- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Nice to see the NY Times doubling down on global warming
Posted on 2/8/14 at 7:18 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 2/8/14 at 7:18 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The 2013 IPCC AR5 Report: Facts -vs- Fictions
October 3, 2013
by Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
Mark Twain popularized the saying “There are liars, damn liars, and statisticians.” After reading the recently-released [IPCC AR5] report, we can now add, ‘there are liars, damn liars, and IPCC.” When compared to the also recently published NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) 1000+-page volume of data on climate change with thousands of peer-reviewed references, the inescapable conclusion is that the IPCC report must be considered the grossest misrepresentation of data ever published. As MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen stated, “The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to the level of hilarious incoherence—it is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.”
From the IPCC 2013 Report
After all these years, IPCC still doesn’t get it—we’ve been thawing out from the Little Ice Age for several hundred years but still are not yet back to pre-Little Ice Age temperatures that prevailed for 90% of the past 10,000 years. Warming and cooling has been going on for millions of years, long before CO2 could have had anything to do with it, so warming in itself certainly doesn’t prove that it was caused by CO2.
Their misrepresentation of data is ridiculous. The IPCC report purports to show warming of 0.5°C (0.9°F) since 1980, yet surface temperature measurements indicate no warming over the past 17 years, and satellite temperature data shows the August 13 temperature only 0.12°C (0.21°F) above the 1908 temperature (Spencer, 2013). IPCC shows a decadal warming of 0.6°C (1°F) since 1980 but the temperature over the past decade has actually cooled, not warmed.
From the IPCC Report
There just isn’t any nice way to say this—it’s is an outright lie. A vast published literature exists showing that recent warming is not only not unusual, but more intense warming has occurred many times in the past centuries and millennia. As a reviewer of the IPCC report, I called this to their attention, so they cannot have been unaware of it. For example, more than 20 periods of warming in the past five centuries can be found in the Greenland GISP2 ice core (Fig. 3) (Easterbrook, 2011), the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were warmer than recent warming (Fig. 4), and about 90% of the past 10,000 years were warmer than present (Fig. 5).
etc., etc.,
complete and utter rubbish, the ole 'global cooling' last 17 years bullshite.
We havent even begun to feel the affects of going from 300 to 400 ppm C02 in 55 years when the last natural rise to those number took 7000 years. Lag and sensitivity will catch up and it will be bad for the planet, no other way to put it.
and from the first google I did on your source
don easterbrook, another Lord Monckton.
Global Warming: Man or Myth?
Don Easterbrook’s Academic Dishonesty
The letter below was sent to The Bellingham Herald (local newspaper) and to Western Front Online (Western Washington University newspaper) on Monday January 9, 2011. I also called and left a message with the Bellingham Herald News Editor. I did not hear back from either newspaper.
Sir or Madam,
Don Easterbrook, a Professor Emeritus at Western Washington University has been promoting his belief that natural cycles of the sun and oceans are going to cause global cooling over the next few decades and this will offset the CO2-caused warming headed our way. In 2001, he announced that global cooling was about to begin and would last for the next 25 years. Of course, the previous decade was the warmest in over 150 years and 2010 is likely to be the warmest or second warmest year in that period. Easterbrook wants to persuade us to ignore global warming despite the fact that most of his peers, climate scientists, military and intelligence experts, health officials, and insurance companies expect major societal disruptions due to the current and expected human-caused climate disruption.
It is ok to be wrong. Science cannot prove an idea is true but only that it is false. Correcting mistakes is how science moves forward. But Easterbrook is not just wrong, he is playing fast and loose with the data. He was caught red-handed using a doctored graph in a 2007 conference (see LINK and in subsequent articles and talks. Easterbrook not only edited these graphics to change the information they contained, but did so in order to minimize the evidence of recent global warming. This is, at the very least, academic malpractice. More recently (12/28/10) he incorrectly labeled a graph of temperatures for the previous 10,000 years to claim that most of these years were warmer than present. His “current temperature” was really 1855 and not the much warmer present day. He was notified of his mistake but refuses to issue a retraction (see LINK A good scientist corrects and learns from mistakes, but this seems foreign to Easterbrook.
WWU officials were notified of Easterbrook’s doctoring of data last May and again this January but have so far chosen to do nothing. Academic freedom must be cherished and defended but dishonesty should never be condoned – whether at WWU or any other institution of higher education.
Scott Mandia and Gareth Renowden
Bios:
Scott Mandia is a professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College, Long Island, New York and has been teaching meteorology and climatology courses for 23 years.
Gareth Renowden is an NZ-based science writer and blogger, author of Hot Topic – Global Warming & The Future of New Zealand. He has written extensively on Easterbrook’s cavalier approach to climate data.
