Anthony, you are just blowing smoke, again.

For years Professor Muller has been one of the highest profile critics and real sceptic of the IPCC (you know this). He has argued vehemently that the IPCC’s analysis of evidence was flawed and cannot conclude a relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and rising global temperatures.

Muller has now changed his mind and has admitted to a “total turnaround”. He has even defined himself as “a converted sceptic”. Again, you know this.

Muller’s BEST project was funded (as you know) by the multi-billionaire Koch brothers. You know the ones: heavily invested in fossil fuels and major contributors to a small number of AGW sceptics. You also know Professor Muller’s team of scientists examined 1.6 billion temperature records from 36,000 stations.

The project eliminated and ruled out all possible sources of error (contrary to your assertions) including: the urban heat island effect, biased "data selection", "poor station quality", and "data adjustment factors”. Muller also took into account the effect of ocean currents and solar variability. Moreover, the cooling influence of volcanic explosions was also taken into account.

Professor Muller estimates that the global rise in temperature attributed to human activity has been 1.5 C since 1753, of which 0.9 C has occurred since 1950.

Indeed, Prof. Muller says:

"To be considered seriously, any alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does carbon dioxide. Presently, nothing else comes close to being a candidate. Without a better explanation, the evidence compels the conclusion that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are almost entirely the cause of Earth's rising surface temperature”.

Anthony, the facts speak for themselves; you have a politico-ideological agenda - not a scientific one.

Muller was never a sceptic:

http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/10/25/climate-change-ethics-prof-mullers-study-and-media-incompetence/

What has confused people about Muller is that he suuports AGW but thinks he could do a better job at proving it then the establishment scientists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyuKOtIryis

What is driving this guy is ego; he doesn’t wade into the AGW defects because he is or ever was a sceptic; Muller genuinely thinks he is better then everyone else.

Nothing wrong with thinking that if you deliver the goods; however BEST 1 & 2 are dismal.

Muller's position was probably determined here:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/elizabeth-muller-director-of-best-ran-a-green-government-consultancy/

He was short and curlied.

Bonmot,

The point I made that you responded to but have not addressed - in fact repeatedly avoided and instead promoted your interests and beliefs – is that temperature readings, temperature trends and climate sensitivity are irrelevant if the consequences of AGW are negligible or insignificant. We have little knowledge of other important parameters, such as the damage function or the decarbonisation rate so, currently, there is no persuasive case to demonstrate that AGW is dangerous or catastrophic. On the other hand, the mitigation policies that the CAGW alarmist would have us implement would, indeed, be very damaging to human well being.

You have repeatedly avoided addressing the point I made and that you responded to.

<<Muller was never a sceptic:

http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/10/25/climate-change-ethics-prof-mullers-study-and-media-incompetence/ >>

BANG BANG another warmist furthy bites the dust.

Why do they have to misrepresent things if their case is so compelling?

A prominent example of scientists waking up to the Climate fraud comes from Germany.

Germany was a great supporter of the AGW fraud and Professor Fritz Vahrenholt was a leading proponent of wind power. He was a well known green activist.

He was appointed as an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy and in the course of the review discovered numerous errors.

He dug into the IPCC climate report and was horrified by what he found. Considering 14 years of stagnant temperatures, failed IPCC predictions, Climategate e-mails, and discussions he had with dozens of elite realist scientists, he became a realist and published a book on climate science. He exposes the nonsense of AGW.

He says he is prepared for the inevitable defamation he will suffer from AGW activists and will endure it, rather than succumb to pressure to back off.

The price rises caused by “renewable” energy projects resulted in 700,000 German households having their power cut off for non payment of bills.

This is our future under our current fraud backing Federal government. Many households have already suffered a tripling of their bills, after three months of this criminal legislation.

But SPQR, that's not the impression one gets when reading skeptic pin-up boy, Anthony Watts, early take on the BEST study. He gives BEST the thumbs up, referring to Muller as a skeptic.... "...I think, based on what I've seen, BEST has a superior method....and that the BEST result will be closer to the ground truth that(sic) anything we've seen."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/06/briggs-on-berkeleys-best-plus-my-thoughts-from-my-visit-there/

It was only after Muller delivered the results that skeptics "didn't expect" that they jettisoned him from the fold....very bad form : )