[author’s note: this article was originally submitted as a “letter to the editor” to the Bellingham Herald, a newspaper that published an attack on Dr. Don Easterbrook. The Herald refused to publish my rebuttal. The executive editor, July Shirley (julie.shirley@bellinghamherald.com) explained “We only print letters from residents of Whatcom County. We are not publishing your letter.”]
Letter to the Editor by Dr. David Deming
I write in rebuttal to the March 31 letter by WWU geology faculty criticizing Dr. Don Easterbrook. I have a Ph.D in geophysics and have published research papers on climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In 2006 I testified before the US Senate on global warming. Additionally, I am the author of a three-volume history of science.
I have never met Don Easterbrook. I write not so much to defend him as to expose the ignorance exhibited in the letter authored by WWU geology faculty. Their attack on Dr. Easterbrook is the most egregious example of pedantic buffoonery since the Pigeon League conspired against Galileo in the seventeenth century. Skepticism is essential to science. But the goal of the geology faculty at WWU seems to be to suppress critical inquiry and insist on dogmatic adherence to ideology.
The WWU faculty never defined the term “global warming” but described it as “very real,” as if it were possible for something to be more real than real. They claimed that the evidence in support of this “very real” global warming was “overwhelming.” Yet they could not find space in their letter to cite a single specific fact that supports their thesis.
There is significant evidence that would tend to falsify global warming. The mean global air temperature has not risen for the last fifteen years. At the end of March the global extent of sea ice was above the long-term average and higher than it was in March of 1980. Last December, snow cover in the northern hemisphere was at the highest level since record keeping began in 1966. The UK just experienced the coldest March of the last fifty years. There has been no increase in droughts or wildfires. Worldwide hurricane and cyclone activity is near a forty-year low.
One might think that the foregoing facts would raise doubts in scientists interested in pursuing objective truth. But global warming is not so much a scientific theory subject to empirical falsification as it is a political ideology that must be fiercely defended in defiance of every fact to the contrary. In the past few years we have been told that not only hot weather but cold weather is caused by global warming. The blizzards that struck the east coast of the US in 2010 were attributed to global warming. Every weather event–hot, cold, wet or dry–is said to be caused by global warming. The theory that explains everything explains nothing.
Among the gems in the endless litany of nonsense we are subjected to are claims that global warming causes earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. Last year we were warned that global warming would turn us all into hobbits, the mythical creatures from J. R. R. Tolkien’s novels. I am not aware of any member of the WWU geology faculty criticizing these ridiculous claims. Their vehemence seems to be reserved for honest skeptics like Dr. Easterbrook who advance science by asking hard questions.
At the heart of the WWU geology faculty criticisms was the claim that peer review creates objective and reliable knowledge. Nonsense. Peer review produces opinions. Scientists, like other people, have political beliefs, ideological orientations, and personal views that strain their scientific objectivity. One of the most disgusting things to emerge from the 2009 Climategate emails was the revelation of an attempt to subvert the peer-review process by suppressing the publication of work that was scientifically sound but contrary to the reviewer’s personal views.
The infamous phrase “hide the decline” refers to an instance where a global warming alarmist omitted data that contradicted his personal belief that the world was warming. This sort of bias is not limited but pervasive. Neither is science a foolproof method for producing absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision. The entire history of science is littered with discarded theories once thought to be incontrovertible truths.
The WWU geology faculty letter asserted that technological advances arise from application of the scientific method. They claimed that airplanes were invented by scientists. But the Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics–not scientists. The modern age of personal computing began in a suburban California garage in 1976. The most significant technological advance in human history was the Industrial Revolution in Britain that occurred from 1760 through 1830. When Adam Smith toured factories and inquired as to who had invented the new machinery, the answer was always the same: the common workman. Antibiotics were not discovered through the rigorous application of scientific methodology but serendipitously when Fleming noticed in 1928 that mold suppressed bacterial growth.
