Discussion > The Moral and Intellectual Poverty of Climate Alarm
We could have a daily entry here of new examples of the low standards of the promoters of CO2 panic and climate alarmism, but who has the time to do that?. Not me. But I like to chip-in as and when I can. Here's a couple of items that have particularly caught my attention recently:
(1) Wikipedia is known for leftwing bias, and hence is unreliable for any topic on which 'the left' are currently exercised. Climate agitation in certainly one such.
'In another disgusting indication of where climate science/debate is at today, a handful of Wikipedia editors have “voted” to delete the immensely useful and topical page: “List of Scientists who Disagree with the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming“'
See: https://electroverse.net/wikipedia-deletes/
Hat-tip: Tongue Tied
(2) A young victim turned promoter of the climate scare has had some insights into the nature of the people pushing the children's 'strikes':
'Climate science “largely manipulation and fraud”
He recognized “the nonsensical and anti-people content of the climate movement” and that the movement’s “climate science is largely manipulation and fraud”.
Movement based on “pure emotions and blind faith”
Radke also explains how he came to realize that the FFF activists in fact had very little knowledge about climate science itself and that “their fanaticism is largely based on pure emotions and blind faith” and “also based on fear-mongering”.
“The young people are told that they, their families and everyone they love will die if we don’t act immediately.”'
John Shade
Sheesh, I seem to remember not so long ago there was a whine about a list of dissenting scientists being a blacklist. In the form in which it was presented the wiki list was clearly in breach of the rule about synthesising information, so it had to go. I don't see a list of scientists opposing the consensus position on gravity, or evolution.
But nothing is ever truly deleted from the interweb, here it is. It does have a purpose; it demonstrates the poverty of talent on the opposition bench. The article lists 69 (living) people including an astronaut, but very few climate scientists and a lot of 'retired', 'former' and 'emeritus'. Out of tens of thousands of working climatologists.
Notable entries include Piers Corbyn (scientist?) and his secretive weather forecasting business, former celebrity botanist but now purveyor of junk science, David Bellamy, Ian Plimer, failed water-diviner Nils-Axel Morner, Jennifer Marohasy, the litigious Tim Ball, and secondhand-smoke-denier-turned-climate-denier Fred Singer.
I'd have thought you might want to keep some of those names quiet ;-)
Phil Clarke
I'd have thought you might want to keep some of those names quiet ;-)
Mar 12, 2020 at 3:20 PM Phil Clarke
Is that your logic for not supporting Hockey Teamsters and shonky science they have peer reviewed?
golf charlie
Hey Phil - Extinction Rebellion are purportedly looking for volunteers in Glasgow - are you up for it?
Fred
The litigious Tim Ball. I'm guessing you put that in to tweak our tails, but the irony is delicious.
Mark Hodgson
(a) The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming;
(b) The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996;
(c) The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and
(d) The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.
From the Calgary Herald Statement of Defence when Ball launched a $300k libel case against the paper. Faced with this truth bomb, Ball folded.
despite Dr. Ball’s history as an academic and a scientist, the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth,”“[T]he Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science.”
Justice Skolrood, ruling that Ball had not libelled Andrew Weaver, as no 'thoughtful and informed person' would be taken in by his 'indifference to the truth'.
But he still makes the list of top sceptics, apparently. Irony? Yep.
Phil Clarke
I was short of time yesterday so I left out Don Easterbrook, another key sceptical talent according to the wiki list. But I've now found the text of the letter his erstwhile colleagues at WWU wrote to the local paper after he addressed a Senate Committe, the original is deleted but here is said text:
COURTESY of the BELLINGHAM HERALDOn March 26, 2013, a long-retired faculty member of our department, Don Easterbrook, presented his opinions on human-caused global climate change to the Washington State Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee at the invitation of the committee chair Sen. Doug Ericksen, R.-Ferndale. 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. We also decry the injection of such poor quality science into the public discourse regarding important policy decisions for our state's future; the chair of the committee was presented with numerous options and opportunities to invite current experts to present the best-available science on this subject, and chose instead to, apparently, appeal to a narrow partisan element with his choice of speaker.
We concur with the vast consensus of the science community that recent global warming is very real, human greenhouse-gas emissions are the primary cause, and their environmental and economic impacts on our society will likely be severe if we don't make significant efforts to address the problem. Claims to the contrary fly in the face of an overwhelming body of rigorous scientific literature.
We intend no disrespect to Easterbrook personally. We appreciate his previous service to our department and to Western. His present appointment as emeritus professor was made in light of his long-standing history at WWU. But people of the state of Washington need to understand that Easterbrook's ideas on anthropogenic global warming have not passed through rigorous peer review in the scientific literature. Additionally, Easterbrook's claims in this forum and elsewhere require the existence of a broad, decades-long conspiracy amongst literally thousands of scientists to falsify climate data and to prevent publication of opposing research. This opinion demonstrates a profound rejection of the scientific process and the fundamental value of rigorous peer review, and is also simply wrong.
