Richard Muller's volte face on climate change is good for science

[Don Genaro]

A friend of mine posted this recently on Facebook. We had an exchange some time back on Facebook as he commented on some article I posted from Sott. It turns out he's writing a book on climate change and he's very sceptical of the 'sceptics.' We agreed to disagree. Unfortunately, as in so many things, although I don't believe the official version of practically anything just because it comes from the Guardian or wherever (or precisely because it comes from the Guardian!) I often feel at a loss in such a discussion due to a lack of sufficient knowledge of the opposing views. Learning can be such a slow process!!! I generally shut up and listen because I want to hear/understand why so-and-so believes whatever it is that they believe. I guess it's just trying to see both sides of the argument. Anyway, I don't know if this is of any interest to Sott but I thought you might like to check it out :)

By the way, my friend's main issue with the sceptics seemed to be that he thought they worked for the oil industry!


_http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/31/richard-muller-climate-change-good-science

Here's a quote:

All the same, Muller's self-confessed volte-face is commendably frank. It's also unusual. In another rare instance, James Lovelock was refreshingly insouciant when he recently admitted that climate change, while serious, might not be quite as apocalyptic as he had previously forecast – precisely the kind of doom-mongering view that fuelled Muller's scepticism. There's surely something in Lovelock's suggestion that being an independent scientist makes it easier to change your mind – the academic system still struggles to accept that getting things wrong occasionally is part of being a scientist.

I did note that he was being commended for choosing the 'blue pill' :D

Edited to add quote.