/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8663974
>>/sci/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=How+about+this+one+from+Mr.+Muller+in+2008%3A
kek

Ah Muller and Watts. You've beaten that story to death.

Muller, of course, pretended to be a skeptic, which proved to be false. In fact, he admitted that he was a hard core warmist already:

Here's a nice quote of his from 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."
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/page/2/

How about this one from Mr. Muller in 2008:

"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/physics-the-nex/

Thus, when Watts found out that Muller was a lying sack of crap, he blew him off. Exactly as he should.

You, of course, hate Watts because he provided an independent proof that the homogenization adjustment algorithm is flawed. He showed that clean data (Class 1 and 2 stations, generally with less UHI, instrumental problems or a history of temp stations movement) warm about 50% less than all data (Class 1&2: 0.155 degrees/decade vs. NOAA 0.309 degrees/decade). Pic related.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

This is why you have such unabated, unsubstantiated and unjustified hatred of Mr. Watts. He destroyed the legitimacy of the "homogenization" adjustments.

>>8638503
>>8638151
>>8638099
>>8638106

>http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/
>Since you won't go to my link because even Muller is not a government shill to your types (despite Watts publicly claiming he would accept whatever Muller's results were).

Muller, of course, works for a government owned university, the University of California, Berkeley. He is a public sector employee. More importantly, he is a lying sack of crap. He pretended to be a skeptic, which proved to be false. In fact, he admitted that he was a hard core warmist already:

Here's a nice quote of his from 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."
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/page/2/

How about this one from Mr. Muller in 2008:

"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/physics-the-nex/

Thus, when Watts found out that Muller was a lying sack of crap, he blew him off. Exactly as he should.

You, of course, hate Watts because he provided an independent proof that the homogenization adjustment algorithm is flawed. He showed that clean data (Class 1 and 2 stations, generally with less UHI, instrumental problems or a history of temp stations movement) warm about 50% less than all data (Class 1&2: 0.155 degrees/decade vs. NOAA 0.309 degrees/decade). Pic related.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

This is why you have such unabated, unsubstantiated and unjustified hatred of Mr. Watts. He destroyed the legitimacy of the "homogenization" adjustments.

>>7908806
You mean after it was revealed that Muller was never a skeptic so that his whole "I'm a skeptic" who just wants to check things was just another example of fraud.

Yeah, let's see about that, here's a nice quote of his from 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."
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/page/2/

Oh my, how skeptical! How about this one from Mr. Muller in 2008:

"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/physics-the-nex/

I certainly wouldn't trust someone who completely misrepresented themselves.

>>6792619
So let's see about this Muller guy, here's a nice quote of his from 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."
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/page/2/

Oh my, how skeptical! How about this one from Mr. Muller in 2008:

"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/physics-the-nex/

Yup, very skeptical indeed; you've converted me!

>>6757399

Once again, the pathetic appeal to authority. It would really help if you could use facts, data and logic. But I guess that's too much.

So let's see about this Muller guy, here's a nice quote of his from 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."
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/page/2/

Oh my, how skeptical! How about this one from Mr. Muller in 2008:

"There is a consensus that global warming is real. ...it’s going to get much, much worse." http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/physics-the-nex/

Yup, very skeptical indeed; you've converted me!