Talk:Richard A. Muller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

ToP Dab needed, still?[edit]

Without addressing whether the other UC-Berkeley optics physicist Richard Muller needs a WP bio, note the similarities (emphasis added by Jerzyt):

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?[edit]

I think this would be a much better picture to use: —Preceding unsigned comment added by RevenDS (talkcontribs) 00:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature[edit]

Should certainly be mentioned prominently. MikeR613 (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Richard_A._Muller#Add_.22I_Stick_to_Science.22:_Why_Richard_A._Muller_wouldn.27t_tell_House_climate_skeptics_what_they_wanted_to_hear_by_Michael_D._Lemonick_May_25.2C_2011_Scientific_American below (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. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC).

Removal of Image[edit]

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)

A lesson with Richard Muller

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[edit]

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. (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Muller called Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth a pack of half-truths and asserted that measurements of global temperature rises are deeply flawed, insisting that many of those who warn of climate change have sold the public a bill of goods.

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). (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

For what purpose do you want to add it? Perhaps in An Inconvenient Truth#Reviews? — 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. (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The SciAm link is on again off again, but here it is from Joseph J. Romm's (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Example excerpts:

More recently, Muller called Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth a pack of half-truths and asserted that measurements of global temperature rises are deeply flawed, insisting that many of those who warn of climate change have sold the public a bill of goods. Although he is convinced that climate change is real, potentially dangerous and probably caused in part by humans, he has taken climate scientists to task for ignoring criticisms by outsiders, including meteorologist Anthony Watts of the Watts Up with That? blog and statistician Steve McIntyre of the Climate Audit blog. Along with several colleagues, Muller started the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project to rectify what he saw as the flaws in existing measurements of global warming.

How did the BEST project come about?

A colleague of mine drew my attention to some of the issues that were raised by Anthony Watts, who was showing that many of the stations that recorded temperature were poorly sited, that they were close to building and heat sources. I also separately learned of work done by Steve McIntyre up in Canada, who looked at the “hockey stick” data [the data behind a 1999 graph showing temperatures remaining more or less steady for 1,000 years, then rising sharply in the 20th century, like the blade of a hockey stick]. I reviewed the paper that the hockey stick was based on, and I became very uncomfortable. I felt that the paper didn’t support the chart enough. A few years later, McIntyre came out and, indeed, showed that the hockey-stick chart was in fact incorrect. It had been affected by a very serious bug in the way scientists calculated their principal components. So I was glad that I had done that.

Given the favorable things you’ve said about climate science critics such as Watts and McIntyre, do you think you were called to testify because Committee Chair Ralph M. Hall thought you’d come down against the mainstream consensus?

Before my testimony, there were news articles in prominent newspapers already claiming that I had a bias, that I had an agenda. I don’t know where they got this from. Well, I can guess. I think they were predicting what I was going to say in the hopes of discounting it when it came out. I’m not even going to guess at the Republican committee chair’s motivations. Having testified before Congress, I have a sense that most members of Congress are serious, that they are thoughtful, that if they have a point of view that disagrees with what you call the mainstream, it’s because there have been legitimate skeptics who have raised real issues that have not necessarily been answered. I don’t care whether I’m speaking to a Republican or a Democrat; science is nonpartisan. And I believe that my refuge is sticking to the science. I have no agenda. I have no political reasons for saying one thing or the other. I stick to the science. I think that’s what I’m good at. And if I say something that’s surprising, that’s good. That adds to the discussion.

Do you consider yourself a climate skeptic?

No—not in the way that the term is used. I consider myself properly skeptical in the way every scientist would be. But people use the term “skeptic,” and unfortunately, they mix it in with the term “denier.” Now, there are climate deniers. I won’t name them, but people know who they are. These are people who pay no attention to the science but just cherry-pick the data that were incorrectly presented and say there’s no there there.

I include among the skeptics people such as Watts and McIntyre, who are doing, in my opinion, a great service to the community by asking questions that are legitimate, doing a great deal of work in and out—that is something that is part of the scientific process.

