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
Enneagram says:
September 27, 2010 at 10:52 am
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
=================
We can only hope….Sorry, mods, OT!!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x0BSgLKnSk&fs=1&hl=en_US]
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.
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.
If I ever meet John Cook I will **** his ***** down his ****** so that he has to **** to just ******.
REPLY: None of that please, whatever you meant – Anthony
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.”☺
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.
Beautiful response Smokey.
Bad Cook.
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.
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.
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.
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.
My last encounter with skeptical science I found a guest blogger named Graham Wayne at the helm.
It was on a thread called Should Martians be skeptical of global warming.
Since I squished John Cook’s original Global warming on Mars post, I felt obliged to revisit the topic in the underling’s version.
Take a look, and tell me how did I do?
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.”
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.
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.
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” 😉
“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
Must apologise for the horror of the spelling in that last post of mine.
[Better to apologize for posting under different names. -mod.]
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.
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.
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
————–
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
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.
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