Pure and utter hate directed at skeptics by Eugene Robinson.
FOR the clueless or cynical diehards who deny global warming, it’s getting awfully cold out there. The latest icy blast of reality comes from an eminent scientist whom climate-change sceptics once lauded as one of their own.
Richard Muller, a respected physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, used to dismiss alarming climate research as “polluted by political and activist frenzy’’. Frustrated at what he considered shoddy science, Muller launched his own comprehensive study to set the record straight. Instead, the record set him straight.
Muller is continually hailed in the media as a former skeptic, but this is not the case. Lubos Motl states that “Richard Muller is no skeptic: realizing that Michael Mann has made things that can’t be tolerated in science is nice and it may make you a heretic among some hardcore believers but it’s not enough for you to be a genuine climate skeptic.” Similarly, concern over the influence of politics and activism doesn’t necessarily make someone a skeptic.
“Global warming is real,” he wrote last week in The Wall Street Journal.
Muller’s figures also conform with the estimates of the British and American researchers whose catty emails were the basis for the alleged “Climategate” scandal, which was never a scandal in the first place.
No scandal in climategate? So there’s nothing wrong with corrupting the peer review process so that only papers that agree with you get through? There’s nothing wrong with cutting off the end of your 1000 year temperature reconstruction because it shows an inconvenient downward line? There’s nothing wrong with colluding to avoid FOI requests for emails which are public property? And deleting said emails? There’s nothing suss about the refusal of scientists to have their work checked (and perhaps confirmed)?
This Robinson guy will believe what he wants to believe. But Muller to his credit was concerned about some of these practises, a stance that has led to him being labelled a skeptic. Why does Robinson so uncritically boast about Muller’s BEST project, yet effectively dismisses his concerns over the conduct of Mann and his colleagues?
The results are yet to face peer review, so technically are preliminary.
Imagine if it was a skeptic’s paper. Robinson would have claimed that the fact that it isn’t yet peer-reviewed invalidates its claims.
But Muller’s plain-spoken admonition that “you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer” has reduced many deniers to incoherent grumbling or stunned silence.
Are you kidding? Skeptics have laughed at this statement. Show me the incoherent grumbling or stunned silence.
Not so, I predict, with the conservative political blowhards who, out of ignorance or perceived self-interest, are willing to play politics with the planet’s future.
How is asking for evidence for the scientific theory that requires drastic, economy-wide changes, playing with the planets future? Surely, future generations will want us to get this right.
They may concede warming is taking place…
As we always have.
…but they call it a natural phenomenon and deny that human activity is the cause.
That is the principle argument, and Muller did not answer it.
It is the know-nothing politicians — not scientists — who are committing an unforgivable fraud.
This is an article littered with hate and vitriol for those that disagree with its author. It is not journalism. It is propaganda designed to support Robinson’s horrendously biased political view. He simply refuses to take an impartial perspective, and the result is this hatchet job.