PDA

View Full Version : Climate Deniers take note



BlasterBates
7th December 2013, 11:59
Here is an educational video to put Globale Warming deniers back on the right track.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Uif1NwcUgMU

RetSet
7th December 2013, 22:01
Here is an educational video to put Globale Warming deniers back on the right track.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Uif1NwcUgMU

We don't deny Climate Change.

We simply question the proportion that is anthropogenic, and hence how much of it we can prevent in future.

scooterscot
7th December 2013, 22:51
Here is an educational video to put Globale Warming deniers back on the right track.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Uif1NwcUgMU

Why does the graph in this video focus several millennia ago to a point in time when the human species were few and far between?

Why does the video ignore the population of the planet at the present time and how it might cope in a much warmer climate? And with all the weather phenomena that might bring?

SpontaneousOrder
8th December 2013, 00:05
When I was at school they taught us how we'd just got out of a mini ice-age, from about late 1600's. So higher temperatures don't surprise me, and raised CO2 levels would be expected from the warmer oceans since exiting that mini ice-age, given a lag.

I don't read much too much on the topic, but not one single pro-anthropogenic GW article I've read ever said: "We've just exited a mini ice-age, but this is different because...". It feels like history has been rewritten.

SpontaneousOrder
8th December 2013, 00:10
Why does the graph in this video focus several millennia ago to a point in time when the human species were few and far between?

Why does the video ignore the population of the planet at the present time and how it might cope in a much warmer climate? And with all the weather phenomena that might bring?

I might have misunderstood - wasn't the point of the video to show that temps fluctuated wildly, and were higher, back way before human beings could have been responsible?

scooterscot
8th December 2013, 00:17
I'm not part of the 'who done it group', I'm more 'what are we going to do about it' group.

Clearly increases in temperature are affecting weather, coupled with a much larger population, we're not IMO going to transition to warmer climes without payment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

SpontaneousOrder
8th December 2013, 00:42
I'm not part of the 'who done it group', I'm more 'what are we going to do about it' group...


I don't think you'd like George's answer!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

scooterscot
8th December 2013, 00:47
We'll excise me if I've not resigned myself for extinction!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

SpontaneousOrder
8th December 2013, 00:52
We'll excise me if I've not resigned myself for extinction!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)


Off topic (ish), but I do find that an interesting idea to think about. Of course I personally want to prosper, but do I really care whether the human race lasts 'forever' (whatever that means)? And should I?

I'm not sure that I know the answer to either.

scooterscot
8th December 2013, 01:00
It matters not, we're insignificant as far as the universe is concerned. In fact the age of man is not a pin prick in the length of time the universe has been in existence.

Do we matter? Is life with meaning more than behavioral value? For me 'Meaning' is not a prerequisite of living, but understanding what we could become is everything, I for one would like to be a part of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Zero Liability
8th December 2013, 02:16
We don't deny Climate Change.

We simply question the proportion that is anthropogenic, and hence how much of it we can prevent in future.

FTFY

But yes, that is exactly right. It's a pretty heated debate based on very complex science that is dumbed down to serve political agendas and fill the coffers of corporations that have gotten on board with it. I enjoyed Bob Carter's Climate: The Counter Consensus on this, as he documents a lot of the political and media corruption that has become endemic to the debate. The book is pretty interesting as he puts a lot of the science in perspective, but I say this as a lay-person.

The AGW hypothesis, which is highly specific in nature, and the platitude of "climate change" are not equivalent. And even if you accept the former of the two, you can still question a lot of the policies proposed to "counter" it, particularly if it is not unequivocally bad (from our POV as a species.)

I am more concerned about whether we, as a species, will push back the disease known as ageing and continue building our wealth and therefore our means to control our environment, than horror stories spun out of computer models, which are hardly unprecedented in recent history.

GB9
8th December 2013, 23:34
It matters not, we're insignificant as far as the universe is concerned. In fact the age of man is not a pin prick in the length of time the universe has been in existence.
Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

WSSS

Its getting warmer. We didn't do it, although we do pollute.

