Climate Deniers take note

[Old Greg]

aha you mean the buffoons in the Geology dept

Rebuttal to the attack on Dr. Don Easterbrook | Watts Up With That?

Note that they're not all professors of Glaciology.

The question you need to ask yourself is if he's wrong, how did the Vikings farm in Greenland?

If you can answer that convincingly I'll believe them.

I really don't take as keen an interest in this as you and pj do, so I'm interested in your views:

1. Are they incorrect that Easterbrook is claiming that the data in central Greenland can be applied across the globe?
2. Are they correct that he is claiming this, but unfair in their claim that it is invalid?
3. (Most importantly, apparently) Are they incorrect that the most recent data point is 1855?

Apologies if mucho vino has left me even less coherent than usual but hopefully you get the drift.

[EternalOptimist]

Isn't this exactly what you do?



Who is saying go back to the stone age? ...

You need to pay more attention Doodab



Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."

Quote by emeritus professor Daniel Botkin: "The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."

Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."

Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21": "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."

Quote by Gus Hall, former leader of the Communist Party USA: "Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible."

Quote by Maurice Strong, a billionaire elitist, primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: “Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?”

[pjclarke]

(Most importantly, apparently) Are they incorrect that the most recent data point is 1855?

Nope, and this is perhaps the most egregrious error. Easterbrook uses an ice core record from Greenland, from which historic temperatures can be reconstructed, to argue that 'Most of the past 10,000 have been warmer than the present'. This only really works if the latest data point matches with the present, otherwise you would have to add an offset to allow for any change in the local temperature since the end of the proxy record. Easterbrook marks the end of his graph as '2000', near enough present day. However the data series ends at '95 BP' (Before Present), meaning that Easterbrook is using 1905 for his comparison. But it gets worse, by convention, in paleoclimate 'present' is defined as 1950, and so the last date in the series is indeed 1855, so the ice core can tell us nothing about modern global warming. It has warmed about 1.4C at the site of the ice core since 1855, moving Easterbrook's baseline to cater for this reveals his central claim to be BS. A good scientist would correct his error and apologise, deniers just turn up the volume ....

More here.

[pjclarke]

Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official:

That's an appallingly skewed mistranslation. Google has

"First time we've developed countries the atmosphere of the world community virtually expropriated. But one must say clearly: We distribute through climate policy de facto the world's wealth around. That the owners of coal and oil, which are not enthusiastic, is obvious. One has to free himself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has to do with environmental policy, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole, almost nothing."

«Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu»: Klimaschutz hat mit Umweltschutz kaum mehr etwas zu tun, sagt der Ökonom Ottmar Edenhofer. Der nächste Weltklimagipfel in Cancún sei eigentlich ein Wirtschaftsgipfel, bei dem es um die Verteilung der Ress

Quote by Club of Rome:

Restoring the parts snipped out:-

"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."

Quote by emeritus professor Daniel Botkin: "The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."

Out of context, actual sentence reads...

Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve.

Not the most honest quote in the world ... in fact the exact opposite of what Botkin was trying to communicate ...

Schneider has been similarly sub-edited by someone with an agenda

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister

Source please, I think that is probably two quotes taken out of context and stitched together.

Quote by Maurice Strong,

As quoted by Glenn Beck, right-wing TV presenter, himself quoting a remark Strong allegedly made to a reporter. Strong replied 'A particularly dishonest statement by long-time critic, Peter Foster, to his own editor, citing a fictional account which was clearly stated to be an extreme scenario of what might happen by the year 2030 if we failed to act.'

I could go on, but you get the idea, and of course no links are provided to sources so you cannot easily check. It's the same dishonest tactic thing used with the illicitly-obtained emails, take a few sentences out of context, twist, mistranslate, snip out the bits that don't suit the agenda and serve up on the web for useful fools to regurgitate unthinkingly, uncritically and certainly unsceptically.

Thin stuff.

[BlasterBates]

I really don't take as keen an interest in this as you and pj do, so I'm interested in your views:

1. Are they incorrect that Easterbrook is claiming that the data in central Greenland can be applied across the globe?
2. Are they correct that he is claiming this, but unfair in their claim that it is invalid?
3. (Most importantly, apparently) Are they incorrect that the most recent data point is 1855?

Apologies if mucho vino has left me even less coherent than usual but hopefully you get the drift.

1. Are they incorrect that Easterbrook is claiming that the data in central Greenland can be applied across the globe?

Easterbrook does point to other places where glaciers receeded , N.America and in Europe I think so warming wasn't just in Greenland.


