Skeptical Science? John Cook – embarrassing himself

Another fall from grace.

From Sourcewatch:

John Cook, on his website Skeptical Science, states that “the usual suspects in natural climate change – solar variations, volcanoes, Milankovitch cycles – are all conspicuous in their absence over the past three decades of warming.

Let’s see:

Solar variations? New Scientist.

Volcanoes? Ever heard of Pinatubo’s temperature dip ? FYI June 15, 1991

Milankovitch Cycles? Ummm much longer time scale than three decades John.

Yet the smugness of believing you are somehow more knowledgeable and  better than others shows through loud and clear in this botched attempt at satire:

From the Skeptical Science “about” page:

About the author
Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Unless peer reviewed science is now accepting the ugly word “denier” in manuscripts, I’d say the “science” of this article shown above comes from John’s own opinionated disdain of people who have a different viewpoint on the science, and not any peer reviwed literature.

I at one time applauded John Cook for what I called “his scholarly demeanor”. Since he has clearly descended from that position (with his blog content from John Bruno), I now withdraw any such praise. – Anthony

Addendum: I should add that what is doubly insulting to me is that the author of the content on John Cook’s website, John Bruno, came up to me after my presentation in Brisbane, where he acted as compatriot to Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (which John Bruno runs the website “climateshifts” of) who made a fool of himself by abusing his rights as an audience member. Bruno told me how he respected my tone and my right to say it. He also said to me that I seemed “more open” than other people he’s talked to that are on the skeptical side.

John Bruno reiterated his moderate view of me in comments on that article:

Interesting post and comments. I am writing in to identify myself as the guy in the green shirt. (I am a prof of marine ecology at UNC Chapel Hill, NC, USA, http://www.brunolab.net).

Like I told Anthony, in person he was very calm and pleasant in his talk. A nice change. I don’t agree at all with his broader views about the patterns and causes of climate change, but I really got a kick out of his slide show of poorly (to put it lightly) placed weather stations. A very funny yet sad commentary on something-not sure what.

I am also a big supporter (and consumer) of the type of citizen-science that Anthony has been doing and promoting (and I don’t mean that in a critical way). A fair amount of the work I do relies on data from citizen volunteers that do coral reef surveys, e.g., ReefCheck.

Full comment at this link

And the kicker from the main article at SkepticalScience.com:

And yet, here he is today, calling me a “denier”. “…as respectfully as is done here at SkepticalScience” This is “respectfully”? I’d hate to see your “disrespectful” Mr. Cook and Mr. Bruno. – Anthony

About these ads

120 thoughts on “Skeptical Science? John Cook – embarrassing himself

  1. How about the predictions of the fraternal order of the AGW? Rising seas, receding antartic ice, overall increased tropical storm activity conspicuously absent. As is Man-Bear-Pig.

  2. Why even mention Skeptical Science? It’s a complete TURD of a site. The arguments presented there are equivalent to a 12 year old debating the existence of the easter bunny.

  3. Cook’s descent is a sad testimony to the damage that nonsense done in the name of climate science has done to the reputation of science and scientists as a whole.

  4. Volcanism causes cooling on short term timescales, as did the Pinatubo eruption. Warming from massive increases in volcanic activity (produciong CO2) over millenia are they way several natural warming episodes have occurred in the past. It is hardly incorrect to say this influence is absent over the last 3 decades.

    I could agree that his remark is poorly made with respect to Milankovich cycles as they are always occuring, but pointing out that they happen on geologic timescales is hardy a convincing rebuttal to the general point that they are not involved in current warming. Again, left on their own, Milankovich cycles would have us very gradually cooling over the next several tens of thousands of years.

    (The link to a solar connection was not very direct so I did not pursue it)

  5. He is just in a panic… too much recent revelation of credible reasons for doubting catastrophe…

  6. A couple of notes – first, the page you refer to on Skeptical Science, “2010 Climate Change Resource Roundup”, is a guest post; John Cook did not write that himself, although he’s hosting it. The tone is rather more flippant than what I’ve seen with Cook’s writing. Second, that particular page appears to be aimed as an ‘intro’ page for newer readers, with lots of pointers to various sub-topics and resources both on SS and elsewhere. It doesn’t call out the specific items you’re complaining about.

    Having read a number of the articles on Skeptical Science and elsewhere, in particular on solar variations, volcanoes, and Milankovitch Cycles – what Cook presents is that the solar intensity has been declining over the last 30 years of rising temps, volcanoes have an influence but have not shown a change correlating to temperature rises, and we’re in the wrong part of the Milankovitch Cycle to be warming now. So none of these climate changing elements match the current warming trend, except rising CO2.

  7. Anthony:
    Your blog is terrific; I look up and read and learn every day, and I thank you for that. But… I didn’t know John Cook. Why do you give other bloggers so much (negative) importance?

  8. Recycled WWF advertising. If Panda couldn’t get us to drink CAGW kool-aid maybe it can help sell cheese. LOL

  9. First, the denier post was by John B, not Cook. Second, when he claims on Source Watch that the three reasons for climate change are “absent”, his comment, which was “conspicuously” omitted from this post, explains:
    “This doesn’t mean by itself that carbon dioxide is the main cause of current global warming…but the primary causes of commonly cited climate change in the past have played little part in the current warming trend…Empirical observations show that carbon dioxide has a warming effect as a greenhouse gas, it is increasing in the atmosphere and the expected warming is occurring. Any alternative theory that found a different cause of global warming would also need to explain why the expected (and observed) warming from carbon dioxide has not eventuated.”

  10. If that unit he is teaching is called ‘from the equator to the poles’ why not just call it ‘the planet’?

    cheers David

  11. No, I think you’re embarrassing yourself actually.

    “Solar variations? New Scientist.”

    Not tenable as an explanation for the three decades of warming. Didn’t you know we’ve just had the deepest solar minimum for several decades?

    “Volcanoes? Ever heard of Pinatubo’s temperature dip ? FYI June 15, 1991″

    I’m sure he has. As you correctly point out, though, volcanoes tend to cause cooling, not warming.

    “Milankovitch Cycles? Ummm much longer time scale than three decades John.”

    I rather think that’s his point, don’t you?

  12. So this is him writing this stuff?

    “easily the most informative outlet for straightforward information on global climate change. It is also one of the best science blogs on the web.”

    “. . .helping to keep the (deniers*) skeptics in check. Or at least regularly pointing out the fallacies in (denier*) skeptic arguments (though not always as respectfully as is done here at SkepticalScience)”

    deniers* on the web site is with a strikethrough font

    Or did he pay someone else to write this? Questionable word usage abounds, such as “most informative”, “best”, “respectfully”, and his use of the strikethrough in “denier” that reveals his dark side.

    Besides, most of the web site seems like a “clip & save” service a really busy person might use for several newspapers whose editors are on his or her payroll – good for firing decisions but not much else.

  13. Funny stuff. They keep trying to lump us all together in one skeptical point of view. Their difficulty is that the CAGW climate change climate distruption theory is wrong on so many levels, they can’t argue on any front. The theory is wrong. The science is wrong. The data is wrong. The solution to the imaginary problem is wrong. The economics are wrong. And now, even the alarmists can’t keep up with the party line. The first line, “The availability of accurate, dependable, concise and clear information on anthropogenic climate change increases every year.”—— Yeh? So when NOAA says it needs $100,000,000 to fix their network, its because the data is already “accurate, dependable, concise and clear”? Or when it is stated, “While the organizers of the Exeter meeting are seeking to retain its leadership role in national and international assessments of the observed magnitude of global warming, it is clear that serious problems exist in using this data for this purpose.” Maybe that’s the clarity Mr. Cook is referring to. The lunatic fringe is unraveling.

  14. You should have paid more attention, Watts. The author of that article is John Bruno, an Associate Professor of Marine Ecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

    http://www.climateshifts.org/?page_id=3850

    REPLY: I’m aware of this, but as people routinely point out to me, I’m responsible for my own blog content. The fact that Cook allows this in any main post is the issue. I’ve made a note in parenthesis to make it a bit clearer – Anthony

  15. John Cook and his Skeptical Science blog do seem to be on that slippery slope into a kind of AGW solipcist echo chamber . . . . in other words it is them just talking to themselves and reality doesn’t exist outside their group.

    It already occured at RC and @ Romm’s place.

    John

  16. Alan,

    To show that chasing relevancy becomes to many Bloggers, the be-all-end-all of their online footprint. Many in these dying days of AGW doom-speak over actual environmentalism have engaged in even grander attempts for relevancy as their own readership falls away.

  17. As Dr. Spock might say, “Logically Captain, the intellectual prowess of anyone who would take seriously another who self-aggrandizes before presenting their case, is at best – suspect.”

  18. Atmospheric volcanism cools the planet, but underwater/ocean floor volcanism may add to the heat content of the deep ocean, and, ultimately to sea surface temperatures, and, in turn, atmospheric heat content.

    Yes, there are many dynamics of Earth’s climate that Man does not understand.

  19. “Milankovitch Cycles? Ummm much longer time scale than three decades John.”

    That is exactly John’s point. Milankovitch cycles can’t explain current warming. The same is true of volcanoes and solar changes. As the New Scietists said: “The findings do not suggest – as climate sceptics frequently do – that we can blame the rise of global temperatures since the early 20th century on the sun.”

    REPLY: And show me where any skeptic has said Milankovitch cycles are responsible for any climate change of the last 30 years, that’s my point. – Anthony

  20. I know John Cook and I think he knows me too…
    I noticed that my comments were frequently deleted on John’s Cook site.
    that is irritating, especially when you spent some time on it, thinking and writing…
    In the end I decided that it is no use arguing with people whose livelyhood depend on this whole agw theory being correct.
    He would not be able to understand a simple argument like the one I made recently on WUWT:

    I have a swimming pool, ca. 50 m2
    I filled it up to mark last week monday. Today, a week later (monday), I filled it up to mark again. I read the meter before and after filling up.
    I used 2.506 m3 (= 2506 liters) in one week. This is how much water evaporated in one week.
    Note the parameters where this result applies:
    no clouds, clear blue skies (for the whole week)
    max. temps during the day, 31 -34 degrees C
    the average water temp. in the pool was 25-26 degrees C

    Compare this with my patrol (gas) consumption. I use ca. 40 liters of patrol/ month.
    That is 10 liters in a week
    Do you understand now why I am saying that everyone in the agw crowd is barking up the wrong tree? (assuming there is something to bark about, i.e. that global warming is real and not part of a natural process)
    Now look at everywhere in the world (e.g India, China, USA, Europe) where they have dams and are busy building new dams. Surely, the implications of my simple result are enormous. (water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, if indeed CO2 is a greenhouse gas – which apparently has never been proven in actual tests)

    This is the type of comment that he (John Cook) would simply delete – because there is no agw theory or argument that can go against this.

  21. Glad to see you are keeping to your usual high standard of debate.

    A bit of quote mining (and I am unable to find the quote on skepticalscience.com, so can’t even be sure of its context was, if it is correctly attributed, or even if it was ever actually said) followed by erroneously attributing a John Bruno piece to John Cook.

