Judith Curry has indeed been a co-author with Muller on previous papers, and has consistently argued a different interpretation on climate change issues for a long time. However, a number of her criticisms in recent years (easily found on the Web) have been re-examined by others in light of evidence documented since here original position. A number of scientists have posed questions about her conclusions as a consequence, and have offered to discuss ther concerns face to face or privately.
As always on this theme, issues have been clouded by personal feelings, mostly from people (on both sides of this specific debate) who lack expertise and background on the subject, but feel that their opinion, often on single points in a very complex subject, is as valid as the next person's, no matter how knowledgeable and informed that the next person might be. Shouting about a single point is very much an anti-science debate characteristic. It's notable that quite a long list of respected scientists in climatology and allied fields (eg physics, biological specialisations, mathematics) who initially were of the opinion that human-induced climate change was not a major factor have since changed their opinions. Quite a few hung on to their initial view by concentrating on one particular aspect, but the weight of evidence (in thousands of peer-reviewed papers) told.
Having read many papers over the years and having followed the debate as well, it seems to me that Judith Curry finds herself in this position of concentrating on those parts of the picture that are fuzziest, but assigning to them a major likelihood of these parts including major controlling factors that will explain why Anthropogenic Global Warming is a non-event. Now, she could be right, but mainstream scientific thinking is that the range of controlling factors already considered, their interactions (though imperfectly undersood) and the continuing avalanche of results across numerous scientific disciplines are providing results that are consistent enough to provide a framework of robust context. Judith Curry has so far declined to debate a number of aspects in her work (which at the time it was carried out, raised a number points that were worth further investigation).
It's the nature of science that conclusions must be tested, and if these conclusions remain robust after testing, time and time again, then these conclusions are probably the foundation of a sound theory (theory in the scientific sense, not as in the disparaging phrase, "It's only a theory"). I think that Judith Curry may now be in the position of trying to stick with her conclusions through thick and thin, an understandable and human reaction if you've spent years working on research. That frequently happens - even Richard Feynman spent some five years in what turned out to be a blind alley of mathematics before abandoning it and moving on to other things - he described the feeling as like being bereaved!
Until recently, Pielke (father and son) were touted on the Heartland Institute website as expert advisers. The Heartland Institute, which was strident and contemptuous of dozens of respected scientists, was funded in part secretly by pollluting industries, and has now been discredited and essentially has collapsed. Now both Pielkes have distanced themselves from the Heartland Institute and have esablished their own websites, one of which is cited above. However, note the heavy use of underlining in it, not something that occurs on any standard science-based website; note too, the hectoring tone, and thirdly note that a number of co-authors listed in the older papers have refused further cooperation with Pielke Sr since the Heartland fiasco.
Ross McKitrick has written often on climate change, and certainly is a sceptic. However, I'm sure he would never describe himself as a climate scientist. He is an economist with a background in mathematics and statistics, a professor at Guelph University. He has authored or co-authored several papers on the mathematical and statistical methodology in climate-related research, and so has a view that is worth respect. He disputes the views of others who disagree with him, but who work in the same general field. The methodology he attacks in the Muller paper has been supported elsewhere, but clarity on this particular aspect will takesome time to achieve. However, quoting him verbatim from a recent paper:
"So our conclusion is that a valid explanatory model of the pattern of climate change over land requires use of both socioeconomic indicators and GCM processes. The failure to include the socioeconomic factors in empirical work may be biasing analysis of the magnitude and causes of observed climate trends since 1979."
This suggests that there are other factors that might (or might not) influence mainstream climate change opinions. Most mainstream scientists I would guess are sceptical, not of that claim, but of its likely significant effect on the overall picture, but would support any re-examination of data to prove or disprove the point.
My present take on Squonk's cited references are that they may well have some value, but that whatever transpires from subsequent analysis of their content, little of significance will emerge. Muller, as a personality, is not a shy and retiring academic, but the vitriol from people with whom he has worked doesn't help.
I've met quite a few people whose research has produced data in this subject or who have worked in climatology. Their concern and worry lies squarely with the mounting evidence - because their children's future looks so bleak, they have scoured their field of expertise to try to find anything that the research results would indicate that AGW is not a real threat. If any such data are found, they would be the first to say so.
My concern lies with what the human race is doing to the bottom 3 miles (5000 metres) of the atmosphere. Above that level, few could survive for long, but it is what is happening in the upper levels that drives our survival prospects.
MJB
).