Also see Climate change policy of the United States and Global warming controversy (with Media coverage of climate change). (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


Add (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 (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Was this intended to go in the section above? (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I got a 404 from too ... maybe it moved, or unavailable currently? (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 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). (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
See John Christy. (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Is this the testimony (browser problems)? (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink "inner solar system" (in contrast with more general solar system)[edit]

Wikilink "inner solar system" (in contrast with more general solar system). (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.[edit],0,2472031.story "'Berkeley scientists' climate data review puts them at center of national debate: The head of the study, a longtime critic of the global warming consensus, will testify before a House panel. Leading climate scientists worry that the project, funded in part by an oil billionaire's foundation, has an agenda.]"; note, see Political activities of the Koch family for oil billionaires Koch family, March 31, 2011. (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 ... (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Undelete April 4th LA Times article on Muller.[edit]

Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming: A UC Berkeley team's preliminary findings in a review of temperature data confirm global warming studies, see related Talk:Tea Party movement and fossil fuel industry financers April 4, 2011 (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 ...

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated. But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups." The hearing was called by GOP leaders of the House Science & Technology committee, who have expressed doubts about the integrity of climate science. It was one of several inquiries in recent weeks as the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to curb planet-heating emissions from industrial plants and motor vehicles have come under strenuous attack in Congress. Muller said his group was surprised by its findings, but he cautioned that the initial assessment is based on only 2% of the 1.6 billion measurements that will eventually be examined. The Berkeley project's biggest private backer, at $150,000, is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch are the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on the burning of fossil fuels, the largest contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases. The $620,000 project is also partly funded by the federal Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where Muller is a senior scientist. Muller said the Koch foundation and other contributors will have no influence over the results, which he plans to submit to peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Need more? (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. (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#Add_Opposition_to_a_nationwide_trading_system_to_curb_carbon_emission_was_a_successful_2010_political_platform_point_for_Tea_Party_groups_and_their_financers_in_fossil_fuel_industries..27 (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_ ... (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? (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
See Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. (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. (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. (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? (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.[edit] reprint of Scientific American interview (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The SciAm online version is currently accessible (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? (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 (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 Wikipedia:PEACOCK. (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 (talk)

Of interest? Views on the Assigned Hearing Charter (Lesson 9)[edit]

Views on the Assigned Hearing Charter (Lesson 9) by Stephen Richard Kubick on July 14, 2011, on Pennsylvania State University website ... excerpt:

Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, Mr. Peter Glaser, Dr. John Christy (see previous subsection in this wp Talk), Dr. Kerry Emanuel, and Dr. David Montgomery all disagree with the idea of a clear and verified increase in global climate temperatures [5][3][6][2][1]. Of the six witnesses, Dr. Richard Muller is the only one to not present a clear position going into the hearing, either for or against taking action on climate change [4]. I was not able to find the full transcript of this hearing, but it is important to note that Dr. Muller's testimony is not summarized in the chairman's press release on the hearing, along with that of Dr. Emanuel and Dr. Armstrong [7]. I can understand why Chairman Hall would be inclined to accept testimony from those skeptical of climate change, but I also feel that it would have given the hearing more credibility to include witnesses who are more accepting of this scientific area of great concern. ...

Note: presumably David R. Montgomery, other wikilinks assumed also. (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggest; List of climate skeptics, Global warming controversy, and Climate change denial wikilinks. (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. Is this in relation to the preceding comment, or a new section.
  2. 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. (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 (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey, 64, check out User talk: ... ! (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
See User talk: ... (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Why was this removed?[edit]

In March, 2011, he testified to the U.S. House Science, Space and Technology Committee that preliminary data confirmed an overall warming trend, startling Republican committee members who had invited him and expected to hear the opposite conclusion.[1] (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 ... (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Results are in for Project Earth[edit]

Turns out they think the earth is warming too. This may be relevant for the article. IRWolfie- (talk)

New York Times resource[edit]

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

For related wikipedia discussion, see Talk:Global_warming#New_study_.28from_BEST.29_confirms_warming_trend (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. (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! (",) (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page: Richard A Muller revert[edit]

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 at [1] 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. [2] 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[edit]

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 ...

Before he leaned into a congressional microphone in March of this year, Richard Muller was drawing fire from one side of the climate-change debate. Afterward, he was drawing fire from the other.

Muller’s project is funded in part by the foundation of one of the oil-billionaire Koch brothers, and his invitation to testify this spring before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology was orchestrated by Republicans.

In his testimony, he cited data indicating that the Earth had warmed 0.7 degree Celsius since 1957, with man-caused warming contributing 0.6 degree C.

Also see funding of partisans in "climate change controversy". (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 [[Political activities of the Koch family|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 */[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit] (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Why was Criticism removed?[edit]

William Connolley called Muller's BEST study rubbish, saying they hadn't added any knowledge to what had been done before.[2][3]

Michael Mann stated Muller’s BEST essentially confirmed results from existing studies, adding little new to our state of knowledge.[4] (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)