Dr. Easterbrook’s contributions have furthered the advance of scientific knowledge and the progress of the human race. It matters not if a multitude of professors oppose him. As Galileo explained, it is “certain that the number of those who reason well in difficult matters is much smaller than the number of those who reason badly….reasoning is like running and not like carrying, and one Arab steed will outrun a hundred jackasses.”
David Deming
Professor of Arts & Sciences
University of Oklahoma
email: ddeming [at] ou.edu
==============================================================
A list of Dr. Easterbrook’s credentials are listed here:
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/dje_cv.html
On Tues, April 2, I spoke with the Bellingham Herald editor and she promised to publish a rebuttal op-ed. I sent it to her that evening but so far it hasn’t appeared. The real issue is with the 13 members of the WWU Geology Dept who wrote the personal attack on me. Not a single one of them has ever published a single paper on climate. A well-known physicist challenged them to defend their views in an open debate on campus. One geology faculty (David Hirsch, who has never published a single word on climate) responded; “I don’t want the media to present both sides of an issue.”
“Well, the problem, Dr. Fulks, is it’s not *my* science. I do not now, nor have I claimed to be an expert in climate science. The question was, would I support a debate-type forum to be hosted at WWU? I would not.” He went on to say that he didn’t want to debate because he had never claimed to have addressed any of the issues I spoke about, but supported the personal attack.
If you feel so inclined, you express your views to president.shepard@wwu.edu, Stephanie.bowers@wwu.edu, and jeff.wright@wwu.edu
As a geologist I would like to second Dr. Deming’s assessment. I am reminded of Einstein’s comments: “It doesn’t take 100 scientists to prove me wrong. It takes a single fact.”
“The infamous phrase “hide the decline” refers to an instance where a global warming alarmist omitted data that contradicted his personal belief that the world was warming. ”
I can’t find the summary on climateaudit anymore, but specifically “hide the decline” does not refer to temperatures, but the divergence of proxy values (showing a decline) vs actual temperatures. This brings into question the validy of the proxy to represent temperatures. So its not about warming (which at the time it was and no one questioned) but seriously undermines the credibility of the proxy to say anything about the past temperatures.
The climategate emails show us that the response to this was that they would just claim it was other anthropogenic factors, which warmists will often quip is the answer to this divergence problem. But I’ve never seen any actual science to explain the divergence problem and in my opinion it invalidates those tree proxies, not that I’d have really considered them worth anything anyway.
An excellent letter. Thank you for this Dr. Deming.
Perhaps you could take up a collection and pay for space in the newspaper to publish this letter.
Excellent article. But, I think the following statement, how very true it is, is a little incomplete:
‘Among the gems in the endless litany of nonsense we are subjected to are claims that global warming causes earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions.’
We must not forget that global warming (now being referred to as Climate Chaos*) is also supposed to increase the number of asteroid hits the Earth experiences, along with a change in its wobble.
Incredible? Yes. But none of these take the cake like the Earth Explosion Theory. Now, I don’t know if that’s its real name, but honestly, what difference does it make? Anyway, here’s the theory. And, I’m not making this up. Now, we know that the Earth’s core temperature is millions of degrees. Well, not quite, but it’s really hot. And, according to this theory, it dissipates this massive heat through the North Pole; where Santa lives (Ok, I added that). This heat is dissipated through the icy cold waters of the Arctic Ocean and thence into outer space. Well, with global warming, the floating ice cap over this ocean is postulated, theorized, believed to, thought to (enough, Tom), disappear, thus changing the albedo of this, brrrrr, cold water and allowing it to absorb additional sunlight, thus heating this polar bear water up, and making it a less efficient heat transfer agent (still with me?). Therefore, the really hot core temperature has no escape and gets hotter and hotter and … ballooey, the Earth literally blows up! Wham! To smithereens!
