Talk:Richard A. Muller

ToP Dab needed, still?
Without addressing whether the other UC-Berkeley optics physicist Richard Muller needs a WP bio, note the similarities (emphasis added by Jerzy•t):


 * Biography: Richard S. Muller


 * Richard Muller earned the degree of Mechanical Engineer at Stevens Institute of Technology in 1955. He then studied under Hughes and NSF Fellowships at the California Institute of Technology and was awarded an MS/EE in 1957 and a PhD (EE and Physics) in 1962. He was employed as a Member of the Technical Staff at Hughes Aircraft Company and taught at the University of Southern California before joining the faculty at the University of California, Berkeley where he concentrated his research on the physics of integrated-circuit devices. Together with Dr. T.I. Kamins of Hewlett-Packard Company, Dr Muller first published "Device Electronics for Integrated Circuits" in 1977. A 3rd edition of this book (which has been translated into five languages) was published in 2003.  In the late 1970s, Muller began research in the area now known as MEMS and, together with Professor R.M. White, he founded the Berkeley Sensor & Actuator Center in 1986.  He wrote the proposal to establish IEEE/ASME Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems (JMEMS) and is now the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.  A member of the US National Academy of Engineering and an IEEE Life Fellow, Muller received a career MEMS Award at TRANSDUCERS '97 as well as the IEEE Brunetti Award (1998 with R.T. Howe), NATO and Fulbright Professorships, and a von Humboldt Research Award at TU Berlin in 1994. Other Awards include the Berkeley Citation and the Renaissance Award from Stevens Institute of Technology, where he served as Trustee 1996-2005. He has been a member of the National Materials Advisory Board and served on several National Research Council study panels as well as chairing a 1997 panel for which he acted as editor of a widely distributed report on the promises and challenges of MEMS.  His present research focus is on optical MEMS.

What i am suggesting is even that the info i added at their Dab is not sufficient to rule out confusion, and the article may need a ToP Dab. (BTW, "born c. 1930" is based on typically 5-year eng'g degrees around the 1950's: finishing HS at 18 suggests EE at 25, and thus 1930 most likely YOB.)

Better Picture?
I think this would be a much better picture to use:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/10/images/mullermug.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by RevenDS (talk • contribs) 00:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature
Should certainly be mentioned prominently. MikeR613 (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Richard_A._Muller below  97.87.29.188 (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Muller is a founder and the current chairperson of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which intends to provide an independent analysis of the Earth's surface temperature records." is in this article now. 216.250.156.66 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC).

Removal of Image
I have removed one image from the article for three reasons:

1) It interrupts the flow of the text, causing formatting issues. 2) It contributes little of value to the article. 3) There is too little text to sustain three images.

I have reproduced the image below. --Baekken (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)



== Add "I Stick to Science": Why Richard A. Muller wouldn't tell House climate skeptics what they wanted to hear by Michael D. Lemonick May 25, 2011 Scientific American ==

Add "I Stick to Science": Why Richard A. Muller wouldn't tell House climate skeptics what they wanted to hear by Michael D. Lemonick (Michael Lemonick) May 25, 2011 Scientific American. 99.181.158.51 (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Also see Climate change policy of the United States and Global warming controversy (with Media coverage of climate change). 99.181.128.190 (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also in the article are reference to skeptics Anthony Watts (blogger) (of Watts Up With That?) and Stephen McIntyre (of the Climate Audit), also James Hansen (of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Ralph M. Hall (Chairman of the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology). 99.181.149.175 (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For what purpose do you want to add it? Perhaps in An Inconvenient Truth?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a response from Anthony Watts: Scientific American’s interview with Dr. Richard Muller; posted on May 23, 2011. 99.112.213.34 (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The SciAm link is on again off again, but here it is from Joseph J. Romm's ClimateProgress.org http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Muller.pdf 99.119.131.248 (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Example excerpts:

Add http://www.scientificamerican.com/jun02011/muller-hearing
Add http://www.scientificamerican.com/jun02011/muller-hearing 99.181.149.175 (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? I get a 404 not found.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Scientific American’s interview with Dr. Richard Muller; posted on May 23, 2011 by Anthony Watts 99.43.138.160 (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Was this intended to go in the section above? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I got a 404 from http://www.scientificamerican.com/jun02011/muller-hearing too ... maybe it moved, or unavailable currently? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is from 31.May.2011 ... GOP’s only scientists at ‘Scopes’ climate hearing are Richard Muller and John Christy. Go figure! from Thinkprogress.org by Joe Romm on Mar 31, 2011 at 12:43 pm ... and Scientist Beloved by Climate Deniers Pulls Rug Out from Their Argument from Good (magazine). 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See John Christy. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this the testimony (browser problems)? http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011  99.19.43.74 (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink "inner solar system" (in contrast with more general solar system)
Wikilink "inner solar system" (in contrast with more general solar system). 99.119.130.14 (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Inner solar system is an inherently misleading redirect. I don't think it should be deleted as a redirect, but it should never be used.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Undelete LA Times article from 31.March.2011 on Muller.
64.27.194.74 (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Not by or really about Muller.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See other Talk:Richard A. Muller sections ... 99.181.151.89 (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Undelete April 4th LA Times article on Muller.
64.27.194.74 (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Not by or really about Muller, and basically the same subject as the previous one.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * An excerpt ...
 * Need more? 99.181.135.177 (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's quoting Muller, it's not about Muller. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a quote from the LA Times, not a quote from Muller. 99.181.140.195 (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the LA Times quoting Muller without giving any indication whether the statements are accurate, or even notable, depending on the placement of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding "see related", note move to Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 15 of Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Archive_15 99.181.133.183 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is that relevant? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Not all editors are writing to you Art ... Regarding "see related", note move to Talk:Tea Party movement/Archive 15 of Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Archive_15#Add_Opposition_ ... 99.109.127.11 (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're repeating yourself, without answering the question. Why is that relevant to this discussion, or this article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To whom are you attempting to communicate, Art? 99.181.131.237 (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.  99.112.212.240 (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Muller isn't mentioned in that article. What have you in mind?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See above, please. 99.56.123.175 (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a link, yes. Why does it support inclusion?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be David H. Koch (Executive VP, & 42% owner) and his brother Charles G. Koch, the Chairman / CEO and 42% owner of Koch Industries. 99.181.134.238 (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're still not answering the question. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What question are you asking and to whom, Art? 99.109.124.5 (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is any of this relevant to this article? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Undelete Scientific American reprint of 2011 Muller interview.
64.27.194.74 (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The SciAm online version is currently accessible http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=i-stick-to-science 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This one is almost plausible. I'd lean toward allowing it if the other references repeatedly added by the anon are permanently removed from consideration.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Conditional? 99.181.134.19 (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No response from Mr. Rubin in ten days ... 19:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.188 (talk)
 * It's Dr. Rubin, and it's your move. Entirely excise the non-notable articles about an organization Mr. Muller and Mr. Koch are somewhat involved with from Wikipedia, and withdraw and cease your attempts to add them, and I'll add this one.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, well ... I'll drop the politeness of Mr. then ... See PEACOCK. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Others call Special:Contributions/Arthur_Rubin "Art". 20:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.188 (talk)

Of interest? Views on the Assigned Hearing Charter (Lesson 9)
Views on the Assigned Hearing Charter (Lesson 9) by Stephen Richard Kubick on July 14, 2011, on Pennsylvania State University website ... excerpt:    Note: presumably David R. Montgomery, other wikilinks assumed also. 99.181.156.173 (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest; List of climate skeptics, Global warming controversy, and Climate change denial wikilinks. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this in relation to the preceding comment, or a new section.
 * Not all of them, surely.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, the comment doesn't appear to have anything to do with you, Art. 99.181.135.177 (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nor you, nor this article. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you 97 & 99+. *<B-P  64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, 64, check out User talk:99.54.138.81 ... ! 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See User talk:99.19.41.7 ... 99.119.128.87 (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Why was this removed?
99.181.141.252 (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "startling Republican committee members" is not supported by the text of the article; I would have expected it to be the case, but the article makes no comment about it. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology ... 99.190.87.183 (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Results are in for Project Earth
Turns out they think the earth is warming too. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/10/climate-skeptics-perform-independent-analysis-finally-convinced-earth-is-getting-warmer.ars?comments=1#comments-bar. This may be relevant for the article. IRWolfie- (talk)

New York Times resource
Global Warming Indeed Under Way, Contrarian Panel Says October 20, 2011, 3:08 PM ... A team at the University of California Berkeley that set out to test the temperature data underlying the consensus on global warming has concluded that the mainstream estimate of the rise in the earth’s surface temperature since 1950 is indeed accurate. It has warmed about 1 degree Centigrade (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), the researchers say. The data sets and research papers are here, along with charts and a video. See http://www.berkeleyearth.org/