It was a damn sight warmer when the dinosaurs were about. Were they to blame?

Paddy
9th December 2013, 06:39
WSSS

Its getting warmer. We didn't do it, although we do pollute.

It was a damn sight warmer when the dinosaurs were about. Were they to blame?

Proof of media brainwashing at its best….


From the corporate prospective. My company is successful, I have made huge profits but we have polluted so you should pay to clean up your mess.

and

From the corporate prospective. My company is successful in drilling for oil in Johnny foreigner land, I have made huge profits but we have trouble with Johnny foreigner so you should pay to for the Army out of your taxes. I can't afford to because my company is based in Panama.

DodgyAgent
9th December 2013, 11:59
FTFY

But yes, that is exactly right. It's a pretty heated debate based on very complex science that is dumbed down to serve political agendas and fill the coffers of corporations that have gotten on board with it. I enjoyed Bob Carter's Climate: The Counter Consensus on this, as he documents a lot of the political and media corruption that has become endemic to the debate. The book is pretty interesting as he puts a lot of the science in perspective, but I say this as a lay-person.

The AGW hypothesis, which is highly specific in nature, and the platitude of "climate change" are not equivalent. And even if you accept the former of the two, you can still question a lot of the policies proposed to "counter" it, particularly if it is not unequivocally bad (from our POV as a species.)

I am more concerned about whether we, as a species, will push back the disease known as ageing and continue building our wealth and therefore our means to control our environment, than horror stories spun out of computer models, which are hardly unprecedented in recent history.

Aubrey de Grey: A roadmap to end aging | Video on TED.com (http://www.ted.com/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html)

He looks just like an IT contractor :laugh

pjclarke
9th December 2013, 12:28
Click (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jStvNO1dxsI)

Apparently splicing a gaph of absolute temperature reconstructions from one spot on the Antarctic that ends in the late 1900s to a graph of recent global temperature anomalies is the way to go.

So the authors of the graph must believe the current global temperature is around minus 33C.

Blaster will now explain the difference between an anomaly and an absolute temperature value for us ... :ohwell

BlasterBates
9th December 2013, 13:08
Click (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jStvNO1dxsI)

Apparently splicing a gaph of absolute temperature reconstructions from one spot on the Antarctic that ends in the late 1900s to a graph of recent global temperature anomalies is the way to go.

So the authors of the graph must believe the current global temperature is around minus 33C.

Blaster will now explain the difference between an anomaly and an absolute temperature value for us ... :ohwell

Greenland actually

You need to brush up on your Geography. You can check out Prof. Easterbrook's website, he's a glaciologist, a professor you know.

Oh I forgot you believe that blogger who works as an assistant in a Hardware store :laugh

pjclarke
9th December 2013, 13:52
Ooops. Didn't think it was worth that much attention to detail, being BS from start to finish. I stand corrected,...

Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus, long-retired, if we're being a stickler, here is what his (still practising and publishing) colleagues have to say (http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/03/31/2943649/wwu-faculty-find-overwhelming.html#storylink=cpy)..


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.


Ooops again. If you’re going to argue from authority, its usually best to ensure your authority has some.

DodgyAgent
9th December 2013, 13:54
Ooops. Didn't think it was worth that much attention to detail, being BS from start to finish. I stand corrected,...

Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus, long-retired, if we're being a stickler, here is what his (still practising and publishing) colleagues have to say (http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/03/31/2943649/wwu-faculty-find-overwhelming.html#storylink=cpy)..



Ooops again. If you’re going to argue from authority, its usually best to ensure your authority has some.