Ok, I’ve embellished the story (I don’t want to dignify it by calling it a theory) a little bit. (How could one not?) But, I’m not making it up. And it wasn’t written as a joke. I don’t know the person’s scientific credentials. But we’ve gotten to the point where it doesn’t matter, does it? So, next time somebody mentions the ‘serious’ science of global warming tell them about the Earth Explosion Theory.
*I think the translation for Climate Chaos is Intellectual Deficiency Chaos.
Do they also only publish news that originates in Whatcom County?
Clearly, it is good to have a policy (or perhaps rather a preference) to only publish letters from locals, but receiving a letter from such a distinguished scientist from across the ocean, could also be construed as newsworthy – even as a sign that the paper has relevance far beyond Whatcom County.
@Dodgy Geezer: >Um. Aeroplanes WERE invented by scientists.
To add to what Dodgy Geezer said, although the Wright brothers are popularly perceived as lucky tinkerers, they actually were very much the scientists. They studied all the available data on flight (including Cayley’s) and, when early experiments failed, they designed a very elegant and sensitive wind tunnel for scientific experimentation. It was through their wind tunnel experiments they learned that the existing lift vs. drag data (including Cayley’s) were wrong. Gathering their own data through the wind tunnel experiments enabled their successful flight, which was a surprise to neither brother as it was simply another in a long series of carefully designed and successful experiments and measurements.
An excellent letter. The problem of course is that Dr. Easterbrook not only attacked orthodoxy, but also questioned a source of funds. In the USA, the Fed gov’t alone has passed out $147 bilion (I hear) in an effort to understand and stop global warming. Surely, anyone that says that “global warming is a hoax” isn’t gonna get those funds, right? And quite frankly, it’s easy to find religion when you employment depends on adhering to its orthodoxy…
Great! Thank you for putting this up
Alfred
DodgyGeezer: Well, Cayley’s airplane crashed into the Potomac…twice. And the Wright brothers used a scientific approach in their efforts. Even to the extent of making their own wind tunnel and testing various airfoils. In the process debunking a lot of the information put out by Cayley and others. So I guess they were scientists…but NOT academics. A good read is
“The Bishop’s Boys”. And the wind tunnel is on display at the air museum in Dayton, OH.
I recall my times in engineering classes with fondness. Chemical thermodynamics was my favorite subject. Sigh. I can’t even do simple calculus anymore. BSChE Auburn 1952.
Another dodgy geezer.
As a geophysicist I am quite happy to see twelve Ph.D geologists sign this letter. In another 10 years we can all look back on these “scientists” and “professors” and have a great laugh. Thanks Dr. Deming for your rebuttal. We will also re-read your letter in a decade with a great big glass of I-told-you-so.
WWU most likely also disputed the theory of Continental Drift – and possibly still do?
This excellent letter should be published as far and wide as possible. Hopefully, this WUWT article will will be picked up by the wider press media.
“Antibiotics were not discovered through the rigorous application of scientific methodology but serendipitously when Fleming noticed in 1928 that mould suppressed bacterial growth”.
Ditto Radioactivity by Henri Becquerel in 1896.
Dr. Easterbrook and Dr. Deming ,
Thank you for standing up for science.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
LOL Galileo, you guys seem to forget that Galileo had evidence and a working theory, the AGW deniers have neither.
One geology faculty (David Hirsch, who has never published a single word on climate) responded; “I don’t want the media to present both sides of an issue.”
Really? How would you like them to present it Mr. Hirsch? Hang in there Don, but im sorry to say this man does discredit to your institution.
Mention of the Wright Brothers and the invention of the airplane is more apt than might at first appear. Not only did scientists not invent the airplane, they tried long and hard – and failed! Astronomer Samuel Langley (1834-1906), Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, headed a team which spent 18 years and at least $75,000 dollars of government money, plus unknown operational expenses charged to the Smithsonian, in futile attempts to get heaveir-than-air machines to fly. He finally abandoned his scheme on December 8th 1903 when the latest version of what he called his ‘Aerodrome’ fell into the Potomac River from its launch catapult, in the description of one news report “like a handful of mortar.”
