Climate Deniers take note

[DodgyAgent]

The 'retired' is a detail, he also happens to be completely wrong, as his more active erstwhile colleagues make clear.

Ad hominem is indeed a fallacy, however if you take an interest in the topic you soon notice that a pattern emerges ... there is such a preponderence of scientific evidence and opinion underpinning the proposal that AGW is a reality that those who wish to contradict it cherry-pick the one or two contrarian 'experts' who offer a different view. These often turn out to be elderley and long since retired from academic life. That of itself doesn't make them wrong, its the fact that they are wrong that makes them wrong.

So we have Easterbrook (born 1935) on the ice cores, Nils Morner (b.1938) on sea level, Bill Gray (b.1929) on hurricanes, Fred Singer (who'll deny anything if the money is right b.1924.). And so on. Plenty more examples in this short list.

People who are "denying" or "contradicting" climate change are not driven by scientific evidence. They/we are driven by people of your ilk and your wish to enrich yourselves politically and or materially. Most people who are deniers have the wit and intelligence to work out your self serving agenda. Your absolute views are not actually scientifically possible. The trouble is that you express them as if they are incontrovertable. This I am afraid is your weakness.

[pjclarke]

I have never made a penny out of climate change, and I find the politics dull. But I'd be interested in discovering in which way my views differ from the scientifically possible. Do tell me more ...

[DodgyAgent]

I have never made a penny out of climate change, and I find the politics dull. But I'd be interested in discovering in which way my views differ from the scientifically possible. Do tell me more ...

Show me where you have conceded a point.
When I said "political" I meant in terms of your own credibility and moral integrity. I would wager you enjoy the attention from having something (incontrovertible) to believe in that no one is going to question. Like being a priest (or used to be until the majority were proved to be paedophiles) people will stand up and take note of you (particularly as you are so "genned up" on being able to s"support" your subject.
I bet you thought you could come on here and get everyone to be "cowed" by your righteousness (you are not even a contractor). Instead the reverse has happened.
Your cause may be right if it is you have done it a disservice.

[BlasterBates]

I have never made a penny out of climate change, and I find the politics dull. But I'd be interested in discovering in which way my views differ from the scientifically possible. Do tell me more ...

Temperatures flat linig for 18 years?? Like NO GLOBAL WARMING for nearly two decades....just a thought.

[pjclarke]

Show me where you have conceded a point.

Erm, 13.52 today:

Ooops. Didn't think it was worth that much attention to detail, being BS from start to finish. I stand corrected...

When I've got something factually wrong, I try and correct it, even on something as ephemeral as CUK General, and if you check back you'll find that the majority of my posts on this are in response to more nonsense from the usual suspects rather than me starting threads to seek attention. I'm not under any illusions that any minds are going to be changed by this or any other blog format, nor should they, but if I wanted to discuss this online there are a hundred better other places to do so.

I cannot prove I am a contractor, any more than anyone else here can, but why do you say I'm not? Go on, ask me a question about Data Warehousing, ETL, IBM Datastage, PL/SQL, C++ ;-)

[DodgyAgent]

Erm, 13.52 today:



When I've got something factually wrong, I try and correct it, even on something as ephemeral as CUK General, and if you check back you'll find that the majority of my posts on this are in response to more nonsense from the usual suspects rather than me starting threads to seek attention. I'm not under any illusions that any minds are going to be changed by this or any other blog format, nor should they, but if I wanted to discuss this online there are a hundred better other places to do so.

I cannot prove I am a contractor, any more than anyone else here can, but why do you say I'm not? Go on, ask me a question about Data Warehousing, ETL, IBM Datastage, PL/SQL, C++ ;-)

Well done .. one point!. Bear in mind I am an agent. here goes.
What were the names of your last two project managers and which companies do they work for?

[Old Greg]

Temperatures flat linig for 18 years?? Like NO GLOBAL WARMING for nearly two decades....just a thought.

Genuine question, BB. You raised Easterbrook. What do you make of the critique summarised by pj?

[BlasterBates]

Genuine question, BB. You raised Easterbrook. What do you make of the critique summarised by pj?

The criticism is based on a blog from a guy who works in a shop, who knows better than a professor of Glaciology-

His argument is this.