2. Are they correct that he is claiming this, but unfair in their claim that it is invalid?
3. (Most importantly, apparently) Are they incorrect that the most recent data point is 1855?

Above his opponents argue Greenland was warm so actually they don't disagree with him on the fact that Greenland wasn't colder 1000 years ago, but try to attack him on "method" i.e. you can't determine temp from the newer ice, they say. Easterbrook says he did. There are samples of ice up into the 1980's and it has been analysed. So he would have access to data that he could have interpreted in his own way. I have seen papers analysing "other things" from recent ice.

[pjclarke]

No. He made a schoolboy error, which has been pointed out and for which he has not apologised.

Above his opponents argue Greenland was warm so actually they don't disagree with him on the fact that Greenland wasn't colder 1000 years ago, but try to attack him on "method" i.e. you can't determine temp from the newer ice, they say. Easterbrook says he did. There are samples of ice up into the 1980's and it has been analysed. So he would have access to data that he could have interpreted in his own way. I have seen papers analysing "other things" from recent ice.

Now you are re-writing history, in the absurd video that started this thread, Easterbrook unambiguously cited and totally misinterpreted the GISP2 dataset which unambiguously ends in 1855. There are good reasons for this, it takes decades for the snow layer to compact down into ice. Richard Alley, who curates the data and wrote the standard text on this topic has this opinion

So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible.

So that's the expert view, for background, here are some more of Don's views...

HotWhopper: Denier Don Easterbrook gets it all wrong in his absurd fairytale on WUWT
HotWhopper: HotWhopper Fodder: Denier Don Easterbrook tells more lies, damned lies and statistics at WUWT
HotWhopper: More Denier Don's Deception at WUWT: Updated
http://hot-topic.co.nz/don-easterbro...-state-senate/
HotWhopper: Denier Don is Angry
Don Easterbrook

[Old Greg]

That's an appallingly skewed mistranslation. Google has



«Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu»: Klimaschutz hat mit Umweltschutz kaum mehr etwas zu tun, sagt der Ökonom Ottmar Edenhofer. Der nächste Weltklimagipfel in Cancún sei eigentlich ein Wirtschaftsgipfel, bei dem es um die Verteilung der Ress



Restoring the parts snipped out:-






Out of context, actual sentence reads...



Not the most honest quote in the world ... in fact the exact opposite of what Botkin was trying to communicate ...

Schneider has been similarly sub-edited by someone with an agenda





Source please, I think that is probably two quotes taken out of context and stitched together.



As quoted by Glenn Beck, right-wing TV presenter, himself quoting a remark Strong allegedly made to a reporter. Strong replied 'A particularly dishonest statement by long-time critic, Peter Foster, to his own editor, citing a fictional account which was clearly stated to be an extreme scenario of what might happen by the year 2030 if we failed to act.'

I could go on, but you get the idea, and of course no links are provided to sources so you cannot easily check. It's the same dishonest tactic thing used with the illicitly-obtained emails, take a few sentences out of context, twist, mistranslate, snip out the bits that don't suit the agenda and serve up on the web for useful fools to regurgitate unthinkingly, uncritically and certainly unsceptically.

Thin stuff.

The pertinent question for EO is: who is looking to deceive and to what end? Also, to what extent have you now reexamined your views on the debate?

[BlasterBates]

So everyone agrees Easterbrook is wrong on Greenland temps and they weren't warmer 1000 years ago.

...oh hang on yes there was that point on farming on Greenland hmm how was that possible ?

"it was a hot spot " shout the AGW crowd,

so hang on they're not disagreeing then on his graph of Greenland

...and if it was a hot spot how do you explain receeding glaciers in North America and the Alps 1000 years ago?

I notice how pjclarke answers each point in an isolated way, but when you look at the arguments they contradict.

1. Greenland was a hot spot 1000 years ago
2. Easterbrook was wrong Greenland wasn't hot 1000 years ago

What does that you remind you of?

The bible?

[pjclarke]

Easterbrook was wrong Greenland wasn't hot 1000 years ago

Straw Man. Easterbrook was wrong because he interpreted the last data point in the time series, actually dated 1855 as 'present day' (and carried on doing so after the error had been pointed out). His claim based on his error was that the world has been warmer than today 90% of the last 10,000 years. Notwithstanding the fact that Greenland is not the globe, his dating error means his 'present day' was approx 1.4C too cold, and correcting it completely invalidates his argument (and the 'humourous ' video of the OP.).



That's why he's wrong. Not too difficult really, I'm not going to repeat it again.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Can you buy them at M&S?