For related wikipedia discussion, see Talk:Global_warming

99.35.15.107 (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Political activities of the Koch family # regarding Richard A. Muller and Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature support also. 141.218.36.147 (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a good source, nice work.Beefcake6412 (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you IP Users! (",)  97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page: Richard A Muller revert
Sorry for the revert, but one can clearly see that Dr Muller contradicts himself when you compare what he says now to what he said in his own book "Physics for Future Presidents". Frotz (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry but your source just isn't reliable. Please also consult WP:OR and WP:SYNTH also. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't do the cross-checking myself, which is what I'm guessing triggered the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH references. That was done by Tom Blumer of Newsbusters.org at  Frotz (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry but is this source really just isn't reliable at all. is there a better more reliable source? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss your additions before adding them. You can not produce a synthesis of two sources to infer something. Also newsbusters is unreliable, this should not be used as a source. As an aside: his work was on the Hockey stick graph of which he was skeptical. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I updated the article to reflect what his skepticism was directed at from the sources (Hockey stick graph). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I synthesized nothing. I found an article that called out Muller on his skepticism which itself made an assertion and referred to an interview done in 2008 as evidence.  Please explain why Newsbusters is not reliable.  It seems to be reliable enough for other articles.  Why not this one?  Frotz (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It being in other articles is not an argument for its inclusion. It is a partisan source and not suitable. Reliable sources are required by WP:BLP. I suggest you read up on BLP and WP:RELIABLE. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding BLP, nothing in my addition or the cited articles makes specious or frivolous assertions. Nothing is said without proof.  There is no way this could be considered libel or slander.  Regarding WP:RELIABLE, the only contentious point I can detect is the section on "Questionable Sources".  Let's go over this section's cautions:  1) "Poor reputation for checking facts" -- questionable.  The cited article points to another article in which Muller contradicted himself.  2) "No editorial oversight." -- questionable.  What sort of oversight would be required here?  3) "websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinion" -- inapplicable.  While Newsbusters is admittedly conservative, it's hardy extreme, nor is the article extreme.  No rumors are passed along nor personal opinions made.  A contradiction was found and evidence presented.  Please explain why in light of these facts, Newsbusters remains an unreliable source.  Frotz (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you still think newsbusters is a reliable source to say Richard Muller was pretending to be skeptical then I suggest you take it to WP:RSN. Newsbusters is a partisan website with an agenda and the source you are using is a blog. This makes it unsuitable. Due weight has not been shown either. Also answer this; why is a blog on a conservative politics website discussing climate change? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and posted it at WP:RSN. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They agree with my original evaluation. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not counting you, I count two "unreliable"s and one that seems to go both ways. It's been barely a day.  Let's see who else chimes in.  Frotz (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the skepticism category from the article, we don't have anything in the article that gives weight to him being skeptical about anything. His past issues with the Hockey stick graph doesn't mean he is skeptical about global warming. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

resource The Atlantic
Richard Muller "Brave Thinkers 2011: November 2011" by Kenneth Brower "A scientist, suspicious of manipulated climate-change data, bucks expectations and presents the evidence for man-made global warming.", page 60 in print. Excerpt ...

Also see funding of partisans in "climate change controversy". 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The second quote is absolutely unusable even if an accurate quote and true, because it's misleading. The Bill Gates Foundation funds a larger part of the project than Koch's foundations, and Koch brothers is a clear WP:EGG.  I have little opinion on the first and third quotes.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

/* Hockey stick graph controversy */
The following statement is what inspired me to edit this section. In October 2011, Muller changes his position on the Hockey stick graph in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal....

That statement is demonstrably false. The hockey stick controversy involves the proxy record for temperatures before the modern instrument era. The op-ed in the Wall Street Journal concerns his work on the BEST project, which is only concerned with verifying the modern temperature record and does not delve into the proxy record whatsoever. Nowhere in the article does he state that he has "changed his position" on the hockey stick. The changes I have made are direct quotes that come from Richard Muller, from the source already cited concerning his criticism of the hockey stick. Cardin Drake (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Taking on the climate
There's an interesting two page interview with Muller in the April 2012 issue of Physics World. As the title suggests it is centered on his recent climate work and commentary, though about half of it is general. Sadly I don't think there's a copy online. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Add BBC reference
108.195.136.231 (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Richard Muller: Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humans 30.July.2012

Why was Criticism removed?
64.109.54.142 (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Muller and Associates?
Website linked to appears to be a law firm and not an energy consulting business. No other source is given. This link and the relevant text from the article should be fixed or removed. Maybe a historical version was more accurate? Or maybe Muller and Associates has changed its business... I do not know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jraudhi (talk • contribs) 13:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right: he links to that website from his other webpages but clearly it isn't his any more, so I have deleted the link from the article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Still a professor?
Re "professor of physics": He is retired. Is he still a professor? Shouldn't it be "former professor of physics"?

--Mortense (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * He's an emeritus professor, and I have updated the article to say that. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Climate change
The climate change is a hodgepodge of unconnected information. After reading it, I first thought that Muller had been convinced by McIntyre and McKitrick (section "Hockey stick graph") and then changed his mind and accepted the consensus (section "Berkeley Earth"). But then I noticed that the sources for the second section are actually older than the ones for the first one, which would mean that the second section is obsolete.

That said, the Hockey stick section is too detailed, and a mainstream view on McIntyre and McKitrick is needed. The "Criticism" section on this Talk page complains about exactly that being deleted, so I will reinstate it and exchange the sections. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * No, that's not it either. I tried to make the section clearer but failed. Still, too much detail on the Mc-Mc stuff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Roughly speaking, Muller was convinced that the McIntyre and McKitrick criticisms of the methods used to develop the original hockey stick were correct, and I don't think he has ever backed away from that. His Berkeley Earth project was about homogenisation of temperature records, and there he found (somewaht to his surprise) that his preferered methods generated a similar result to that from other groups. As far as I know he's never tried to do his own paleoclimate reconstructions from proxy data, and I'm not sure what his current position on that is: I assume he's either not stating a position or thimks that the hockey stick got the right result by the wrong method. But he has never clearly resiled from his original position that the Mann algorithm was seriously wrong. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)