http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/blogs/an-auckland-minute/5896001/Nats-hope-we-focus-on-rugby-not-global-warning#comments

    I can’t really figure out Muller. Either he is really out of his depth or he his lying through his teeth.

  • It would be funny – if the stakes were not so high. But no one can fault Muller for once again toeing the line of the AGW faithful and abandoning all pretense of science. After all, I hear he is allergic to fire.

  • Andy,

    I can’t really figure out Muller. Either he is really out of his depth or he his lying through his teeth.

    I’m inclined to think it’s a little quite a bit of both! Even when he was trying to blame the WSJ for the headline, when he was interviewed*, he didn’t even get the WSJ’s actual headline correct!


    “The Wall Street Journal article, they changed it, they changed the title,” Richard Muller said while attending a conference on global and regional climate change in Santa Fe. “My title was, ‘Let’s cool the warming debate.’ They changed it to ‘An end of skepticism.’ That was not me, they did not seek my approval.”

    see http://www.capitolreportnewmexico.com/?p=6691

  • Muller’s daughter is boss at Muller and Associates, their private company. Atleast one person employed at her former company is currently at Muller and Associates. Muller’s daughter is married to a Rahal Waladi who works for Muller and Associates as well.

  • I really don’t know why this Muller thing has been so embraced by the greenie alarmists. I think this must have something to do with trying to generate interest in the upcoming Durban meeting, which I predict will be the biggest failure of them all.

  • Well, klem, the Copenhagen/Cancun/Durban etc will always be a ‘failure’. What exactly are they trying to succeed at? Creating another Kyoto…well, like you say, everyone knows that is not going to happen. What could however ‘succeed’, in my opinion, is a REDD carbon trading regime which has slowly progressed in the past 7 years or so, in the sidelines.

    For example, see http://www.redd-monitor.org/2011/11/02/carbon-fund-risks-undermining-redd-readiness/

    The efforts to link REDD with carbon markets has always faltered upto this point. However, with AB32 passed, one side of this equation is in the hole. Pretty soon, Acre, Brazil will turn into a colony of California. It will be interesting to see what’ll happen when the land in Brazil is owned by the state, but the carbon in the trees is owned by California.

  • That is an interesting situation. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s