The predominantly warmist media has reacted gleefully to Richard Muller’s supposed defection to their side. ‘A skeptic who saw the light’, and other similar claims were echoed. It was a good selling point for them. However, had some of these journalists actually done some journalism, they may have discovered that Muller was never a skeptic. He has been quoted as saying:
Carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history.
The bottom line is that there is a consensus and the president needs to know what the IPCC says.
What Muller has done is criticise the error-ridden An Inconvenient Truth and the scientists implicated in the climategate saga. This seems enough for journalists like Eugene Robinson, who ignore the fact that these sorts of comments are not the hallmark of a skeptic, but in this case come from someone who has enough objectivity to condemn the disgraceful practices depicted in climategate and Al Gore’s scientifically invalid movie, as any self-respecting scientist should.
Muller has now stated that he never considered himself a skeptic.
“It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic — only a scientific skeptic,” he said in a recent email exchange with The Huffington Post. “Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller ‘Physics for Future Presidents’ I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.”
Journalists have been quite happy to expand their definition of a “skeptic” when it suits them, as in the case of Muller, but when assessing the number of skeptics in the population, just as easily tighten their definition in order to pass us off as an “endangered species“.