The age old trick of trashing the source. this time it is just because the author has retired. I presume when you mean "authority" you mean someone with a vested interest in the problem existing (whereas not interested in solving the problem)

DodgyAgent
9th December 2013, 14:13
This is the product that could de pollute the oceans and removes excess CO2 from the atmosphere. Apparently the climate change and conservation industry hate it and will have nothing to do with it. According to two companies that sell solutions to pollution problems no one will even look at it:

..:: Welcome to Nualgi ::.. (http://www.nualgi.com/product.html)

They have now thought up a neat way of stopping it altogether:

IMO | Marine geoengineering including ocean fertilization to be regulated under amendments to international treaty (http://www.imo.org/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/45-marine-geoengieneering.aspx)

Ban anything from being put into the ocean (except of course they are still allowing agricutural run off and traditional pollutants to continue)

pjclarke
9th December 2013, 14:13
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming).

DodgyAgent
9th December 2013, 14:20
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming).

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
9th December 2013, 14:35
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
9th December 2013, 14:40
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
9th December 2013, 15:22
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
9th December 2013, 15:32
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
9th December 2013, 15:37
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? :happy

Old Greg
9th December 2013, 15:41
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
9th December 2013, 15:48
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/ (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/05/02/a-225-year-reconstruction-of-greenland-ice-melt/)

pjclarke
9th December 2013, 15:57
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 (http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/03/31/2943649/wwu-faculty-find-overwhelming.html#storylink=cpy) 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.:wink

Old Greg
9th December 2013, 15:57
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.

DodgyAgent
9th December 2013, 16:28
[QUOTE=pjclarke;1854120]


Academics are not that well paid but pretty sure none of them moonlights behind a counter.:wink[/QUOTE

They are not well paid but from a personal political point of view they make a name for themselves if they are working on such a critical subject. Take climate change away from them they will simply disappear into conducting research on hazards of smoking.

There is a considerable clique of conference circuit :winker: who make a reputation for themselves from writing books and talking. The planet would be a far better place if these people were gainfully employed picking strawberries.

EternalOptimist
9th December 2013, 16:33
Genuine question, BB. You raised Easterbrook. What do you make of the critique summarised by pj?

PJ likes to have an authority. The same way a religion has a pope.

The ultimate authority in climate science is the data. And the data says it hasnt warmed since before my kids were born

pjclarke
9th December 2013, 16:42
You should never confuse temperature with heat ...

Global Warming at 4 Hiroshima Atomic Bombs Per Second (http://4hiroshimas.com/)

EternalOptimist
9th December 2013, 16:45
using hype and frightening the children is never a good idea. especially at Christmas

pjclarke
9th December 2013, 17:21
Ah, but just suppose that the mainstream, peer-reviewed, consensus scientific view turns out to be correct:-


Abstract: We assess climate impacts of global warming
using ongoing observations and paleoclimate data. We
use Earth’s measured energy imbalance, paleoclimate
data, and simple representations of the global carbon
cycle and temperature to define emission reductions
needed to stabilize climate and avoid potentially disastrous
impacts on today’s young people, future generations,
and nature. A cumulative industrial-era limit of
,500 GtC fossil fuel emissions and 100 GtC storage in the
biosphere and soil would keep climate close to the
Holocene range to which humanity and other species are
adapted. Cumulative emissions of ,1000 GtC, sometimes
associated with 2uC global warming, would spur ‘‘slow’’
feedbacks and eventual warming of 3–4uC with disastrous
consequences. Rapid emissions reduction is required to
restore Earth’s energy balance and avoid ocean heat
uptake that would practically guarantee irreversible
effects. Continuation of high fossil fuel emissions, given
current knowledge of the consequences, would be an act
of extraordinary witting intergenerational injustice. Responsible
policymaking requires a rising price on carbon
emissions that would preclude emissions from most
remaining coal and unconventional fossil fuels and phase
down emissions from conventional fossil fuels..


Source Hansen et al (2013). (http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjour nal.pone.0081648&representation=PDF)

and we sat on our hands (as the deniers and delayers apparently want us to). What would our children make of us then?

DodgyAgent
9th December 2013, 17:43
Ah, but just suppose that the mainstream, peer-reviewed, consensus scientific view turns out to be correct:-



Source Hansen et al (2013). (http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjour nal.pone.0081648&representation=PDF)

and we sat on our hands (as the deniers and delayers apparently want us to). What would our children make of us then?