Science thrives on controversies; it rewards innovative, unexpected findings, but only when they are backed by rigorous, painstaking evidence and reasoning. Without such standards, science would be ineffective as a tool to improve our society. It is worth acknowledging that nearly every technological advance in modern society is a direct result of that same scientific method (think the Internet, airplanes, antibiotics, and even your smartphone).
Easterbrook's views, as exemplified by his Senate presentation, are a stark contrast to that standard; they 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. For example, 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.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
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.
Phil Clarke
'Yes, we certainly do not disrespect Don Easterbrook but we disrespect all of his views'.
'As a result we anticipate much funding from Big Green'.
On this showing, I disrespect the Geology Department of Western Washington University.
AK
Mar 13, 2020 at 9:05 AM Phil Clarke
Do you consider Michael Mann's dismal track record in the Courts as damaging to Climate Science?
golf charlie
Easterbrook regularly disrespects the simple truth
As he lied to a political body and named the University as his affiliation, the faculty would have been negligent to let his misinformation stand, in my view.
Kudos.
Phil Clarke
You have to laugh at the many links Mr Clarke has offered: to the eternal font of suspect facts, Wikipedia, often with the dread hand of Stoat evident in its presentation, to the ever-ad hominem Monbiot, and to a site whose sub-heading reveals is risibility: “KIDS' LIVES MATTER so let's stop climate change”. Surely, it would be better for your argument if you linked to papers, articles and references that were written with a semblance of objectivity, rather than in the language of playground cat-calling?
Radical Rodent
As he lied to a political body and named the University as his affiliation, the faculty would have been negligent to let his misinformation stand, in my view.
Kudos.
Mar 13, 2020 at 11:37 AM Phil Clarke
Mann should stop making false claims.
golf charlie
Would this be the Radical Rodent who linked to a 'global temperature' calculation completely devoid of methods or names? Who linked to a article containing a completely fake photo of 'Al Gore's Mansion and the lie that temperatures are at pre-1980s levels? Who linked to a list of bullet points that 'prove' GW is solar-driven even as Mike Lockwood, the solar expert they rely on, has published several papers saying there is no link?
I look forward to you pointing out the errors of fact or logic in anything I've posted or linked to, whether by Redfearn, Tamino, Monbiot or indeed me.
Phil Clarke
Surely, it would be better for your argument if you linked to papers, articles and references that were written with a semblance of objectivity, rather than in the language of playground cat-calling?
Mar 13, 2020 at 11:38 AM |
Radical Rodent
Oh – and then your link takes me to a character-assassination article of Mr Ridley by George Monbiot, commonly known as “Moonbat”. Gee…. Thanks… 🙄
Jan 4, 2020 at 4:01 PM |
Radical Rodent
LOL
Phil Clarke
So Phil, given that you're a contributory factor - do tell us what your position is wrt to the Climate Kamikaze movement ?
fred
Mr Clarke: interesting. You post a comment in a forlorn attempt to make me look as bad as the scientists with whom you seem proud to be associated with. Perhaps I should be flattered, but decline, as I make no claim to be a scientist, but do try to maintain some scientific objectivity, something that many of those you link to do not even attempt to do. Sadly, being human, even I am prone to failure.
Radical Rodent
As is usual, though, Mr Clarke, you are willing to perform your ad homs on me with a perverse vigour, yet utterly fail to address the information and arguments provided in the sites I have linked to, my linking being primarily not to crow about some coup de grâce on the debate but to start a discussion about the information and arguments contained, therein. You choose to avoid further discussion, and just indulge in ad hominems. Ho-hum…
I would like to discuss the information and arguments in the sites you link to, but most of them seem utterly devoid of information or arguments. Curious, that… 🙄
Radical Rodent
Projection? RR, your approach seems to be to Google vaguely contrarian articles and post a link, without performing a basic sanity check; the implication being that one should address the information and arguments provided in the sites I have linked to even when the information and arguments are obviously bogus. If an author is willing to post an obviously fake photograph, why spend time on the output of somebody capable of such dishonesty?
In response to 29 BULLET POINTS PROVING THE SUN CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING, NOT CO2:
I pointed out that the author was relying on data from solar astronomer Mike Lockwood, and I showed, with references to the literature, that Lockwood has demonstrated, repeatedly, that modern warming is not driven by the sun.
Here are the papers (again)
Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature
Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2009.0519
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspa.2007.1880
To me, these falsify the thesis of the article, or do I need to go through all 29 bullets?