    It is this basic inability to carry out simple fact checking that makes it easy to disbelieve anything you say. Further, the fact that your readers accept your word without checking themselves tells us much about their “skepticism”.

    REPLY: As I pointed out earlier, people regularly remind me that I’m responsible for my own blog content, the fact that Cook allows such things is the issue. Does he not look at his own publications? Your argument is a straw man, ignored the quality of the Skeptical Science website debate. He says peer review science shall make up the website, then we have “deniers” which is clearly not. – Anthony

  22. unlike WUWT, un-‘skeptical science’ deletes any comments that it considers to be ‘inflammatory” – i.e. anything seriously challenging their orthodoxy. I know from personal experience.

    for a great guide to debunking the arguments on his site, see Lubos Motl’s/The Reference Frame SPPI essay:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/John_Cook_Skeptical_Science.pdf

    and, of course, the Our Climate i-phone app right over there >>>>>>>>

  23. Re: dana1981 says:
    September 27, 2010 at 8:43 am

    You should have paid more attention, Watts. The author of that article is John Bruno, an Associate Professor of Marine Ecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

    http://www.climateshifts.org/?page_id=3850

    Not a single mention of John Bruno on the “2010 Climate Change Resource Roundup” page. But there is oodles of snark and links to snark. Such is the state of “climate science”.

  24. I find it amazing that not one commenter defending John Cook’s website takes issue with the use of the term “denier”. Such class.

    I’ve added an addendum to the post body, to illustrate why this article is doubly offensive to me.

  25. The site itself is, I’m afraid, just a nodding shop. You have people backing up what each other is saying as though they’re at a President’s birthday party. Any skeptic going there is treated with utter contempt; especially from one particular prolific commentator who goes by the name of Steele (can’t remember his first name). He must be the same guy (under a different name) who comments at realclimate. But I can’t wait for Ocean Heat Content to show no warming; then there will be a lot of apologies to Pielke Snr. What am I saying? Of course they won’t!

  26. About the NOAA state of the climate report for 2009,

    A local alarmist writes a weekly column in the paper and he cited the NOAA report as irrefutable evidence of warming (the scary graphs). I believe Anthony already posted a rebuttal of the shortened / press release / children’s coloring book version made for public consumption. Looking over the short and long versions of the report I found some flaws that as usual go unreported. Things like Snow cover dating back to 1920 when we know satellite data does not go back that far (no reference is cited in the report for that far back!). Other examples include measuring rainfall, humidity and cloud cover within the last 30 years and presenting that as evidence of warming when everyone admits 30 years or less is not significant on a climatological scale.

    Over all I found the NOAA 2009 state of the climate report to be a rather weak piece of evidence but most reporters and activists will never even read the full version or look at references used so this will likely go unreported. Meanwhile claims referring back to the report go unchallenged.

  27. Re: Kevin MacDonald says:
    September 27, 2010 at 9:18 am

    “It is this basic inability to carry out simple fact checking that makes it easy to disbelieve anything you say.”

    Oh, I see it now, posted anonymously as John B (down at the bottom). Perhaps you can answer this: What is the qualitative difference (besides unclear attribution) between John Bruno’s authorship on a blog he has access to and John Cook’s responsibility for what he allows to be posted there? Yawn. Methinks you doth protest too much.

  28. “And yet, here he is today, calling me a “denier”. – Anthony ”
    =========================================================

    Well, not just you, but rather anyone with a skeptical approach to climate change. (This is apparently our “Mecca”.) But hey, if one is going to be derisive and insulting, why not continue with the display of ignorance and expose the prejudices of the the author and host. And then why not complete the trifecta by marginalizing one of the most horrific events of mankind, the Holocaust.

    If anything, this confirms what I’ve often thought of the character of people advancing the CAGW theory.

  29. James Sexton says:
    September 27, 2010 at 10:03 am

    “And yet, here he is today, calling me a “denier”. – Anthony ”
    =========================================================

    Well, not just you, but rather anyone with a skeptical approach to climate change. (This is apparently our “Mecca”.) But hey, if one is going to be derisive and insulting, why not continue with the display of ignorance and expose the prejudices of the the author and host. And then why not complete the trifecta by marginalizing one of the most horrific events of mankind, the Holocaust.

    If anything, this confirms what I’ve often thought of the character of people advancing the CAGW theory.

    Precisely.

  30. @September 27, 2010 at 9:24 am
    Anthony Watts says:

    “I find it amazing that not one commenter defending John Cook’s website takes issue with the use of the term “denier”. Such class.”

    ____________________________________________________________

    A favourite saying of mine is “Call me anything you want; just don’t call me late for dinner.”

    I have noted in several of your posts that you take extreme offence to the term, Anthony. I dont’ however, as I do believe that I am a denier. I deny that it is clear that the climate is warming. I deny that it is likely human caused if it is occuring. I deny that that we should try to do anything about it. I deny that even if it were true that it is necessarily a bad thing.

    I am not a skeptic about these beliefs – although I do try to keep an open mind and review the counter belief of AGW. But I have little to make me skeptical of my denial. I prefer the term “climate realist” but despite the negative connotations of the word denier, it is actually fairly accurate and it thus doesnt bother me all that much.

    So you won’t get any comments from me about that. Keep posting the counter beliefs here because, as I have said in a previous post, I would rather see it here. I can’t stand wading through the trash to get at any useful stuff at popular AGW sites. I so much appreciate your site Anthony. My work environment immerses me in AGW Alarmism and your site allows me to tread water.

    [Reply: Denier/denialist is objectionable when it is used as a pejorative, comparing skeptics with Holocaust deniers. ~dbs, mod.]

  31. This guy called me a denier too. Being completely un-insulted, I will respond with another insult: Alarmists are deniers…deniers of science and truth. They believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus which is why they are so worried about the arctic ice.

    OK, I am done I think… Till next time when I have to tell my alarmist relatives once again why they are living with their heads stuck in the sand.

  32. I was going to Anthony was taking this a bit more personally than the quote at the top suggests, after all, it’s referring to debunkings of favorite denier “skeptic” arguments, i.e. arguments, not Anthony.

    However, the last paragraph is indeed sophomoric, insulting, and very much aimed at Anthony and everyone here. And if you want to take a glimpse at what passes for rational argument in the climate denial skeptic community, visit their mecca: Watts Up With That?

    Certainly doesn’t seem like a place to look for an even-handed counterpoint.

  33. and I am unable to find the quote on skepticalscience.com, so can’t even be sure of its context was, if it is correctly attributed, or even if it was ever actually said

    Probably because the Sourcewatch quote is a misquote – as a quick Google would have uncovered, the original is “all the usual suspects in natural climate change – volcanic activity, orbit wobbles, solar variations are conspicuous in their absence” – no explicit mention of Milankovitch cycles. If you want an example of a sceptic citing
    orbital variations as the cause of climate change, check out Ice Age Now, a site quoted here as recently as July.

    The link on solar cycles in New Scientist above actually goes to a piece in Nature on ocean cycles. I think it was intended to link to the subject of this post ?

    Cook says the the science on his site is peer-reviewed, the content derided above, is, as has been pointed out, not authored by Cook himself and is clearly presented as news/opinion rather than hard science. Bit of a straw man fest then, the meat seems to be that Cook allowed a guest poster to use the word ‘denier’.

    Ho hum.

  34. Anthony Watts says:
    September 27, 2010 at 9:24 am

    I find it amazing that not one commenter defending John Cook’s website takes issue with the use of the term “denier”. Such class.

    I’ve added an addendum to the post body, to illustrate why this article is doubly offensive to me.

    —————-

    Anthony,

    1) By your addendum, it looks to me that Mr Bruno is acting like an unscrupulous opportunist. I have seen firsthand similar cases where a person says one thing to somebody on a blog then turns around and says inconsistent and less positive things about that person on another blog. I find cases like that to be distasteful examples of ungentlemanly (unladylike) behavior.

    2) Regarding the use of stereotypes/names/labels – hey, with inadvertent exceptions of using skeptic and consensus sometimes, I have kept my promise that I made here at WUWT:

    John Whitman says:
    September 4, 2010 at 9:31 am

    My new JW self-imposed policy statement: I will no longer use the trite stereotyped fashionable empty-content terms:

    Luke-warmer

    Warmist

    Warmista

    Skeptic (sceptic for you British)

    Denier

    Consensus

    The list goes on ad museum.

    If you see me using any of them, please call me on it.

    John

    Anthony, thanks again for your wonderful venue.

    John

  35. When J Cook was asked, “What would you need to falsify AGW” he answered “physics”.
    He thinks the most dominant feedback factors like they clouds are now defined within physics to cause positive and only positive feedbacks, and yet no computer model can simulate clouds? The wide range for 2xCO2 by IPCC is from 1,5C to 6C and he calls that god darn P H Y S I C S?? I thought if it was defined by physics the answer to “how much global warming will we get by doubling of CO2″ would be excactly X, not “from propably X to Y IF there are no negative feedbacks..”.

    And that guy calls himself a “skeptic” and a “phycisist”. He is a cruel joke.

  36. “Unless peer reviewed science is now accepting the ugly word “denier” in manuscripts, I’d say the “science” of this article shown above comes from John’s own opinionated disdain of people who have a different viewpoint on the science, and not any peer reviwed literature.”

    How about “denialist” or “denialism”?
    Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?

    http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full

    [snip. Please don't cut and paste entire articles. The link is sufficient. ~dbs, mod.]

    REPLY: Or how about you simply say: “the use of the word is inappropriate, laden with innuendo, and condescending”. Unfortunately you won’t – Anthony

  37. Post says:
    “Unless peer reviewed science is now accepting the ugly word “denier” in manuscripts, I’d say the “science” of this article shown above comes from John’s own opinionated disdain of people who have a different viewpoint on the science, and not any peer reviwed literature.”

    Does this help?
    Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?

