Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, who loves publicity and is a P.T. Barnum of sorts among physicists is hitting the news again...this time as a " human caused " global warming skeptic and " denier " born again as a promoter of AGW theory and with the belief that humans are driving global warming. His new paper(s), insisting AGW should now be our core belief are being met with skepticism around the world ( the studies are not yet peer reviewed, though Muller has publicized them heartily ).
The following from Andrew C. Kevin, DOT Earth, in the New York Times...7/28/2012...
After the first round of papers went online last fall, some climate scientists, while put off by Muller’s past diatribes and self-promotional zeal, were mildly enthusiastic (see Gavin Schmidt here).
But others, notably the climate modeler William Connolley through his Stoat blog, have dismissed Muller’s work — old and new — as “rubbish.”
It’s particularly notable that one collaborator on the first batch of papers, Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, declined to be included as an author on the new one. I learned this when I sent her this question by e-mail:
Do you share Rich’s extremely high confidence on attribution of recent warming to humans…?
Here’s Curry’s reply:
I was invited to be a coauthor on the new paper. I declined. I gave them my review of the paper, which was highly critical. I don’t think this new paper adds anything to our understanding of attribution of the warming….
I really like the data set itself. It is when they do science with it that they get into trouble.
Curry also sent this note, which she is distributing to other journalists:
The BEST team has produced the best land surface temperature data set that we currently have. It is best in the sense of including the most data and extending further back in time. The data quality control and processing use objective, statistically robust techniques. That said, the scientific analyses that the BEST team has done with the new data set are controversial, including the impact of station quality on interpreting temperature trends and the urban heat island effect
About Dot Earth
By 2050 or so, the human population is expected to reach nine billion, essentially adding two Chinas to the number of people alive today. Those billions will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where, scientists say, humans are already shaping climate and the web of life. In Dot Earth, which recently moved from the news side of The Times to the Opinion section, Andrew C. Revkin examines efforts to balance human affairs with the planet’s limits. Conceived in part with support from a John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship, Dot Earth tracks relevant developments from suburbia to Siberia. The blog is an interactive exploration of trends and ideas with readers and experts.