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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
martywd

Robert Zimmerman has some suggested reading that would be of benefit to Mr. Cook which can be found here:
http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/a-scientists-ten-commandments
Of course, if Mr. Cook had done an honest read of WUWT, the above link would be redundant reading.
.

Djozar

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.

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.

David

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.

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)

Steve Fitzpatrick

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

KR

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.

Alan

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?

Chris B

Recycled WWF advertising. If Panda couldn’t get us to drink CAGW kool-aid maybe it can help sell cheese. LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwCWiDfr-fU

gryposaurus

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.”

Grumbler

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

RW

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?

John F. Hultquist

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.

James Sexton

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.

dana1981

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

John Whitman

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

Alan F

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.

Milwaukee Bob

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.”

James F. Evans

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.

Mike

“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

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.

Kevin MacDonald

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

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 >>>>>>>>

David

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”.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

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!

nofreewind

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/

David Davidovics

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.

David Walton

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.

James Sexton

“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.

David Walton

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.

dbleader61

@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.]

Ben D.

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.

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.

Phil Clarke

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.

John Whitman

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

J

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.

Enneagram

As “robust” as the IPCC:
The UN to nominate an Ambassador to the Aliens”
NO JOKE:
http://www.space.com/news/united-nations-alien-ambassador-100927.html

gryposaurus

“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

gryposaurus

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

jose

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

gryposaurus

“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

David Walton

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.

kim

Is this the John Cook of Tasmanian sea level fame? Where have I run across him before?
=====================

Djozar

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

mkelly

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?

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.

Kevin MacDonald

“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.

gryposaurus

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