    Denialism is a process that employs some or all of five characteristic elements in a concerted way…
    … The first is the identification of conspiracies. When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes that something is true, it is argued that this is not because those scientists have independently studied the evidence and reached the same conclusion. It is because they have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. The peer review process is seen as a tool by which the conspirators suppress dissent, rather than as a means of weeding out papers and grant applications unsupported by evidence or lacking logical thought. The view of General Jack D Ripper that fluoridation was a Soviet plot to poison American drinking water in Dr Strangelove, Kubrick’s black comedy about the Cold War is no less bizarre than those expressed in many of the websites that oppose this measure…
    …There is also a variant of conspiracy theory, inversionism, in which some of one’s own characteristics and motivations are attributed to others. For example, tobacco companies describe academic research into the health effects of smoking as the product of an ‘anti-smoking industry’, described as ‘a vertically integrated, highly concentrated, oligopolistic cartel, combined with some public monopolies’ whose aim is to ‘manufacture alleged evidence, suggestive inferences linking smoking to various diseases and publicity and dissemination and advertising of these so-called findings to the widest possible public’…
    …The second is the use of fake experts. These are individuals who purport to be experts in a particular area but whose views are entirely inconsistent with established knowledge. They have been used extensively by the tobacco industry since 1974, when a senior executive with R J Reynolds devised a system to score scientists working on tobacco in relation to the extent to which they were supportive of the industry’s position. The industry embraced this concept enthusiastically in the 1980s when a senior executive from Philip Morris developed a strategy to recruit such scientists (referring to them as ‘Whitecoats’) to help counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke…
    …The third characteristic is selectivity, drawing on isolated papers that challenge the dominant consensus or highlighting the flaws in the weakest papers among those that support it as a means of discrediting the entire field. An example of the former is the much-cited Lancet paper describing intestinal abnormalities in 12 children with autism, which merely suggested a possible link with immunization against measles, mumps and rubella…
    …The fourth is the creation of impossible expectations of what research can deliver. For example, those denying the reality of climate change point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer. Others use the intrinsic uncertainty of mathematical models to reject them entirely as a means of understanding a phenomenon. In the early 1990s, Philip Morris tried to promote a new standard, entitled Good Epidemiological Practice (GEP) for the conduct of epidemiological studies. ..
    …The fifth is the use of misrepresentation and logical fallacies. For example, pro-smoking groups have often used the fact that Hitler supported some anti-smoking campaigns to represent those advocating tobacco control as Nazis (even coining the term nico-nazis),26 even though other senior Nazis were smokers, blocking attempts to disseminate anti-smoking propaganda and ensuring that troops has sufficient supplies of cigarettes…

    REPLY: Nice try, no cigar. It is still not the word “denier” used in pejorative. – Anthony

  38. “Or how about you simply say: “the use of the word is inappropriate, laden with innuendo, and condescending”. Unfortunately you won’t – Anthony”

    Why should I say any such thing? It would depend on the example given. There are many people who routinely exhibit denial. Aand there are those who disagree with healthy skepticism. Sometimes arguments contain words that will offend, but still be perfectly legitimate. Some of the things said about John Cook in this thread are “inappropriate, laden with innuendo, and condescending”. Is there a reason why those words need to change also?

    REPLY: Nice strawman, we are talking about the pejorative use of one word, “denier”. Concentrate on that instead of the strawman diversions. – Anthony

  39. Ric Werme says:
    September 27, 2010 at 10:28 am

    … the last paragraph is indeed sophomoric, insulting …

    After noodling around a bit, I would say that is a pretty fair assessment of John Bruno’s post and John Cook’s blog in general.

  40. Since today is my Lazarus Long day and it seems appropriate:

    One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.
    Robert A. Heinlein

    Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative{ denier, skeptic, warmista}, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
    Robert A. Heinlein

  41. gryposaurus says:
    September 27, 2010 at 8:24
    “Empirical observations show that carbon dioxide has a warming effect as a greenhouse gas, it is increasing in the atmosphere and the expected warming is occurring.”

    I know you did not write the above Mr. Gyro…, but if possible could you point me to the “empirical observations” that shows this.

    By the way Mr. Gryo… if I manufacture an insulated coat that used 100% CO2 as the filling and I tell you you will be warmer than 98.6 when wearing it would you believe me and would you buy one?

  42. Well, Anthony, Milankovitch cycles surely operate at much longer time scales than 30 years: that’s kind of Cook’s point, after all. They’re “smooth” drivers that change the temperature by 10 degrees in 10,000 years, and because they’re so continuous and free of noise – orbital parameters etc. – they only contribute 0.1 degrees per century or less.

    Of course, it’s very likely that the solar changes in 30 years much like the frequency of the volcanos may change and may have changed temperature by much more than 0.1 degrees per 30 years. Well, and especially the ocean cycles that are not mentioned.

    Besides these standard drivers, there’s still the weather noise that doesn’t have to have any “easy to understand” description. Be sure that weather doesn’t quite average out after 30 years. Its effect keep on accumulating and you can almost certainly get those 0.4 deg Celsius that we have seen – just from the pinkish noise known as the weather.

  43. “REPLY: As I pointed out earlier, people regularly remind me that I’m responsible for my own blog content, the fact that Cook allows such things is the issue. Does he not look at his own publications? Your argument is a straw man, ignored the quality of the Skeptical Science website debate. He says peer review science shall make up the website, then we have “deniers” which is clearly not. – Anthony”

    I’ll see your straw man and raise you:

    John Cook does not dispute the existence of solar variations in the last 30 years – http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm;

    John Cook is aware of Pinatubos’s temperature dip – http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-ice-age-volcanoes.htm

    John Cook knows that Milankovitch cycles last longer than 30 years – http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

    I am pointing out the errors in your posting, I am not obliged to make any qualitative statements about John Cook’s website.

  44. You can delete one of my posts above if you want, as I didn’t mean to posted both of them.

    “REPLY: Nice try, no cigar. It is still not the word “denier” used in pejorative. – Anthony”
    “Nice strawman, we are talking about the pejorative use of one word, “denier”. Concentrate on that instead of the strawman diversions. – Anthony”

    This is fine with me of course, as long as it is noted that using the root of the phrase”to deny” is legitimate in specific cases, as outlined in the piece I posted. Thank you.

    REPLY: But that is not how it is used, “denier” is used in the rephrehensible “holocaust denier” connotation. – Anthony

  45. Anthony, you often add a photograph (Gore, Patchy, etc.) to your posts.

    I recommend the photo of Cook from this link:

    nofreewind says:
    September 27, 2010 at 9:50 am
    Very often having a picture of a person helps to form that mental image, you can find a picture of the guy here, on Andy Revkins Blog.

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/a-physics-mavens-take-on-skeptical-science/

    Escaped from where?

    REPLY: I’ll point out that Einstein had crazy hair and said things that irritated people too. I’m not going to make an issue of his appearance. – Anthony

  46. Skeptical Science is a site where there is some honest discussion but John Cook definitely has his mind made up.

    For howling lack of contact with reality his thread there on the health effects of warming is a must see. With every shred of data in the record showing that warmer is better, such as far more people killed in cold months than warm he tries a sales trick, a comparison chart filled with half truths and pure baloney. Then thinks he has proven how terrible warmer is. He hasn’t bought ocean front property on Hudson Bay though, so even he doesn’t believe this junk.

  47. Re: Kevin MacDonald says:
    September 27, 2010 at 11:56 am

    I am pointing out the errors in your posting, I am not obliged to make any qualitative statements about John Cook’s website.

    How convenient. Yet I am obliged to add that you are likely neither qualified nor dispassionate and objective enough to make any qualitative statements about John Cook’s website either. Bruno’s post speaks for itself. Quite loudly and clearly, no matter what Cook has posted previously.

  48. mkelly says: September 27, 2010 at 11:50 am

    gryposaurus says:
    September 27, 2010 at 8:24
    “Empirical observations show that carbon dioxide has a warming effect as a greenhouse gas, it is increasing in the atmosphere and the expected warming is occurring.”

    I know you did not write the above Mr. Gyro…, but if possible could you point me to the “empirical observations” that shows this.

    By the way Mr. Gryo… if I manufacture an insulated coat that used 100% CO2 as the filling and I tell you you will be warmer than 98.6 when wearing it would you believe me and would you buy one?

    good one – reminds me of a comment over at Roy Spencer’s site by ‘Gord’ (excerpt):

    An increase in the temperature of the Earth past what the Sun (the only energy source source) provides energy for, requires CREATION of Energy.

    This is simple Conservation of Energy that even Grade School Kids understand.

    Just like a blanket cannot CREATE energy and CANNOT HEAT UP a human body.

    PROOF:
    Radiation emitted by a human body

    “The total surface area of an adult is about 2 m^2, and the mid- and far-infrared emissivity of skin and most clothing is near unity, as it is for most nonmetallic surfaces.Skin
    temperature is about 33 deg C, but clothing reduces the surface temperature to about 28 deg C when the ambient temperature is 20 deg C. Hence, the net radiative heat loss is about Pnet = 100 W.”
    http:
    //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body

    Did you get that? The human body’s surface temperature DROPPED from +33 deg C to +28 deg C!

    I will repeat it AGAIN, The human body’s surface temperature DROPPED from +33 deg C to +28 deg C!

    Blankets can’t increase a human body’s surface temperature of +33 deg C because the body has to supply heat energy to the colder blanket to increase it’s temperature.

    The result is a DROP in the human body’s surface temperature down from +33 deg C to +28 deg C!

    It is IMPOSSIBLE for the blanket to increase the Body surface temperature of +33 deg C since that would require CREATION OF ENERGY.

    That’s why it is IMPOSSIBLE for the colder atmosphere to heat a -18 deg C Earth up to +15 deg C as the fantasy “Greenhouse Effect” claims.

    The colder atmosphere CAN ONLY COOL THE EARTH just like a blanket CAN ONLY COOL THE HUMAN BODY.
    ———————–
    If ANY, I repeat ANY, heat energy from your +33 deg C body were reflected back by a mirror and absorbed by your body, your body would increase in energy and it’s temperature would rise above +33 deg C.

    This already VIOLATES the Law of Conservation of Energy since ENERGY HAS BEEN CREATED and a perpetual motion machine has been created.

    But it does not stop there, it is just the beginning of an upward spiral of energy Creation and temperature increases.

    Your now warmer body that exceeds +33 deg C will radiate more energy to the mirror and that would be reflected back to your Body further increasing it’s energy and temperature.
    This is a perpetual motion machine in a positive feedback loop. The cycles of energy increase and temperature increase would continue until your Body burst into flames!
    (See 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Perpetual Motion and The Law of Conservation of Energy)

  49. First thing I noticed is that he went to all the trouble to strike through the ‘D’ word in his early draft, but for some inexplicable reason, didn’t remove the word from the final copy. I guess he forgot. Perhaps he should employ a proof reader in future.

  50. mkelly:
    “carbon dioxide has a warming effect as a greenhouse gas”
    These are two of many, one shows the layer by layer atmosphere and the other shows the spectra of different gases.

    Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1 – Toth et al. (2008)


    New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases

    “it is increasing in the atmosphere”
    You can track it here

    “the expected warming is occurring.”
    This can be found in any temperature reconstruction, including Roy Spencer’s.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

    “if I manufacture an insulated coat that used 100% CO2 as the filling and I tell you you will be warmer than 98.6 when wearing it would you believe me and would you buy one?”
    I wouldn’t want to be hotter than 98.6.

  51. A simple by-the-by fact which Anthony might find encouraging …
    Until recently I worked in an English Police Force (sorry, Service) as a civilian employee this time around. Debates among staff members about AGW were few and far between at first but then began to become more frequent; sometimes the debates became somewhat heated, especially after ‘Climategate’. Senior officers noted this and also took note of some of the language used. An order was promulgated forbidding the use of the word “denier” to describe anyone not subscribing to the AGW theory because of the word’s strong Holocaust-denier overtones.
    The usage of the word in any AGW discussion renders the user liable to disciplinary action. The order is based on the spirit of the legislation contained in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Public Order Act 1986.

  52. James Sexton says:
    September 27, 2010 at 8:43 am

    Or when it is stated, “While the organizers of the Exeter meeting are seeking to retain its leadership role in national and international assessments of the observed magnitude of global warming, it is clear that serious problems exist in using this data for this purpose.” Maybe that’s the clarity Mr. Cook is referring to. The lunatic fringe is unraveling.
    Perhaps it is a “murky clarity” that he is referring to?

