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.
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
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
——————
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
@ur momisugly
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!
“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.
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.
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]
————————
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
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.
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…
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?
The most important fact now missing from his website,
“I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist…” – John Cook, Skeptical Science
“John Cook: A cartoonist working from home in Brisbane, Australia” (SEV)
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…
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.
“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.
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.
SkepticalScience is probably the worst name you could come up for an alarmist blog, but it suits well, as that is one of the worst blogs ever.
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.