Richard Muller has distinguished himself previously by the muddled thinking and conflicting prose he published in an op-ed for the NY Times. Considering what often appears in those pages in the Times, Muller's muddle was especially noteworthy. Today, he's chosen to double down with another.
More proof that while learning is hard, thinking is harder, and rarely tried.
Family duty calls and the rest will have to wait.
See Climate scientist Roger Pielke, Sr. on Muller's mess. He's right:
In Richard Muller’s Op-Ed in the New York Times (see The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic), he makes far-reaching conclusions based on his sparse knowledge of the uncertainties in multi-decadal land surface temperature record. His comments show what occurs when a scientist, with excellent research credentials within their area of scientific expertise, go outside of their area of knowledge.
His latest BEST claims are, in my view, an embarrassment.
Note -- Pielke is not a skeptic.
2d addition -- Matt Briggs :
Muller says, as people in his position have long been saying, that he himself, a one-time skeptic, a veritable prodigal son, has settled “the scientific debate.” The fallacy he makes is to say to himself, “I do not know of any flaws in my work, therefore there are none.” Common enough in academia.