  53. Djozar says:
    September 27, 2010 at 11:46 am
    Since today is my Lazarus Long day and it seems appropriate:

    “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”

    This is my favorite.

  54. Kevin MacDonald says:
    September 27, 2010 at 11:56 am

    I’ll see your straw man and raise you: . . . [edit] . . .

    I am pointing out the errors in your posting, I am not obliged to make any qualitative statements about John Cook’s website.

    ——————

    Kevin MacDonald,

    Great, I think I see what you are saying. Is it that by Bruno saying “are all conspicuous in their absence over the past three decades of warming.” then he was explicitly disagreeing with his host John’s views on the matter?

    I will check your double dare strawman and raise you with two tinmen, a lion, Dorothy, Toto and the wizard guy. But I will keep the ruby slippers in reserve for your potential counter triple-dog-dare.

    John

  55. @
    September 27, 2010 at 10:19 am
    [Reply: Denier/denialist is objectionable when it is used as a pejorative, comparing skeptics with Holocaust deniers. ~dbs, mod.]

    And of course I know that. But we all throw a few laden terms around – “warmista” has even made it into a blog post header here.

    And since being called a denier isn’t actually hurting me, I am reminded how actually useless the use of pejoratives is, so I, for one, am going to stop doing the same!

  56. “Kevin MacDonald,

    Great, I think I see what you are saying. Is it that by Bruno saying “are all conspicuous in their absence over the past three decades of warming.” then he was explicitly disagreeing with his host John’s views on the matter?”

    John, you think wrong and appear not to have read Anthony’s post or any of the material it cites. The quote you refer to is explicitly attributed to John Cook by Sourcewatch and, latterly, Anthony Watts, it has nothing whatsoever to do with John Bruno. If you were actually in possession of a skeptical, inquiring mind you could have uncovered this little nugget of information simply by reading and understanding the short article at the top of this very page.

  57. gryposaurus says:
    September 27, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    The quote was ““Empirical observations show that carbon dioxide has a warming effect as a greenhouse gas, it is increasing in the atmosphere and the expected warming is occurring.” you provided none. Knowing the absorbtion/emission frequency of CO2 is not showing that it raises temperature. A model even one presented in Geophysical Research letters is not empirical observation it is a model. Showing that CO2 is going up in ppm does not show by empirical observation that it has anything to do with warming. Showing that temperature is going up is not an emipirical observation that CO2 causes, will cause, or has caused warming.

    There is no experiment done under STP or standard conditions that shows an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperture.

    Also I asked if you would believe me and if you would buy one you failed to answer the question. Side stepping was cute but still side stepping. You know the point of the question please answer.

  58. nofreewind,

    Thanks for the [snip] photo! *snort*

    I’d bet that John Cook is funded by Geo. Soros, just like Joe Romm is. Soros seems to be attracted to those anti-science wackos.

    Who should the rest of us believe about cAGW? John Cook, boy scientist? Or Drs. Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Joe D’Aleo, Steve McIntyre, Motl, McKittrick, Watts, Lamb, Pielkes, Spencer, and the 30,000+ voluntary signers of the OISM Petition.
    [snip - personal attack]

  59. Kevin MacDonald says:
    September 27, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    . . [edit] . . . If you were actually in possession of a skeptical, inquiring mind you could have uncovered this little nugget of information simply by reading and understanding the short article at the top of this very page.

    ————————

    Kevin MacDonald,

    Yes, I see now, thanks. So your original point was, trying again here . . . . so you are saying in your “Kevin MacDonald – September 27, 2010 at 11:56 am” comment that John Cook views are in agreement with Sourcewatch’s statement about him, namely the list of climate effects are all conspicuous in their absence over the past three decades of warming. Or isn’t JC known for holding that position? I though he was, but I might be wrong. But if you often follow John Cook’s blog you may be able to tell me. Please do. Sorry, if I am not getting your point so easily.

    By the way, in my years of blogging, you are the first person actually to ever even imply that I am a skeptic. I guess that means I am no longer a skeptic virgin . . . . thanks for that. It is nice to know I have been stereotyped . . . a sense of belonging : )

    I’ve still got those ruby slippers. : )

    John

  60. dbleader61 says:
    September 27, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    [Reply: Denier/denialist is objectionable when it is used as a pejorative, comparing skeptics with Holocaust deniers. ~dbs, mod.]

    “And of course I know that. But we all throw a few laden terms around – “warmista” has even made it into a blog post header here.

    And since being called a denier isn’t actually hurting me, …………..”
    =========================================================

    I don’t really have a problem with someone calling me names either. They can display their ignorant bigotry towards skeptics all they wish, it only serves to show they’ve lost the ability to articulate anything meaningful in regards to debating CAGW theory. The thing I object the most about the term “denier” is that it marginalizes the Holocaust event. I believe it exposes their biases and prejudices and are not confined to only skeptics.

  61. I was amazed by th (mis)use of a post at SkepticalScience to criticize one of my posts at ClimateSanity

    The idea at SkepticalScience was to “debunk” the presumed skeptical belief that “sea level rise is exaggerated.” They started with a quote from Vincent Gray, and built a strawman argument around it.

    My response was as follows…

    The “skeptical science” post that you provide makes a silly strawman argument. It starts with a quote by Vincent Gray where he speaks about a specific location on the planet: Tuvalu. It then disingenuously implies that Gray (and other climate realists by association) would somehow reject the Church sea level data – which is data for the entire planet.

    In fact, I do not know anybody among the climate realists who reject the Church data wholesale. I doubt very, very seriously that Vincent Gray believes that there has been no sea level rise averaged over the entire planet for the last 100 years. The skeptical science implication is just plain dishonest.

    Many people may argue about the details of the methodology of Church, but it would be extremely rare to find a prominent anthropogenic global warming skeptic who simply rejects it outright. However, many have serious problems with preposterous extrapolations of the Church data. In particular, Stefan Rahmstorf has built his reputation on mathematically dubious models which rely heavily on Church’s data (see Critique of “A Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise” by Rahmstorf for example) that excel in alarmism.

    Tuvalu is a poster child for the alramists. They have been saying for years that this small Pacific island nation was rapidly disappearing under rising seas. Gray’s statement about Tuvalu, which he made in 2007, has been shown to be essentially correct.

    I suspect the good folks over at “skeptical science” knew these facts when they wrote their post, but decided to ignore them in order to push over their strawman argument. But I could be wrong.

  62. Mr. Watts,
    I agree with you on this one – Mr. Cook (through Mr. Bruno) is out of line and incorrect. For one, I have yet to see evidence of warming in the last decade… where is it warming? It certainly seemed to be an unbelieveable winter all over creation (including our bretheren in the southern hemisphere… actually, is there any chance you can post something about the amazing bad winter down there? It’s quite difficult to find anything at all about it in the media theses days). And for another, the term “denier” is wrong and insulting and completely unnecessary… I don’t deny anything, yet I do not accept bad data or believe the garbage that the “warmists” or “greenies” or whatever it is they prefer yell and scream to anyone and everyone who can hear. It seems to me that they are the “deniers” for they seem to completely deny the truth of the data… or am I wrong?

  63. I don’t think anyone who allowed Steven Goddard as a guest author on his blog for years is in any position to criticize anyone else’s guest authors.

    Those who live in glass houses…

  64. While I am aware that John Bruno wrote the article being referred to, I have read a number of posts and blogs posted by John Cook himself. Even the main page of the site is evident of the fact that that Cook and Bruno ( the two Johns) have a smug, holier-then-thou attitude, while at the same time, run a biased site which amounts to a work of shameless self-promotion, and cherry-picked link dumps.

  65. “Kevin MacDonald,

    Yes, I see now, thanks. So your original point was, trying again here . . . . “

    My point was expressly what I stated it was in my opening post; Watts is quote mining.

    “so you are saying in your “Kevin MacDonald – September 27, 2010 at 11:56 am” comment that John Cook views are in agreement with Sourcewatch’s statement about him, namely the list of climate effects are all conspicuous in their absence over the past three decades of warming. Or isn’t JC known for holding that position? I though he was, but I might be wrong. But if you often follow John Cook’s blog you may be able to tell me. Please do. Sorry, if I am not getting your point so easily.

    It is not my interpretation of John Cook’s views and certainly not consistent with the views expressed in the links I provided. I would suggest you read those and decide for yourself if Anthony’s inference is a fair representation.

  66. David Walton says:
    September 27, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    Bruno’s post speaks for itself. Quite loudly and clearly, no matter what Cook has posted previously.Equally, Anthony’s post speaks for itself, he is quote mining.

  67. Anthony is entitled to be offended by the use of the term ‘denier/denialist’. It is not just another casual gibe – not with its holocaust-denialist connotations.

    Re the rise in temperature over the last three decades – hasn’t this rise stopped over the last decade? Both this pause and the rise in the previous two decades could be connected with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and with its possible link to ENSO. See McLean, Easterbrook.

  68. Kevin MacDonald says:
    September 27, 2010 at 4:03 pm
    “Equally, Anthony’s post speaks for itself, he is quote mining.”
    ========================================================
    Quote mining? Did you read the post? He doesn’t have to mine for the quote, the post’s last paragraph is clear. It includes the word “denier” (crossed out) finished with a link to this weblog. That’s quote mining? What world are you living in? It is, and was meant to be, a direct insult to, not only Anthony, but also anyone that frequents this weblog. But, that’s what I’ve come to expect from bigots. They are too shallow to engage in any real intellectual dialogue, so they resort to name calling.

    Let me be clear. The word “denier” is entirely pejorative, it is meant to besmirch and belittle to whom the word is attached. But much more than that, attaching this word to anyone other than Holocaust deniers diminishes the people, past and present which were forced to suffer through what many call the worst event in the history of mankind. The attempted genocide, which was almost successful in an entire continent, the memory, literally tattooed upon peoples arms and other body parts, is in no way fathomable, connected to the CAGW theory. (Unless one looks at the implicit Malthusian application of the alarmist crowd’s solutions, of which most of the skeptical community is diametrically opposed.)

    Kevin, you can call me anything you wish. I don’t give a flying [self-snip] what you or anyone else thinks of me. People using this term simply show themselves to be what we already knew they were. People with little regard for humanity or any part of humanity.

  69. Continuing………

    I’m a denier because some highly regarded statisticians showed where our hockey stick was formed in correctly? That equates with denying the reality of the Holocaust?

    I’m a denier because most surface stations were incorrectly collecting data? That equates with denying the reality of the Holocaust?

    I’m a denier because the majority of adjustments made to the data lower the temperature in the past, yet raise the closer one gets to the present? That equates with denying the reality of the Holocaust?

    I’m a denier because I believe the most significant source of heat comes from the sun? That equates with denying the reality of the Holocaust?

    I’m a denier because I can see throughout history the earth’s temperature has risen and lowered without man’s influence? That equates with denying the reality of the Holocaust?

    I’m a denier because I see the minuscule amount of CO2 in our atmosphere as not being a reasonable amount to raise the temperature of our earth? That equates with denying the reality of the Holocaust?

    I’m a denier because I can see cyclic behavior in our climate while others cannot? That equates with denying the reality of the Holocaust?