The age old tactic of the fanatic is to frighten people and to pretend to speak on the behalf of the most vulnerable. You are in good company here.

I think our children would rather we invest in science, conquering space, living to 1000 years of age than listen to zealots like you who wish to return the human race back to the era of the stoneage.
Japan has decided to stop spending money on trash like wind power and stopping people doing things. instead it is investing into new technologies to find new sources of energy.

EternalOptimist
9th December 2013, 17:48
Ah yes Hansen. the atmospheric expert who pointed out that Mars had a thin atmosphere containing 95% CO2 and was colder than a deep freezer
Venus has 97% CO2 in a thick atmosphere and is at 900f

proving with absolute clarity that atmospheric composition has nothing at all to do with temperature,
then concludes that temperature is determined by atmospheric composition

BlasterBates
9th December 2013, 18:08
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.

aha you mean the buffoons in the Geology dept

Rebuttal to the attack on Dr. Don Easterbrook | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/rebuttal-to-the-attack-on-dr-don-easterbrook/)

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.

pjclarke
9th December 2013, 19:03
In other words, you're going to ignore the questions posed by Old Greg and myself, and misdirect with one of your own.

During the medieval warm period, parts of the globe were as warm or warmer than today, unlike today other parts were colder. Greenland was in a geographical hotspot and so the Vikings made use of the ice free seas to colonise the island.

This is well known, but rather proves the point that Greenland cannot stand in for the whole world.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dYSZxZrVwa0/UqUEJW_R4KI/AAAAAAAAEUs/nNcQZJiE8Nw/s1600/Mann09MWP.png

from Mann et al (2009)

If you remember, Easterbrook's claim is that the world was warmer than today 'for 90% of the past 10,000 years.' so Greenland 1,000 years ago is not all that relevant...

Now, about that '1855=present day' fiasco?

doodab
9th December 2013, 20:00
The age old tactic of the fanatic is to frighten people and to pretend to speak on the behalf of the most vulnerable. You are in good company here.

Isn't this exactly what you do?


I think our children would rather we invest in science, conquering space, living to 1000 years of age than listen to zealots like you who wish to return the human race back to the era of the stoneage.
Japan has decided to stop spending money on trash like wind power and stopping people doing things. instead it is investing into new technologies to find new sources of energy.

Who is saying go back to the stone age? We aren't going to colonise space if we're dependent on oil for day to day life are we, cos most planets won't have any.

Old Greg
9th December 2013, 22:12
aha you mean the buffoons in the Geology dept

Rebuttal to the attack on Dr. Don Easterbrook | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/rebuttal-to-the-attack-on-dr-don-easterbrook/)

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
10th December 2013, 00:33
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
10th December 2013, 00:42
(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 (http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/).

pjclarke
10th December 2013, 01:35
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 (http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227)


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
10th December 2013, 11:16
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
10th December 2013, 12:03
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 (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6916.html) on this topic has this opinion (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/?_r=0:)


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 (http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/09/denier-don-gets-it-all-wrong-in-his.html)
HotWhopper: HotWhopper Fodder: Denier Don Easterbrook tells more lies, damned lies and statistics at WUWT (http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/hotwhopper-fodder-denier-don.html)
HotWhopper: More Denier Don's Deception at WUWT: Updated (http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/more-denier-don-confusion-at-wuwt.html)
http://hot-topic.co.nz/don-easterbrook-knowingly-misleads-washington-state-senate/
HotWhopper: Denier Don is Angry (http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/denier-don-is-angry.html)
Don Easterbrook (http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/2011/01/15/don-easterbrook%E2%80%99s-academic-dishonesty/)

Old Greg
10th December 2013, 14:07
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 (http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227)



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
10th December 2013, 14:23
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
10th December 2013, 14:45
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.).

http://i2.wp.com/hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GISP210klarge.png

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

The Central Scrutinizer
10th December 2013, 15:53
Can you buy them at M&S?