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:
John Bruno says: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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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!
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/
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.
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.
“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.
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.
@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.]
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
denialskeptic community, visit their mecca: Watts Up With That?Certainly doesn’t seem like a place to look for an even-handed counterpoint.
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.
—————-
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:
Anthony, thanks again for your wonderful venue.
John
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.
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
“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
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?
REPLY: Nice try, no cigar. It is still not the word “denier” used in pejorative. – Anthony
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…
“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
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.
Is this the John Cook of Tasmanian sea level fame? Where have I run across him before?
=====================
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
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.
“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.
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