    I’m a denier because I can see the self interest of climate scientists being a motivating factor behind the alarmism? That equates with denying the reality of the Holocaust?

    I haven’t even gone into the socio-economic-political impetus to advance such a ludicrous theory, but it would serve mankind well to remember, the perpetrators of the Holocaust were socialists, also.

  70. Kevin MacDonald says:

    “…Anthony’s post speaks for itself, he is quote mining.” <– There is a MacDonald quote. Does that make this post equally guilty of "quote mining"?

    In fact, everyone quotes selectively, MacDonald included. It's called "discussion." I'm simply pointing out that if that's the best argument the refugees from SS have, they ought be posting at their mis-named Skeptical Science blog instead of at the internet's "Best Science" site.

    Attacking someone by denigrating their post as "quote mining" shows just how weak their arguments have become. But when you've lost the "CO2 is gonna getcha" argument, complaining about someone's use of verbatim quotes is about all the alarmist crowd has left. Crying "Wolf!" over a harmless trace gas no longer gets traction here. Crying "Quote mining!" is even more pathetic.

    Now for the meat of the argument: every honest scientist is a skeptic first, last and always – and they must be especially skeptical of their own work, because fooling yourself is much easier than fooling others. Just ask Michael Mann.

    WUWT is completely different from SS and the other climate alarmist blogs, because this site allows everyone to post their point of view – while realclimate, skepticalscience, climate progress, deltoid, and most similar blogs deliberately censor skeptical comments at every turn, thus becoming closed-minded echo chambers peddling the repeatedly debunked CO2=CAGW nonsense to their True Believers, who unquestioningly believe what they’re told, just like Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    If “Skeptical Science” had an honest name, it would be something like: “Warmist Pseudo-Science,” or “Cook’s Globaloney,” or “Grant-Sucking Censor-Pros,” or “Alarmist Anti-Science Fables,” or “I Wish I Got One-Tenth The Traffic Of WUWT.”☺

  71. Smokey says:
    September 27, 2010 at 7:08 pm

    If “Skeptical Science” had an honest name, it would be something like: “Warmist Pseudo-Science,” or “Cook’s Globaloney,” or “Grant-Sucking Censor-Pros,” or “Alarmist Anti-Science Fables,” or “I Wish I Got One-Tenth The Traffic Of WUWT.”☺

    Just wanted to acknowledge the sweet dissertation and the beautiful coup de grâce.

    Quote mining?……Did MacDonald just make that up? Does that mean something like, “I’m going to say something, but please don’t hold me to it?” Or, “I’m being purposefully and completely disingenuous, but I like to sound cool to my supposed peers.”? The word denier was used four times in one paragraph that ended with a link to WUWT. Quote mining?

    Given Anthony’s recount of his encounter with John B, and John B’s subsequent posting, a word comes to mind regarding this apparent two-faced individual. It is exactly the word that describes a man’s actions that can disparage others from a distance but not face to face……………cowardice. Speaks volumes to the facilitator, Mr. Cook. The defenders, contributors and readers of the aforementioned should be very proud.

  72. John Cook strikes me as a very decent chap. However, like any blogger, he does not have full mastery over all who post at his site. Some posters have left me underwhelmed. On the whole, however, he presents a lot of good science and has given a lot of leeway to quite a few sceptics. While some of the science could be questioned, he allows a fair bit of respectful debate. Occasionally, some other posters have been a touch aggro. I think attacking him is counterproductive – better to praise him when he does things well.

  73. I too object to the label “denier” when it is clearly used as an insult, insinuating that one is denying a catastrophe as dreadful and evil as the Holocaust and so one is guilty by association of a similar moral depravity.
    I started reading WUWT & other sites in order to see what the position actually was, as somehow I smelt a rat in the torrent of MSM stories. The more I researched, the less convinced of CAGW/climate change/disruption I became.
    On the whole, WUWT posts and commenters are properly polite, and long may that continue, especially where folk disagree. The frontier of science should involve disagreement, especially about interpretation, less so about data. Great scientists have come to now seen as silly conclusions, pending new insights (eg pre atomic theory estimates of the age of the sun, based on burning that mass of coal…), so we should be loath to criticise ad hominem.
    However, I have to admit that the diversion & waste of resources (IMHO) on CAGW, the likely economic impact of “solutions”, and the damage to environmental science does make me very cross: indirectly, AGW theory is killing large numbers who otherwise would live. So the occasional bit of emotion is permissable perhaps.

  74. Overall John Cook has been relatively “fair” with his comment policy (in that he allows skeptics to post but only alarmists can insult and he allows them to state lies though you cannot call them liars). I have noticed his tone in posts and ones he allows to post to be taking a more and more extremist position (as an example with his current use of the word denier). He is also not being intellectually honest with McIntyre’s arguments and has not made an honest attempt to engage him on this issue. It looks like he is being co-opted by Lambert and co.

    Chris1958, Anthony has every right to point things out like this.

  75. The pro-warming advocates seem to be becoming ever more desperate in their grasping for anything that might enhance their diminishing credibility. John Cook is an example of a follower of a pseudo-religious of a movement which is, right now, coming to be seen for what it is – a chimera based on shonky data and discredited concepts bolstered by bad behaviour, just as ardent followers in the Guardian’s CiF column stridently maintain their faith in the face of reason.

  76. I think Cook isn’t intellectually honest at all, not only with Mc Intyre, but also in his main theme: debunking sceptical arguments, like the influence of the sun an area in which he is/should be a specialist.

    KR above mentioned his main argument:
    “what Cook presents is that the solar intensity has been declining over the last 30 years of rising temps, volcanoes have an influence but have not shown a change correlating to temperature rises, and we’re in the wrong part of the Milankovitch Cycle to be warming now. So none of these climate changing elements match the current warming trend, except rising CO2.”

    So what Cook does is he quotes a lot of scientific articles that seem to affirm his statements. But apart from being selective in choosing the articles, what I can understand, he also selectively quotes. To come back on the influence of the sun: he quotes a Scafetta article to proove the KR statement above while in that article the sun temperature signal over the last 30 years is rising instead of declining (Scafetta uses Lean 2005 reconstruction) and in which the final statement is:

    “In conclusion, a solar change might significantly alter cli-
    mate. It might trigger several climate feedbacks and alter
    the GHG (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) concentration, as 420,000
    years of Antarctic ice core data would also suggest [Petit et
    al., 1999]. Most of the sun-climate coupling mechanisms are
    probably still unknown. However, they should be incorpo-
    rated into the climate models to better understand the real
    impact of the sun on climate because they might strongly
    amplify the effects of small solar activity increases.”

  77. Sorry,I really don’t follow what you are trying here.

    Nothing that Cook claims in that statement is contradicted by the links you provide.

    Despite New Scientists ham-fisted opening paragraph, scientists have not ‘vilified’ the solar connection: they have quantified it to the best of their understanding,and the last thirty years of global temperature increase are unrelated to changes in solar output,as the second para allows.

    The spikes in the record caused by Pinatubo and El Chichon do not equate to the kind of sustained volcanic influence that Cook implies would be able to influence a thirty year period in one direction or another over the full period. Those eruptions were transient ,isolated events.

    A guest poster has made observations you disagree with and used some ‘provocative’ language. Such is life.

  78. jose says:
    September 27, 2010 at 11:16 am

    If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…

    It’s probably a parrot with a hip displacement.

  79. John Cook’s blog is among the top 10 most visited alarmist blogs in the world. I find it remarkable what quality standards have become acceptable at these blogs. As long as their insane belief is supported, they are ready to publish rants by women who are as dumb as a doorknob and who make poultry look ingenious in comparison.

    Excellent summary of Cook’s blog by L.Motl.
    His post (http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/07/john-cooks-blog-photosynthesis-is.html) deals with just one of many stupidities published on Cook’s blog like this ground-breaking thesis elaborated by poultry that “photosynthesis is deniers’ propaganda” ;)

  80. “Smokey says:
    September 27, 2010 at 7:08 pm
    Kevin MacDonald says:

    “…Anthony’s post speaks for itself, he is quote mining.” <– There is a MacDonald quote. Does that make this post equally guilty of "quote mining"?

    In fact, everyone quotes selectively"

    I’m sorry, but this is unfettered nonsense. By their very nature, all quotes are selected, but it does not follow that all quotes are selected because they misrepresent thier author and it is this specific practice that quote mining refers too.

    See here for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

  81. Must apologise for the horror of the spelling in that last post of mine.

    [Better to apologize for posting under different names. -mod.]

  82. mkelly:
    “The quote was ““Empirical observations show that carbon dioxide has a warming effect as a greenhouse gas, it is increasing in the atmosphere and the expected warming is occurring.” you provided none.”
    You asked for these three pieces of information and I provided them. This is how science builds cases for a hypothesis.

    “Knowing the absorbtion/emission frequency of CO2 is not showing that it raises temperature”
    It is an important piece. It shows that CO2 blocks the escape of heat.

    ” A model even one presented in Geophysical Research letters is not empirical observation it is a model. ”
    This is not a model. It is the direct observation from satellite imagery of the atmosphere line-by-line, to get the numbers used to understand how changes in different gases effects radiative forcing. This is important for understanding the first part of your question.

    “Showing that CO2 is going up in ppm does not show by empirical observation that it has anything to do with warming.”
    Once again, this is an important piece and a question you directly asked me to provide an answer for. You realize this is how science has been performed for centuries now, right?

    “Showing that temperature is going up is not an emipirical observation that CO2 causes, will cause, or has caused warming.”
    You asked to show you that the expected warming is happening. I showed you. It was only now that you starting asking for empirical knowledge of direct attribution. What type of study are you looking for?
    This shows that the carbon isotope ratio in our atmosphere is attributable to humans burning fossil fuels

    This shows (and other studies confirm it) that there is an increased greenhouse effect due to humans

    This one shows different comparisons of natural vs man-made combinations of forcing over the 100 years.


    This shows the Volstok ice core paleo-research and what it suggests for past CO2 in the atmosphere

    It is also hotter at night. It is also cooling in the upper atmosphere which dispels the idea that it is increased energy from the sun. The stratosphere is cooling. These have all been predicted.

    Maybe you can provide your studies and build your case which attributes all these changes to something else besides the man-made gases emissions?

    And the “coat” analogy is a bad one. That is unless you can provide a hypothesis as to why the coat works, then provide reams of evidence as to how and build a case like AGW has over the past 100 years. Your attempt to make a complicated issue into a simple one fails on me.

  83. Re the back and forth about “denier,” while I understand how some might take offense, it seems to me to be in similar camp as “alarmist,” which also makes it extremely easy to dismiss or discount the views of the other side. I prefer to use the words “proponents” and “opponents” as I feel these seem to be the least “loaded.” Even with these, there can be some nuance as in I am a proponent of this aspect or point in the argument, yet I do not support this point.

  84. James Sexton says:

    September 27, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    Quote mining? Did you read the post? He doesn’t have to mine for the quote, the post’s last paragraph is clear. It includes the word “denier” (crossed out) finished with a link to this weblog. That’s quote mining?

    No, this is quote mining:

    “the usual suspects in natural climate change – solar variations, volcanoes, Milankovitch cycles – are all conspicuous in their absence over the past three decades of warming.”

