Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics…In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions…

The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.

Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done.

I’ve included links to Muller’s Op-Ed piece in the TIMES and his Berkeley site. It always feels nice to see science trump ideology.



  1. ReadyKilowatt says:

    If you have the time to view it, here’s a lecture from the Aspen Center for Physics that I attended last week, on this very topic:

    http://grassrootstv.org/Show.aspx?ShowID=11018

    Dr Ralph Cicerone explained the data from this study, carefully explained how it took into account all of the feedback from critics of past studies, and showed how the sun’s output is remarkably stable over time (other planets’ heating up has been thoroughly debunked, I’ll leave it up to someone else to Google the research and post since most are far to lazy to do it themselves).

    It should be pointed out that there is not “hockey stick moment” as in past studies, nor is there any extrapolation to show the future. Dr Cicerone really didn’t seem like an alarmist either, basically he said agriculture would move north, there will be more rain events, and Florida might be screwed.

  2. Glenn E. says:

    As a scientists, I wonder how many times he uses the term “believe” to fill in for the hard evidence to back up what he now believes? And I still question the validity of all “computer models” that are used to project future climate. At best, they are an elaborate shell game. Juggling the variables about, to confuse and confound, the layman, with their rapid speed and mathematical tricks. Coughing out a results that usually fits what they wanted, all along. When haven’t these models predicted dire events? I’ve been seeing them do this for decades, no matter how crude an inaccurate they are. And how wrong their dates have been. They’re just in the same business as all the phony religious doomsday prophets. The doomsday scientists just want to get in on a little of that fame and fortune.

    I wonder how much richer this former skeptic has now become? They you pay good money for switching sides.

    • bobbo, telling shit from shinola with every wipe says:

      Say Glenn—why don’t I put your crap of a post thru my BS meter?

      Why yes—so crappy you don’t even have a computer model to present to the public for criticism==just totally made up final conclusion based on no facts at all, just your own negative belief system>>>the very thing you erroneously accuse others of doing.

      Shall we go on?

      Gee—your opinion is opposite to mine, so like you, I will accuse you, J’ACCUSE!!!!!!===of being paid by the evil forces arrayed against me. You can’t possibly have a well reasoned researched position with facts, data, consulting team of scientists.

      So we disagree on what a piss poor thinker you claim to be….. maybe we can both agree neither one of us gained a Genius Grant for the potential of original work we might provide to society….. now did we.

      Idiot Hooman. Believing whatever you want to…. because you want to.

      Moron.

      • Glenn E. says:

        I accuse you of being a climate terrorist. So there. It’s pretty obvious, by your fly off the handle, hot headedness. Is this guy’s work you’re defending a relative or something? Why the h*ll do even care that much. Are you so egotistical that you think your rants are going to single-handedly save the world from itself. So just assuming you and your climate scare buddies are right. What’s your ultimate solution gonna be to save us, Hitler’s approach? Because it’s never going to be enough, just recycling paper and plastic. Which I already do, almost religiously. How about you? Or are you just a load of hot air about what everyone else must do? While you do nothing but rave at the doubters on blog sites. Most of us have lives. And not so much free time as you apparently do, to waste time police-stating the comments.

        And personal attacks and BULLYING everyone else, just proves my point that you’re unbalanced. You need therapy and counciling. Please get some help soon. Before you crack up all together. Because I doubt the climate is going to conform to your fantasy of perfection, anytime soon. And I fear you’re “real” name will show up on some news report of someone who decided take matters into their own hands, and “take care” of all the greenhouse gas emitters.

      • mike says:

        This guy is a total shill sponsored by the natural gas industry. Adam Curry exposed this clown on no agenda.

        Climate wackos are terrifying, but the people who exploit this insanity for profit are even worse. One is just crazy, the other is an opportunist.

        • Freddi Pachinko says:

          You got that right , I saw this guy on “Democracy Now”the same BS big story about how he looked at all the facts bla, bla. Then he suggested , twice, that natural gas will save us if we go fracking full bore. Expect to see more of these storys in the future considering the pres of Chevron said recently ” climate change is real”.

    • orchidcup says:

      One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed in it. They have also believed the world was flat.

      – Mark Twain

      Scientists cannot accurately predict the track of a hurricane, yet they can accurately project the speed and trajectory of a spacecraft to successfully intersect and orbit a moon of Jupiter.

      Predicting weather and climate models involves enormous data sets that are subject to myriad random variables that are incomplete or unknowable.

      Sort of like predicting the stock market.

      Climatology is not an exact science. It is educated guesswork with the aid of computer models that suggest a range of parameters based on incomplete and/or unknowable data.

      No climatologist can say anything with certainty at this stage of the art, but they are able to guess the trends that are suggested by the models.

      Climatology is more of an art than a science, where honest men may sincerely disagree.

      • Glenn E. says:

        “Scientists cannot accurately predict the track of a hurricane, yet they can accurately project the speed and trajectory of a spacecraft to successfully intersect and orbit a moon of Jupiter.”

