What is most ridiculous? The man himself or the media response to him?
First he says skepticism is no longer justified, then he claims he never said it? He claims the world is still warming when it isn't. And he lets the media claim he's 'proved man-made global warming is real' when he knows hist study didn't even consider that question! He's either a liar or an idiot, or a liar AND an idiot.
@QuidSapio@QuidSapio No, he says that some degree of skepticism /is/ justified, that the title of the article that was published was not supplied by him but the publisher, and he doesn't "let the media claim" anything: The facts are what proves global warming, not the media.
The world is warming - if you'd bothered listening to what he says you'd hear him saying that the claim that the world is not warming is based on cherry picking of data.
@QuidSapio What you need to do is stop allowing the Right Wing Media/Talk Radio dictate your every thought & go read Richard Muller's report yourself! If reading is not your strong point, & I would guess its not, then listen to his testimony to Congress! Now it may take you a couple times but even you should be able to see his testimony mirrors EXACTLY what the press reported! You will learn Richard Muller's 2yr study had EVERYTHING to do with proven ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING!
Muller says he doesn't like the titled Wall Street Journal put on his article, but Muller writes: " But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer." Despite Muller's complaints, the WSJ title clearly fits what he wrote.
The flatline between 1980 to 1995 resulted from volcanic eruptions at Pinatubo and elsewhere. We understand what caused that. There is no similar physical reason for the flatline since 1998. It's dishonest for Muller to use that time period.
What is most ridiculous? The man himself or the media response to him?
First he says skepticism is no longer justified, then he claims he never said it? He claims the world is still warming when it isn't. And he lets the media claim he's 'proved man-made global warming is real' when he knows hist study didn't even consider that question! He's either a liar or an idiot, or a liar AND an idiot.
QuidSapio 3 months ago
@QuidSapio @QuidSapio No, he says that some degree of skepticism /is/ justified, that the title of the article that was published was not supplied by him but the publisher, and he doesn't "let the media claim" anything: The facts are what proves global warming, not the media.
The world is warming - if you'd bothered listening to what he says you'd hear him saying that the claim that the world is not warming is based on cherry picking of data.
Oh, and the only idiot here is you.
SimonJHarpham 1 month ago
@QuidSapio What you need to do is stop allowing the Right Wing Media/Talk Radio dictate your every thought & go read Richard Muller's report yourself! If reading is not your strong point, & I would guess its not, then listen to his testimony to Congress! Now it may take you a couple times but even you should be able to see his testimony mirrors EXACTLY what the press reported! You will learn Richard Muller's 2yr study had EVERYTHING to do with proven ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING!
Viracocha711 1 month ago
Muller says he doesn't like the titled Wall Street Journal put on his article, but Muller writes: " But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer." Despite Muller's complaints, the WSJ title clearly fits what he wrote.
The flatline between 1980 to 1995 resulted from volcanic eruptions at Pinatubo and elsewhere. We understand what caused that. There is no similar physical reason for the flatline since 1998. It's dishonest for Muller to use that time period.
roncram 3 months ago
@roncram I refer you to 6:58 Re his point on 1980-1995
As far as the last ten years well if you could be bothered with the facts I will gladly furbish you.
Atheeizm 2 months ago