    It is taken out of context and used to suggest that John Cook is unaware of recent solar variations, did not know about the 1991 Pinatubo eruption and erroneously supposes Milankovitch Cycles last no longer than 30 years, all of which are demonstrable straw man fallacies.

    [Better to apologize for posting under different names. -mod.]

    Crass and entirely false insinuations, Is this a demonstration of wattsupwiththat raising the debate up from botched satire of skepticalscience?

    REPLY: I don’t know which mod posted that note, but they are likely wrong. Mr. McDonald (if that is his name) is using a known proxy server at British Telecom to hide his identity. There is another person posting here (different name) also using the same proxy server. Are they the same. Who knows? Either way, Mr. McDonald has spent a lot of time posting here trying to convince everyone how wrong I am about everything. He’s entitled to his opinion. I’m entitled to mine, and mine is that I don’t have much respect for people that have to use the word “denier” repeatedly, or allow it in their guest commentary. I have even less respect for people that defend such things. Be upset all you want. – Anthony

  85. Kevin says:
    September 28, 2010 at 7:53 am

    I prefer to use the words “proponents” and “opponents” as I feel these seem to be the least “loaded.”

    ————–

    Kevin,

    I like the idea of using less provocative words like “proponents” and “opponents”.

    Another way is to use words like advocate and adversary, also words like supporter and critic, etc. There are many ways to keep the discussion tone down.

    John

  86. gryposaurus says: [ ... ]

    Abstracts are insufficient. Pay and post the actual papers, and we’ll have something to discuss, and likely falsify. As everyone else here knows, abstracts often say something different than the pal reviewed papers they purport to summarize.

    A few relevant observations:

    Much of the putative warming may be an artifact.

    Sensitivity to CO2 is much lower than the UN/IPCC claims. Anything under 1°C is insignificant, and can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. On balance, more CO2 is harmless and beneficial; agricultural production is already increasing substantially due to the increase in CO2.

    Next, the models are not confirmed by empirical observations. So as usual, the alarmist contingent believes there is a problem with the real world data and observations, and the models must be correct. They are only fooling themselves.

    The planet has had numerous temperature swings during the Holocene, many much, much greater than the insignificant 0.7° natural variation over the past century and a half – and none have caused “runaway global warming.” Nothing unusual is happening, and in fact, today’s climate is extremely benign compared to past natural extremes.

    On all time scales, CO2 is the result of increasing temperatures, it is not the cause. That fact alone debunks the preposterous notion that a tiny trace gas, comprising only 0.00039 of the atmosphere, is the primary driver of the Earth’s climate.

    It is also a fact that the principal argument for AGW had previously referred to the model requirement for a tropospheric hot spot. But that hot spot never occurred, thus falsifying the model predictions. So now the goal posts have been moved to the stratosphere. This is a typical tactic of the CAGW crowd, as they tap-dance ever faster trying to prop up their debunked CAGW models.

    Climate alarmists refuse to operate according to the scientific method, because they are well aware that by “opening the books” on their methods and data, their CO2=CAGW hypothesis would be promptly falsified, and their lucrative grant income would be jeopardized. So they refuse to share their suspect information, instead saying, “Trust us.” Yet you claim: “…this is how science has been performed for centuries now, right?”

    Wrong. ‘For centuries’ the scientific method required that all information necessary for others to reproduce and replicate a hypothesis must be provided for the specific purpose of confirming or falsifying the hypothesis in question, including all methodologies, raw data, metadata, and calculations. But in the post-modernist version of climate pseudo-science, this is not done due to the thoroughly corrupt pal review system. Thus, there is no scientific method being employed. Until there is full and complete cooperation with the requests of skeptical scientists, the system will remain corrupt. It provides large government and NGO grants for the gate-keepers of the pal review set-up. But it is not science. It is scientific charlatanism.

    These are only a few examples of the self-serving climate clique’s attempts to sell the public a pig in a poke. And SkepticalScience is carrying water for these charlatans.

  87. Mr. McDonald has spent a lot of time posting here trying to convince everyone how wrong I am about everything.

    You exaggerate of course (or should I add this to the straw man count?), I am merely confused by your employing logical fallacies whilst simultaneously disparaging someone else’s level of discourse.

    He’s entitled to his opinion. I’m entitled to mine, and mine is that I don’t have much respect for people that have to use the word “denier” repeatedly, or allow it in their guest commentary.

    I don’t have much respect for people who repeatedly resort to straw man arguments.

    I have even less respect for people that defend such things. Be upset all you want. – Anthony

    Speaking of which, I hope this isn’t aimed at me, I have made no attempt to defend the use of the word denier.

    REPLY:
    Perhaps, but you haven’t distanced yourself from it either. Look we could argue until the next ice age, it’s pointless. Strawman? Your count is high also.If you want to gain some respect here, you could denounce the use of the word “denier” in the context used by SkepticalScience. Ball is in your court, but unless you can make that step, your comments won’t get any traction here. – Anthony

  88. gryposaurus says:
    September 28, 2010 at 5:25 am

    “The stratosphere is cooling. ”

    Er, no it’s not.

    It was cooling whist the sun was active. It stopped cooling as solar activity declined after the peak of cycle 23 and now seems to be warming slightly:

    http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf

    “The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be
    revisited. This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been
    slightly warming since 1996.”

    As we all know CO2 in the air has been continuing to increase so a shift to
    stratospheric warming appears to suggest that the AGW fears may
    already be falsified.

  89. Kevin MacDonald says:
    September 28, 2010 at 8:40 am

    I don’t have much respect for people who repeatedly resort to straw man arguments.

    ——————

    Kevin MacDonald,

    Your strawman and your “quote mining” themes are what? Claims used as discussion points. OK, been discussed. My perception is that you want more. I think you want to exit WUWT with some kind of sense that you have achieved a moral victory of sorts against something/ someone here. That is a familiar occurrence everywhere in the blogosphere. Kind of routine.

    You don’t like what Anthony posted about John Cook’s blog. So you came here and were given total access and opportunity to say it. I personally am very thankful to Anthony for providing that kind of venue. Are you?

    John

  90. The “denier” thing is totally offensive, purposefully so, and distinctly meant to link people to nutty Holocaust deniers, with all the attendant unpleasantness .
    Else, they wouldn’t cross it out, but leave it, as a passive/aggressive, insult and psych-out of the uninitiated .
    And they will happily jump on it and say things like ” Don’t you care about the children ?”, “Do you want people to die “, when in fact, it is they, as we have seen, who do not care about children and want people to die, in their “great die off”.
    Enough with the apologism, hair splitting, and hand waving , Anthony is right.

  91. Smokey says:
    September 28, 2010 at 8:22 am
    gryposaurus says: [ ... ]

    Thanks for that Smokey.
    That is a very well written and concise summary of the CAGW/CACC/CACD theory
    I like it — a lot.

  92. [snip] – I’m not going to let you bring in words not said, not part of this argument, and not posted here and make an issue of it for your own argumentative purpose. The issue is right here, one word, use of the term “denier” in pejorative. Don’t want to limit your discussion to that? Tough noogies, take it elsewhere. – Anthony

  93. “Abstracts are insufficient. Pay and post the actual papers, and we’ll have something to discuss, and likely falsify.”
    You are asking me to do something illegal. If you want to see the article, you must pay to see it. And some of the articles I posted have the entire paper. Please falsify.

    “Much of the putative warming may be an artifact.”
    Everyone knows that temperature changes. The point of science is to discover the reason for anomalies a different stages. Please show what the reason is for the recent anomaly. The climate does not make dramatic changes without a reason.

    “Sensitivity to CO2 is much lower than the UN/IPCC claims. ”
    Evidence? This goes against the vast amount of knowledge gained from both models AND paleo-research. And the climate is sensitive to radiative forcing or it isn’t. There is no such thing as, “climate is sensitive to sun, but not CO2″ or “the climate is more sensitive to ENSO” etc. To prove your point, you need to show that the current knowledge of CO2 absorption properties is wrong.

    “Next, the models are not confirmed by empirical observations. So as usual, the alarmist contingent believes there is a problem with the real world data and observations, and the models must be correct. They are only fooling themselves.”
    What is the reference for your picture? Is it based on the IPCC A2 projection range? Of course it isn’t because there is no range in your img. So you picture is a red herring. If you think the IPCC does not use ranges, please show your evidence. Here is picture with correct A2 range, different temp reconstructions, complete with 2010 data. Form here:

    http://www.fool-me-once.com/2010/09/temperatures-are-below-projections.html

    “The planet has had numerous temperature swings during the Holocene, many much, much greater than the insignificant 0.7° natural variation over the past century and a half – and none have caused “runaway global warming.” Nothing unusual is happening, and in fact, today’s climate is extremely benign compared to past natural extremes.”
    All this shows is that the climate is sensitive to outside forces. This is all well known and fits in perfectly in the AGW theory and in fact, the theory would fail without this knowledge.

    “On all time scales, CO2 is the result of increasing temperatures, it is not the cause. That fact alone debunks the preposterous notion that a tiny trace gas, comprising only 0.00039 of the atmosphere, is the primary driver of the Earth’s climate.”
    Once again, you are saying something that every already knows. It is detailed in the Volstok paper I sited earlier. We know that the CO2 content in the atmosphere is a feedback due to the planet warming following a change in orbit and tilt. This was predicted to be the case even before the Volstok core was studied. The number associated with atmospheric content is irrelevant unless you look at how changes in that number effect the trapped energy in the atmosphere. It is certainly not preposterous, and making that claim is only an attempt to confuse.

    “This is a typical tactic of the CAGW crowd, as they tap-dance ever faster trying to prop up their debunked CAGW models.”
    “Climate alarmists refuse to operate according to the scientific method, because they are well aware that by “opening the books” on their methods and data, their CO2=CAGW hypothesis would be promptly falsified, and their lucrative grant income would be jeopardized. So they refuse to share their suspect information, instead saying, “Trust us.” Yet you claim: “…this is how science has been performed for centuries now, right?””
    “Wrong. ‘For centuries’ the scientific method required that all information necessary for others to reproduce and replicate a hypothesis must be provided for the specific purpose of confirming or falsifying the hypothesis in question, including all methodologies, raw data, metadata, and calculations. But in the post-modernist version of climate pseudo-science, this is not done due to the thoroughly corrupt pal review system. Thus, there is no scientific method being employed. Until there is full and complete cooperation with the requests of skeptical scientists, the system will remain corrupt. It provides large government and NGO grants for the gate-keepers of the pal review set-up. But it is not science. It is scientific charlatanism.”
    Please see the first characteristic detailed in the peer-reviewed article I posted earlier:

    The first is the identification of conspiracies. When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes that something is true, it is argued that this is not because those scientists have independently studied the evidence and reached the same conclusion. It is because they have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. The peer review process is seen as a tool by which the conspirators suppress dissent, rather than as a means of weeding out papers and grant applications unsupported by evidence or lacking logical thought. The view of General Jack D Ripper that fluoridation was a Soviet plot to poison American drinking water in Dr Strangelove, Kubrick’s black comedy about the Cold War is no less bizarre than those expressed in many of the websites that oppose this measure.