The failure sparked a national debate about government funding of science and technology.
In his report on the Langley project, Major N. W. Macomb of the Board of Ordnance and Fortification declared: “We are still far from the ultimate goal, and it would seem as if years of constant work and study by experts, together with the expenditure of thousands of dollars, would still be necessary before we can hope to produce an apparatus of practical utilitly on these lines.”
In an ironic coincidence, the day after Langley’s final Aerodrome failure, Orville Wright returned from Dayton to Kitty Hawk with a new propellor shaft for the Flyer – and the rest is history. Or not quite, because although the Wrights were to spend the next five years and their own money developing the ‘plane and learning to fly (in full public view at Huffman Prairie outside Dayton), they were castigated as charlatans in the press and the scientific media with headlines such as “Fliers or Liars?” It was not until 1908 that the Wrights were finally accepted as having succeeded. And then the really dirty tricks started, with the Smithsonian eventually attempting to rewrite history, but that’s another sadly all-too-familiar story and one for another day.
.
But the MSM has won again, because the wider public do not know of this. Even highly educated friends of mine know nothing of the criticisms and falsifications of Global Warming, because like most people they are too busy to search the web. They take the MSM at their word, and know nothing else.
The Biased Broadcasting Corporation is a past master at this. They have to, by the wording of their Charter, give the UK public all the news. But when they find news items that conflict with liberal beliefs (like the Global Warming scam, and the plague of immigrant gang rapes we have recently experienced), they bury them on the BBC website.
The Biased Broadcasting Corporation then says ‘we did report it’ – but less that 0.0001% of the population would have been on the BBC website to see it.
.
“The infamous phrase “hide the decline” refers to an instance where a global warming alarmist omitted data that contradicted his personal belief that the world was warming”
Although the act of selectively removing data is at the heart of this phrase, it is not related to a personal belief that the world is warming.
It refers specifically to the failure of temperature proxies to respond in the expected manner to an increase in temperature.
This is turn places the reliability of historical proxies in question, along with claims that 20th Century warming is unprecedented.
Glenn Dixon says:
April 8, 2013 at 8:24 am
@Dodgy Geezer: >Um. Aeroplanes WERE invented by scientists.
I think you miss the point of what the academics at WWU were trying to say. They were trying to say that you are only a ‘scientist’ if you have the correct accreditation and degrees from a University. An academic closed shop. It is extremely common for people in academia to first check the academic credentials of a person espousing a point rather than the point itself. If the credentials do not meet the academic bar set then regardless of the validity of the point being made it will be disregarded. This is a corollary of the argumentum ad verecundiam – argument from authority; the fallacy that an argument being put forward by someone who is not an ‘authority’ must be wrong. Thus they demonstrate a total misunderstanding of the allegory of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’.
Franz Dullaart says:
April 8, 2013 at 8:34 am
WWU most likely also disputed the theory of Continental Drift – and possibly still do?
Peril be to those that do! Especially given WWU’s precarious perch atop a none-too-quiet Backarc Sag of the Cascadia Subduction Complex. I’ll bet they measure sea level there and think “Carbon”…Ha! Good luck with that as the Swellnami comes lazing into the mouth of Pugilistic Sound.
But were the Wright brothers really the first to get off the ground? http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/18/wright-or-wrong-smithsonian-enters-first-in-flight-fight/
I know where my kids won’t be going to school…
“On Tues, April 2, I spoke with the Bellingham Herald editor and she promised to publish a rebuttal op-ed. I sent it to her that evening but so far it hasn’t appeared. ”
Did you try the Skagit Valley Herald? 🙂
I was surprised your work was coming out of WWU for a while, I am sorry your co-workers behaved this way. Very unprofessional, especially since they did not talk to you directly about it, but issued a press release. That the Herald did not interview you is really poor journalism.
I have enjoyed you insight for a while, please keep it up. And, hey, Texas turned out to be a good move…