        Actually that second part is a bit of a fallacy. They make very good estimates of trajectory, and course correct as they go. This was evident in the Apollo missions, between the moon and earth. Especially Apollo 13. When they had to make at least one, mid course correction. When they probably wished they didn’t. But without it, the ship would either would have hit earth’s atmosphere at to sharp an angle and burned up. Or bounced off it, and drifted out into space.

        The reason for this is the famous “Three Body Problem”, in mathematics. The impossibility to accurately predict the motion of any one body, when two others are acting upon it. In Apollo 13′s case it was the Earth and Moon. Out in deep space it’s usually the Sun, and any closest planetary body. But several could be effecting it. So they just get the best estimate possible, for a given leg of the trip. And course correct as they go. It’s never stop on perfect from the second a probe is launched from earth. Though they may want you to believe they’re that good.

        • orchidcup says:

          You are good at missing the point.

          To put it simply, but not too simply, climatology is not as easy as orbiting a spacecraft around a far planet.

          There is plenty of room for educated guesswork and various models may honestly be constructed from the same data sets.

          A disagreement in climatology does not suggest a conspiracy.

  3. Glenn E. says:

    Looking in the staff of this “Berkeley Earth Team”, doesn’t exactly impress me as being independent of corporate and/or government influences. Some work or have worked for aerospace corporations or organizations. And most, if not all, of them have been on board with the whole Global Warming thing. Others involved with other financial entities and consultants. And the list goes on, and on. Check it out at the Berkeley Earth Team site. While it’s still working. Because some of the site’s team’s credentials, don’t seem to work. I still can’t find out what “Global Warming Art” is. The link is broken. As well as “Muller & Associates LLC”. Which Richard Muller is supposedly the president of. He’s proven AGW? But he can’t get his company’s website to work? That should tell you something.

    His daughter name comes up in something called the OECD, whose website touts Corporate Governance. And we all know how in love we are with the idea of Corporates governing us.

  4. bobbo, telling shit from shinola with every wipe says:

    1. Rant and Rave and then complain of others doing so. CHECK.

    2. Groundlessly assume and charge all others being under the pay of unknown suspicious interests. CHECK.

    3. Equate anyone with a different opinion with Hitler. CHECK.

    4. Assume you are in the majority and most agree with you. CHECK.

    Hmmm. No doubt a truther, birther, and Flat Earther as well.

    Ha, ha. Stoopid Human.

  5. pedro says:

    Yawn! In converted, many believers converted to skeptics.

    • orchidcup says:

      Even a skeptic is somewhat skeptical of skepticism.

      Objectivity is subjective.

  6. MikeN says:

    This guy was never a skeptic. He merely recognized that some of the science behind the hockey stick was bogus. “I used Mike’s nature trick to hide the decline. This tells me some names of scientists whose papers I don’t have to read any more.” He writes this editorial because he knows it is more likely to get attention to himself.

    The hockey team has responded back with Michael Mann saying that it looks like this guy is just looking to promote himself. Last year at this time, Muller was issuing press releases for his papers, even though they hadn’t passed peer review. Ross McKitrick has the details, and has posted up his reviews.

    Upshot is they came up with an interesting way to merge temperature stations, but it looks like they may have gotten some of the data wrong. They also revealed all their methods and code, which too many in climate science fail to do.

  7. Somebody says:

    Oldest trick in the book.

    You get some shill to pretend to be skeptical for while and then have a very public epiphany.

    It worked for Obama’s birth certificate issues with Trump.

    Most people never catch on.

    • GregAllen says:

      >>Most people never catch on.

      I’ll agree with that part of your post.

  8. Hyrneson says:

    John, don’t you think this pretty much shows it’s time to thank Eideard for his BS contributions and show him the door and quit letting him waste the electrons on your site?

    IT’S A LIE! The scientists who cooked the data admitted it! They did it for money! They publicly said all the man-made global warming data is a lie and still Eideard pushes this crap?!?

    John, please. It’s time to give him the Kool-aide.

    • bobbo, a real liberal just waiting for sanity to return to American Politics says:

      What a life John must have.

      Hide the kool aid.

  9. Death says:

    I say the Bilderberg conferences may be right on the money. There are just too damn many humans on planet earth and there needs to be a culling (thinning of the herd)!

    …Don’t worry. It’s coming one way or another.

  10. NewformatSux says:

    It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic – only a scientific skeptic. [...] But I never felt that pointing out mistakes [in Gore's movie] qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.

    RIchard Muller last year to The Huffington Post.

  11. NewformatSux says:

    My view is that Muller’s efforts to promote himself by belittling the collective efforts of the entire atmospheric/climate research community over several decades, though, really does the scientific community a disservice. Its great that he’s reaffirmed what we already knew. But for him to pretend that we couldn’t trust this entire scientific field until Richard Muller put his personal stamp of approval on their conclusions is, in my view, a very dangerously misguided philosophical take on how science works. It seems, in the end – quite sadly – that this is all really about Richard Muller’s self-aggrandizement :(

    Michael Mann

    fight! fight! Fight!