    Expecting me to participate in this conspiratorial nonsense when discussing science is not going to work. We all know what the prevailing consensus is here and how this tactic is used to attack valid science. Nice try but this has been used by [snip] of all sciences for a long time and I could care less to discuss such uneducated drivel.

  94. Stephen Wilde says:
    September 28, 2010 at 9:15 am
    gryposaurus says:
    September 28, 2010 at 5:25 am

    “The stratosphere is cooling. ”

    Er, no it’s not.

    It was cooling whist the sun was active. It stopped cooling as solar activity declined after the peak of cycle 23 and now seems to be warming slightly:

    http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf

    “The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be
    revisited. This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been
    slightly warming since 1996.”

    As we all know CO2 in the air has been continuing to increase so a shift to
    stratospheric warming appears to suggest that the AGW fears may
    already be falsified.
    ___________________________

    Please read this paper up to date and uses more data. It goes over the uncertainties in mid-upper stratospheric temp reading and discusses the problems with the SSU (used in the Liu study) data and why is not as useful.

    http://arlsun.arlhq.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/RandelEtal.JGR2009.pdf

    While neither paper is conclusive about the size of the trend, it certainly is not the consensus that the stratosphere is on a significant warming trend and that AGW fears are falsified due to this. Do you really think that’s what it means?

  95. Kevin MacDonald says: September 28, 2010 at 4:11 am
    “I’m sorry, but this is unfettered nonsense. By their very nature, all quotes are selected, but it does not follow that all quotes are selected because they misrepresent thier author and it is this specific practice that quote mining refers too.

    Good grief man. You certainly display an insatiable need to be correct. Are you long on CO2 contracts at the Board of Trade? How about you define the word “it”.

  96. Anthony, you forgot to put a direct link to the skeptical science website in your post.
    People would go anyway there and find it. It’s good to make the posts more click-friendly.

    What’s your view on http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php ?
    Is there any of the 123 explanations that you would agree with?
    This would be helpful to narrow down the list.

  97. “John Whitman says:
    September 28, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Kevin MacDonald,

    Your strawman and your “quote mining” themes are what? Claims used as discussion points. OK, been discussed. My perception is that you want more. I think you want to exit WUWT with some kind of sense that you have achieved a moral victory of sorts against something/ someone here. That is a familiar occurrence everywhere in the blogosphere. Kind of routine.

    You don’t like what Anthony posted about John Cook’s blog. So you came here and were given total access and opportunity to say it. I personally am very thankful to Anthony for providing that kind of venue. Are you?

    John”

    John, it really doesn’t matter whether I like or dislike what Anthony has posted, merely if what has been posted is accurate; in so far as Cook’s alleged ignorance of various phenomena is concerned that appears not to be the case.

    Tim Clark says:

    September 28, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    Good grief man. You certainly display an insatiable need to be correct. Are you long on CO2 contracts at the Board of Trade? How about you define the word “it”.

    Sorry, I had no idea that accuracy was verboten, I can’t promise anything, but I will try and restrain myself in future.

  98. Kevin MacDonald,

    Wake us when Cook allows equal access to writing and commenting on articles on his mis-named blog. Like the typical alarmist blog owner, he is a propagandist attempting to sell a debunked hypothesis. Anthony Watts, OTOH, encourages free discussion. The fact that most visitors to this heavily-trafficked “Best Science” site view the CAGW conjecture with a jaundiced eye has no bearing on whether you believe you are right. So far you’ve only engaged in projection; you’ve been accurate in that.

    paul w:

    Pick any one of your “123 explanations.” Any one of them:

    Ready… Set… GO!

    I’ll play defense. Shooting holes in hypotheses is what skeptics do. Anything left standing I will concede. Good luck.

    gryposaurus:

    Accusing scientific skeptics of engaging in conspiracies isn’t so far from calling skeptics [the only honest kind of scientist] “denialists,” a derogatory label often attached to preeminent climatologists such as the head of MIT’s atmospheric sciences department, Prof Richard Lindzen — who puts climate sensitivity to CO2 well below 1°C.

    IMHO Dr Lindzen has forgotten more hard science than wannabes like Schmidt, Cook and Mann have ever learned. Read his article on alarmism.

    When Lindzen [and other reputable climate scientists] state that the sensitivity number is well under 1°C per doubling, you and Cook blow it off with the d-word. But you don’t have the credibility or the stature to dispute it; it’s only your opinion, because it fits in with your evidence-free belief in looming climate catastrophe.

    But maybe you simply have a hard time following the basics. In that case I’ll make it easy for you with visual aids. If CO2 had a significant effect on temperature, then temperature would closely track changes in CO2 — more closely the higher the sensitivity number.

    So, does the temperature track rising CO2? No. In fact, the only CO2/T correlation is the one you’ve already admitted to: rising CO2 is a function of rising T, not vice versa.

    Next, you say: “The point of science is to discover the reason for anomalies a[t] different stages…” [Not really, but that's not the issue here.] “…Please show what the reason is for the recent anomaly. The climate does not make dramatic changes without a reason.”

    ‘Recent anomaly’?? You need to get up to speed here. I assume you could be referring to the coincidental rise in T & CO2. So show us, in a testable, falsifiable way, that CO2 caused the rise in T — and not vice-versa. Assumptions not allowed; empirical evidence only, please. Testable results, not model outputs that predict non-existent a tropospheric hot spot, or pal reviewed grant-sniffing papers hidden behind a pay wall.

    The planet has been warming since the LIA. By your own admission, CO2 is rising as a result. If rising CO2 was the cause of rising T, why is the rise moderating?

    And the null hypothesis of natural climate variability debunks your claim of “dramatic changes.” Not only are there no unusual climate changes [per Phil Jones], but the current climate is truly a “Goldilocks climate.” Compared with past temperature fluctuations, it could hardly be more benign. There is no evidence of any runaway global warming. None.

    No doubt you get a thrill from scaring yourself over “what-if” scenarios, but the more data that is collected, the more normal the current climate is shown to be compared with most of the Holocene. Going back farther, we’re damn lucky the Earth is as warm as it is; that won’t last.

  99. You’ve been watching Skeptical Science for months just waiting for it to use the D-word, haven’t you? It may be a lapse in civility, but it’s an exception at Skeptical Science, not the rule. Besides, since when does “denier” only mean “Holocaust denier”? A denier of something is one who denies that thing. It’s not a nice term, but it’s no nastier than “alarmist” or “warmist” or “believer”. Still, I agree that it was not constructive of Bruno to use it. Personally, I prefer to use to the word “contrarians”, as it is more neutral and so does not distract people from the argument.

    I also notice how you carefully avoided linking to the post in question (http://www.skepticalscience.com/2010ClimateChangeResourceRoundup.html) so as to avoid giving Skeptical Science any traffic. At least John Bruno bothered to link to your site, even if he was rather snarky about it.

    The Skeptical Science comments policy (http://www.skepticalscience.com/comments_policy.shtml) does not mean deleting comments with an opposing view – you only need to read any comments thread at SkS to see there are plenty of those. Mostly it’s just attempting to keep the discussion civil and on-topic. Conspiracy theories and political rants tend to be deleted, but scientific debate is not.

    Enneagram, the story about the UN ambassador to aliens is fake (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/sep/27/un-alien-ambassador-mazlan-othman).

    REPLY: Watching for months? Heh, no. When they make a post that links to WUWT (as does any blog), I get a notice in my traffic section showing incoming links. I saw this one and clicked on it. I have Cooks site linked in the sidebar, right next to RealClimate, an honor I gave him for being “civil”. So your “carefully avoided linking to the post in question” really rather falls flat since he has something so few other pro AGW blogs have here – a permanent link. Fact is, I was pretty upset when I wrote the post, because after talking with Mr. Bruno personally in Brisbane after my talk, and seeing his supportive comments in a previous WUWT thread, it felt like a punch in the stomach.

    You’d do better to tell Mr. Cook to end this sort of name calling, as it is pointless and insulting. If Cook values his blog’s reputation at all, maybe he’ll have the decency to apologize. – Anthony

  100. “Smokey says:
    September 28, 2010 at 5:04 pm
    Kevin MacDonald,

    Wake us when Cook allows equal access to writing and commenting on articles on his mis-named blog.”

    I have no idea what you are saying here, the only inference I can draw is that Cook’s moderation policy somehow gives Watts free reign to misrepresent him, but that logic is clearly bonkers and I have to assume I have interpreted you incorrectly.

    REPLY: What he’s saying is that Cook’s been deleting comments challenging articles. It’s a common theme on AGW proponent blogs. – Anthony

  101. “[snip] – I’m not going to let you bring in words not said, not part of this argument, and not posted here …”

    In fact, the words were said, they are posted on this site, and they are very relevant to the issue.

    REPLY: I don’t know that they are, or are not. They’ve been erased from your comment above so I can’t do a search. But the decision stands. Your intent here is to inflame, not gonna happen. – Anthony

  102. Perhaps, but you haven’t distanced yourself from it either. Look we could argue until the next ice age, it’s pointless. Strawman? Your count is high also.If you want to gain some respect here, you could denounce the use of the word “denier” in the context used by SkepticalScience. Ball is in your court, but unless you can make that step, your comments won’t get any traction here. – Anthony

    Brilliant, you are actually arguing that legitimate criticism of one issue is rendered null unless it is accompanied by legitimate criticism of another, seperate, issue.

    How does Bruno’s use of a pejorative justify your use of a fallacy?

    REPLY: Nice diversion. Answer to the issue. So, by lack of an answer about the use of the word, you encourage the use of the word “denier”. Since you had your chance. We’ll just leave it at that. – Anthony

  103. Smokey:
    –Accusing scientific skeptics of engaging in conspiracies isn’t so far from calling skeptics [the only honest kind of scientist] “denialists,”–
    Accusing scientists of fraudulent and illegal behavior and libeling them as thieves of public funds without proof is very different from saying someone exhibits denialism, and that, ironically, is actually a known symptom if it. Please read the paper I posted above about it.

    –Prof Richard Lindzen — who puts climate sensitivity to CO2 well below 1°C.–
    Have you read the paper, or even seen what he himself said about it.
    Here’s a detailed summary of the peer-reviewed commentary in GRL.
    And here’s a response from Linden

    Thanks for passing on the paper. I had not seen it. However, Wong had communicated much of the material independently, and some of it is certainly valid. However, we have addressed the criticisms and have shown that the results remain — especially the profound disconnect between models and observations. We are currently preparing a new version, and it should be ready shortly.

    I guess we’ll need to see that next paper to declare climate sensitivity victory, which I’m sure will be hailed as words from God without even waiting for post-commentary.

    –IMHO Dr Lindzen has forgotten more hard science than wannabes like Schmidt, Cook and Mann have ever learned. Read his article on alarmism.–
    Your opinion of him is irrelevant. I asked for evidence, not a scientist who says what you want — so therefore he must be correct. And we all know Lindzen’s stance on alarmism. You might be interested in his thoughts on the link between tobacco and cancer. He’s made a second career fighting for anti-regulatory groups. So what?