OK, here's number 1:The IPCC has no geologists among the hundreds of authors of its last major report (2013-14) and at most 1 geologist in the next report. Thus IPCC focuses on only the last 150 years (since thermometer records began, ~1850), yet Earth is 30 million (sic) times older, 4.5 billion years! Geologists know that Earth has warmed and cooled throughout this time. Climate change is perfectly normal.
2 minutes searching turned up this guy who was an author on Chapter 6 of the 2013 report. I've little doubt there are more. Also the Paleoclimate chapter considers evidence from as far back as the Eocene.
Shall we see what some other Geologists say?
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.
So Bullet 1 is riddled with inaccuracies. I don’t believe going through the rest is a great use of my time - though a cursory glance reveals they are either inaccurate or irrelevant or both. Ditto the article with the fake photo.
BTW and just out of interest, can you furnish an example from an article deploying 'the language of playground cat-calling'? I was not aware I linked to any.
I would like to discuss the information and arguments in the sites you link to, but most of them seem utterly devoid of information or arguments. Curious, that…
Monbiot demonstrated that David Bellamy's letter to New Scientist claiming glaciers were increasing was junk science and that Bellamy had embraced 'the claims of an eccentric former architect, which are based on what appears to be a non-existent data set'. The piece lists 18 references including input from the World Glacier Monitoring Service. Tamino took apart, with data, references and graphs, Jennifer Morahasy's claim that the Australian BOM is bad-faith manipulating the surface temperature record. Gareth ('Hot Topic') eviscerated your friend Don Easterbrook's oft-repeated claims about the GISP2 Greenland ice core record, demonstrating that Don's 'present day' data actually date from 1855, which demolishes his argument. As did the entire Geology faculty of the University where Easterbrook is Prof Emeritus.
And so on and so forth.
Phil Clarke
So Phil's ignoring the moral poverty depravity of climate alarmism where XR's ‘Action Strategy Group’ are talking about hunger strikes at Glasgow COP.
C'mon Phil where the limit ? copping out eh?
fred
Lame. I am not part of XR, not do I condone their methods. Its possible to share a concern without agreeing on the solution.
I would never encourage anyone to put their own life at risk or the life of others, and nor would XR.
Phil Clarke
Phil
Of course I would not for one moment attribute any motives to you such as putting other people's lives at risk. I believe you are completely sincere.
However, I don't know how you can defend XR. They have put people's lives at risk to date (with their road blockades), and they believe (and actively push) the hype about e.g. the rising sea level claims that you are rightly sceptical about. XR don't know the meaning of "if", it seems to me.
Mark Hodgson
I suspect Fred has read this
It's by David Rose, a tabloid journalist with an intermittent record of getting things right. However, an XR spokesman is given the right to reply.
‘Yes, we, humanity, are in an extreme situation. Would Extinction Rebellion encourage people to engage in non-violent peaceful civil disobedience? Yes. Would Extinction Rebellion encourage anyone to put their own life at risk or the life of others? No.’
But I am really not interested in a discussion of the merits or otherwise of the probably-made-up intentions of this particular pressure group. Tedious.
Phil Clarke
Well, Mr Clarke, Lockwood is mentioned twice, once in each of Points 15 & 16 of Dr Higgs’ article; not sure that qualifies as basing the entire article on what Lockwood has written, though the information given does suggest that it is NOT contrary to Lockwood… but, hey, what do I know, eh? Let’s diss me, as it is so much easier than rational argument, eh?
Radical Rodent
It is not difficult RR. The article you linked, written by a petroleum geologist, claims recent global warming is due to changes in solar activity. It cites data from an authority on the topic, Professor Lockwood. That same expert has published papers showing that in recent decades all the metrics of solar activity that could influence climate have been trending in the opposite direction to the one that would support the claim.
The article also makes several demonstrably false claims, e.g. IPCC employed no geologists. It is, to be polite, bunkum.
Have you managed to find any actual examples of the 'playground cat-calling' language that you alleged, or did it just come to you in a dream?
Phil Clarke
Here is further demolition of the shockingly, but not surprisingly, poor NYT piece by Tabuchi (see my March 5 comment above): https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/07/smears-and-science-denial-from-the-new-york-times/
Not only are climate-alarmist scientist activists third-rate, but also their media mouthpieces. Future generations will look back in dismay at the losses to society encouraged by these people, and by their bare-faced effrontery.
Larry Kumner is also not impressed. He ends his post with these conclusions:
'Conclusions
Nothing in Tabuchi’s articles support her claims of “climate denial” by Goklany. Rather, her own evidence shows that the aspects of it she quotes are in the best tradition of the IPCC and general good practice by government reports – and that the objections she quotes are based on policy differences. This is a disgraceful example of modern journalism. The NYT should issue a full retraction. But they probably won’t because their objective is propaganda – not journalism. This is why 38% of Americans had confidence in newspapers back in 1983 but only 23% today.'
Thank goodness the Babylon Bee has displaced the NYT as America's newspaper of record.