"He's a liar"

Not sure that can be taken too seriously really.

Look at the graph in this posting and you can see the temps in 2000 were roughly where they were in 1780.

http://http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/05/02/a-225-year-reconstruction-of-greenland-ice-melt/

[pjclarke]

Temperatures flat linig for 18 years?? Like NO GLOBAL WARMING for nearly two decades....

There are five agencies who publish a global average temperature index, the US NOAA, NASA and the Climate Research Unit at The University of East Anglia use readings from weather stations, ships and buoys, while RSS and the University of Alabama use satellite readings of the lower atmosphere. None that I am aware of shows a zero trend for the last eighteen years, (although a zero trend is likely within the uncertainty interval for such a relatively short time series). Am I wrong there?

The rate has recently slowed below the long term trend, for sure, but then for the 15 years up until 2006 it ran at twice the expected trend. To smooth out the effect of natural variation you really need a longer time period....

The criticism is based on a blog from a guy who works in a shop, who knows better than a professor of Glaciology-

Funny, he was a Geologist this morning. Perhaps you could deal with the arguments, there's a lot wrong with Easterbrook's stuff, but the main points are:

- He represents 1855 - before the start of modern GW -as 'present day' and
- He represents a single proxy from a single ice core as valid for the whole globe.

The people making the critique are his ex-colleagues at Western Washington University. It was signed by:

Western Washington University WWU Geology Department faculty members who authored this column are Douglas H. Clark, who holds a doctorate in geology; Bernard A. Housen, who is the department chair and holds a doctorate in geophysics; Susan Debari, who holds a doctorate in geology; Colin B. Amos, who holds a doctorate in geology; Scott R. Linneman, who holds a doctorate in geology; Robert J. Mitchell, who holds doctorates in engineering and geology; David M. Hirsch, who holds a doctorate in geology; Jaqueline Caplan-Auerbach, who holds a doctorate in geophysics; Pete Stelling, who holds a doctorate in geology; Elizabeth R. Schermer, who holds a doctorate in geology; Christopher Suczek, who holds a doctorate in geology; and Scott Babcock, who holds a doctorate in geology.

Academics are not that well paid but pretty sure none of them moonlights behind a counter.

[Old Greg]

The criticism is based on a blog from a guy who works in a shop, who knows better than a professor of Glaciology-

His argument is this.

"He's a liar"

Not sure that can be taken too seriously really.

I meant this (or is this the guy in the shop or did you mean a different critique):

We, the active faculty of the Geology Department at Western Washington University, express our unanimous and significant concerns regarding the views espoused by Easterbrook, who holds a doctorate in geology; they are neither scientifically valid nor supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence on the topic [...] Easterbrook's views are filled with misrepresentations, misuse of data and repeated mixing of local vs. global records. Nearly every graphic in the hours-long presentation to the Senate was flawed, as was Easterbrook's discussion of them. […] more than 100 years of research in physics, chemistry, atmospheric science and oceanography has, via experiments, numerous physical observations and theoretic calculations, clearly demonstrate - and have communicated via the scientific literature - that carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas; its presence and variations in Earth's atmosphere have significant and measureable impacts on the surface temperature of our planet. Alternatively, you can take Easterbrook's word - not supported by any published science - that the concentration and effects of carbon dioxide are so small as to not matter a bit.

In a specific example, Easterbrook referred to a graph of temperatures from an ice core of the Greenland ice sheet to claim that global temperatures were warmer than present over most of the last 10,000 years. First, this record is of temperature from a single spot on Earth, central Greenland (thus it is not a "global record"). Second, and perhaps more importantly, Easterbrook's definition of "present temperature" in the graph is based on the most recent data point in that record, which is actually 1855, more than 150 years ago when the world was still in the depths of the Little Ice Age, and well before any hint of human-caused climate change.

As the active faculty of the Western Washington University Geology Department that he lists as his affiliation, we conclude that Easterbrook's presentation clearly does not represent the best-available science on this subject, and urge the Senate, our state government, and the citizens of Washington State to rely on rigorous peer-reviewed science rather than conspiracy-based ideas to steer their decisions on matters concerning our environment and economic future.