    –When Lindzen [and other reputable climate scientists] state that the sensitivity number is well under 1°C per doubling, you and Cook blow it off with the d-word. But you don’t have the credibility or the stature to dispute it; it’s only your opinion, because it fits in with your evidence-free belief in looming climate catastrophe.–
    Nonsense. I discredited the sensitivity number with peer-reviewed literature and his own words about it. But the research will be useful in cloud formation models in the tropics area, so it isn’t a total loss.

    –But maybe you simply have a hard time following the basics. In that case I’ll make it easy for you with visual aids. If CO2 had a significant effect on temperature, then temperature would closely track changes in CO2 — more closely the higher the sensitivity number.–
    You have no idea what you are talking about. Temperature would track closely to the forcings of all the elements that effect it, including the year-to-year noise like ENSO and volcanoes and solar cycles, etc.

    –So, does the temperature track rising CO2? No. In fact, the only CO2/T correlation is the one you’ve already admitted to: rising CO2 is a function of rising T, not vice versa.–
    Admitted? It’s scientific fact that CO2 DID follow temperature change. But maybe you can tell me how temperature remained warm for thousands more years following the lag from orbital change and didn’t immediately change back into an iceball. The fact that CO2 was introduced into the atmosphere as a feedback (as it does now from drying peat moss) to orbital climate change does not change the fact that CO2 will change temperature if it introduced by humans. Why is this so hard to accept?

    –‘Recent anomaly’?? You need to get up to speed here. I assume you could be referring to the coincidental rise in T & CO2. So show us, in a testable, falsifiable way, that CO2 caused the rise in T — and not vice-versa. Assumptions not allowed; empirical evidence only, please. Testable results, not model outputs that predict non-existent a tropospheric hot spot, or pal reviewed grant-sniffing papers hidden behind a pay wall.–
    This is hilarious. You want me to show you evidence, but you don’t want me to show you the evidence, and you don’t even look at what I’ve posted previously. It’s all “grant-sniffing” and “pal reviewed”. That makes it really easy to disregard, don’t it? Especially when you come up with catchy names for this nonsense. Why do you even bother asking for something in which you only are willing to accept it if it states what you want from certain scientists? You’ve yet to counter the carbon isotope issue, specify the natural variance that has caused the recent anomaly that you seem to think is “coincidental” somehow, or even explain the gigantic contradiction of how if climate sensitivity is so low, why is it that you keep referring to the dramatic climate changes that happen all the time. It’s either one or the other. The climate is sensitive and changes frequently to outside forces or climate sensitivity is low. You can’t argue from both ways and then claim to be a credible source.
    And we have tracked the tropospheric hot spot on short time scales. It just that we don’t have the data for a long term trend. What you are doing is, first of all, misrepresenting the hot spot situation, and secondly, using this as a way to disprove a theory which is based on solid physics and backed by reams of evidence (but it’s all grant sniffing, right?). Finding a long term hot spot doesn’t actually prove or disprove AGW, it just gives a better understanding of the lapse rate between the cooling air in the upper atmosphere and the surface. The presence of a long term hot spot would only show us what we already know, the Earth is warming. It does not prove what is causing it.

    –The planet has been warming since the LIA. By your own admission, CO2 is rising as a result. If rising CO2 was the cause of rising T, why is the rise moderating?–
    The natural causes for climate change have not been present. We know that the CO2 in the atmosphere now that is rising significantly is due to fossil fuel burning because of the carbon isotope level. This is just a fact. The global temperture doesn’t rise just because of the LIA. You need to explain why. Just saying that global temperature is rising because it was cold and it is getting warmer isn’t even close to real explanation.
    And the rise is not moderating to any significant degree. This decade was hotter than last, as was the last one hotter than the previous. Where do you come up with the numbers that show any moderation of significance? Have you seen the record temperatures lately, also? Do you call this year, one of moderating temperatures?

    –And the null hypothesis of natural climate variability debunks your claim of “dramatic changes.” Not only are there no unusual climate changes [per Phil Jones], but the current climate is truly a “Goldilocks climate.” Compared with past temperature fluctuations, it could hardly be more benign. There is no evidence of any runaway global warming. None.–
    You are taking Jones’ comment out of context. He said the warming (which is still happening) was not statistically significant over the short period that he asked about. Any statistician will tell you that the shorter the period, the harder to show statistical significance. And they will also tell to look at the 30-40 trend instead — which IS significant.
    Once again, by referring to past climate fluctuations, all you are doing is stating that the climate is sensitive, even though you claim it is not. This is why it is important to look for the reason for each change. Right now, could you please show the “natural” reason for the anomaly.

    –No doubt you get a thrill from scaring yourself over “what-if” scenarios, but the more data that is collected, the more normal the current climate is shown to be compared with most of the Holocene. Going back farther, we’re damn lucky the Earth is as warm as it is; that won’t last.–
    Once again, just looking a graph of past temperature doesn’t actually tell you anything unless you really look into the reasons for the temperature change. The temperature doesn’t change for no reason, just because it has in the past. Each event has its reason. It just happens to be the case that currently, man-made contributions and the energy imbalance caused by them far outweigh any known natural imbalances that could cause the troposphere to warm at the current rate.

  104. Well in my view, all this talk about CO2, and where it comes from; where it goes to and who is responsible for it, is simply a diversion from reality.

    The first thing that one has to get firmly fixed in the head is that the energy involved with CO2 and other GHGs is NOT the same thing as the energy that comes directly from the sun; and you can’t simply cite Watts per m^2 as if that’s all there is to it.

    The Solar spectrum photons that come directly from the sun, are real ordered energy that is capable of being harnessed to do real work; and in particular essentially all of it can be converted to “heat” if one wants to.

    But GHGs like CO2 and CH4, and the daddy of them all H2O that interract with the LWIR spectrum are consuming hay that has alredy been once through the horse; and if you try to feed that recycled hay to YOUR horse, you will find it is less useful than the original stuff.

    So LWIR from either the surface; or the Atmosphere (oceans too) has already been degraded by going at least once through the horse.

    The real thing though; directly from the sun; is either rejected and returned to space by the Al Bedo effect; which leaves it still as solar energy, or some of it is absorbed in the atmosphere gases and clouds, leaving a smaller amount to reach the ground still as sunlight.
    And ANY increase in Atmospheric water vapor and/or clouds or both, must of necessity ALWAYS reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the sureface still in pristine condition. In crease the clouds no matetr where or when, and you decrease the surface level solar insolation; and there is no getting around that simple fact.

    Th earth of cours starts to do things with that “real” solar energy; like grow plants for example; or run people’s PV electric farms.

    But the vast majority of it is simply wasted; and converted into the one horse cycle crap known as “heat”.

    Only then does it get involved in the affairs of green house gases and other processes; it becomes the food of “heat engines” which must operate within the efficiency constraints of the Carnot cycle or even worse efficiency heat engine cycles.

    So there isn’t any way that it can make up for the degradation that occurred when that good solar energy was turned into waste heat.

    The part of it that is generated on the surface itself, becomes partly stored, and partly exhausted to space, through various thermal processes like Conduction, Convection, and Evaporation; and some part of it is even converted back into electromagnetic Radiation; but at 20 times lower (you know what that means) effective source Temperature than the original sunlight, so it is 160,000 times lower emittance than what originally left the sun’s surface. That solar emittance is itself attenuated by about 46,300 by the time it reaches earth, and about 35% of that is turned back by reflection.

    As for the thermal radiation that is intercepted by the atmosphere; and then again subsequently re-emitted (the energy ) but in an isotropic fashion so half of that is lost to space.

    All of those processes have various kinds of warming effects; but none of them come close to the effectiveness of the original solar energy; and regardless of how clouds treat those LWIR sources; they still can’t make up for the simple fact that clouds ALWAYS reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth surface; and more clouds leads to less received sunlight; no matter what.

  105. Several comments here about the Milankovitch cycles not being involved in current cooling and supposedly being about to cause a cooling phase.

    Not according to my understanding of the Milankovitch cycles – I’m sure to get some enthusiastic corrections if I’m wrong!

    There are three Milankovitch Variations.

    The two axial variations change the distribution of solar radiation between N. & S. hemispheres, cooling one as it warms the other by the same amount.

    The orbital Variation actually changes the total amount of heat received by the planet annually, due to the change of the ellipticity of Earth’s orbit magnified by the inverse square law. Evidence from many different fields of science firmly link the maximum ellipticity orbit with ice ages and the minimum ellipticity orbit with peak interglacial warming.

    At present orbital eccentricity is at about 1.6, down from about 5.0 about 30,000 years ago, with about 20,000 years to go to the peak of the warming which will occur as Earth’s orbit bocomes very nearly circular. During that time Earth’s climate will, overall, become slowly but surely warmer, but with “overlays” of cooler or still warmer periods as other cyclic factors come in to play.

    So, according to Milankovitch, we are heading for about twenty thousand years of warming before the 50,000 year descent into the next ice age starts.

  106. REPLY: Nice diversion. Answer to the issue. So, by lack of an answer about the use of the word, you encourage the use of the word “denier”. Since you had your chance. We’ll just leave it at that. – Anthony

    Thanks, but I really can’t take credit for any diversion, I have been consistent and unwavering throughout, steadfast even, monotonously so; you are quote mining in this article. It was my initial point back in my first posting and it is still my point now, the diversionary tactics are yours and yours alone, a series of obvious evasions employed to wriggle out of addressing a valid criticism.

    REPLY: But you still can’t denounce the use of the word denier. You think way too much of yourself when clearly you won’t address the central question. Like I said, we could argue forever, and you still would sidestep it. From my view, you are dishonest in doing that.

    You seem woefully unaware of how reporting works. As for quote mining, show me a newspaper reporter anywhere that uses every bit of information gathered, every quote spoken during an interview, do TV news shows show all of an interview? I can tell you from firsthand experience working in TV news, no they don’t. Every news story you read, every radio news program you listen to, every TV news program you watch has been written with the reporter’s “take” on the story, then afterwards, edited. That’s why editors exist. I gathered and edited this story, I chose what I wanted to illustrate. I edited it. Did I include everything John Cook said? No. Has John Cook included everything I’ve said or done about certain topics? No. He’s left out plenty. I fact, we could do an examination of every climate blog on the internet, pro and con for climate issues, and find examples of what you call “quote mining” We could extend that to Wikipedia, and call up all the pages that have been controlled by the cabal of climate gatekeepers such as William Connoley, and find lots of examples of what you call “quote mining”.

    You whole point is pointless, when you look at the whole context of climate reporting, or for that matter all reporting. Discussion closed.- Anthony

  107. “REPLY: But that is not how it is used, “denier” is used in the rephrehensible “holocaust denier” connotation. – Anthony”

    So Inquisition forbids words like ‘denialist’, ‘denier’ and ‘to deny’ whenceforth (to protect free speech, of course).
    In fact, if I use a word like ‘to deny’, I will define it’s meaning.
    And oh well, if ‘denying’ is out of the discussion, I will settle for ‘populism’, as in: ‘climate populism’.

    [Reply: If it isn't a Holocaust reference, it is an Inquisition reference. If you don't understand why those particular references are unacceptable, then please take them to another blog. ~dbs, mod.]

Comments are closed.