Update 01/15/2010: I have been told that the entire geology department at WWU disagrees with Don Easterbrook and they have now declared their position on the departmental website:
Human-induced climate change
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geology Faculty at WWU concur with rigorous, peer-reviewed assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed significantly and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of carbon dioxide emissions from anthropogenic sources.
you want to understand the concept of global warming as scientist see it in the grand scheme of things watch this vid.
simple explanation of retarded concepts ive seen thrown about in this thread and multiple others on the poliboard, talks about the bullshite conspiracy theories, and about future policies and the difficulties there.
everyone of you should watch this vid from the head of Nasa's Research Center.
wading thru the bullshite
3
Posted on 2/8/14 at 7:25 pm to Cruiserhog
ouch it only gets worse for Easterbrook
On March 26, 2013, a long-retired faculty member of our department, Don Easterbrook, presented his opinions on human-caused global climate change to the Washington State Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee at the invitation of the committee chair Sen. Doug Ericksen, R.-Ferndale. We, the active faculty of the Geology Department at Western Washington University, express our unanimous and significant concerns regarding the views espoused by Easterbrook, who holds a doctorate in geology; they are neither scientifically valid nor supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence on the topic. We also decry the injection of such poor quality science into the public discourse regarding important policy decisions for our state's future; the chair of the committee was presented with numerous options and opportunities to invite current experts to present the best-available science on this subject, and chose instead to, apparently, appeal to a narrow partisan element with his choice of speaker.
We concur with the vast consensus of the science community that recent global warming is very real, human greenhouse-gas emissions are the primary cause, and their environmental and economic impacts on our society will likely be severe if we don't make significant efforts to address the problem. Claims to the contrary fly in the face of an overwhelming body of rigorous scientific literature.
We intend no disrespect to Easterbrook personally. We appreciate his previous service to our department and to Western. His present appointment as emeritus professor was made in light of his long-standing history at WWU. But people of the state of Washington need to understand that Easterbrook's ideas on anthropogenic global warming have not passed through rigorous peer review in the scientific literature. Additionally, Easterbrook's claims in this forum and elsewhere require the existence of a broad, decades-long conspiracy amongst literally thousands of scientists to falsify climate data and to prevent publication of opposing research. This opinion demonstrates a profound rejection of the scientific process and the fundamental value of rigorous peer review, and is also simply wrong.
Science thrives on controversies; it rewards innovative, unexpected findings, but only when they are backed by rigorous, painstaking evidence and reasoning. Without such standards, science would be ineffective as a tool to improve our society. It is worth acknowledging that nearly every technological advance in modern society is a direct result of that same scientific method (think the Internet, airplanes, antibiotics, and even your smartphone).
Easterbrook's views, as exemplified by his Senate presentation, are a stark contrast to that standard; they are filled with misrepresentations, misuse of data and repeated mixing of local vs. global records. Nearly every graphic in the hours-long presentation to the Senate was flawed, as was Easterbrook's discussion of them. For example, more than 100 years of research in physics, chemistry, atmospheric science and oceanography has, via experiments, numerous physical observations and theoretic calculations, clearly demonstrate - and have communicated via the scientific literature - that carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas; its presence and variations in Earth's atmosphere have significant and measureable impacts on the surface temperature of our planet. Alternatively, you can take Easterbrook's word - not supported by any published science - that the concentration and effects of carbon dioxide are so small as to not matter a bit.
In a specific example, Easterbrook referred to a graph of temperatures from an ice core of the Greenland ice sheet to claim that global temperatures were warmer than present over most of the last 10,000 years. First, this record is of temperature from a single spot on Earth, central Greenland (thus it is not a "global record"). Second, and perhaps more importantly, Easterbrook's definition of "present temperature" in the graph is based on the most recent data point in that record, which is actually 1855, more than 150 years ago when the world was still in the depths of the Little Ice Age, and well before any hint of human-caused climate change.
As the active faculty of the Western Washington University Geology Department that he lists as his affiliation, we conclude that Easterbrook's presentation clearly does not represent the best-available science on this subject, and urge the Senate, our state government, and the citizens of Washington State to rely on rigorous peer-reviewed science rather than conspiracy-based ideas to steer their decisions on matters concerning our environment and economic future.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Western Washington University WWU Geology Department faculty members who authored this column are Douglas H. Clark, who holds a doctorate in geology; Bernard A. Housen, who is the department chair and holds a doctorate in geophysics; Susan Debari, who holds a doctorate in geology; Colin B. Amos, who holds a doctorate in geology; Scott R. Linneman, who holds a doctorate in geology; Robert J. Mitchell, who holds doctorates in engineering and geology; David M. Hirsch, who holds a doctorate in geology; Jaqueline Caplan-Auerbach, who holds a doctorate in geophysics; Pete Stelling, who holds a doctorate in geology; Elizabeth R. Schermer, who holds a doctorate in geology; Christopher Suczek, who holds a doctorate in geology; and Scott Babcock, who holds a doctorate in geology.
On March 26, 2013, a long-retired faculty member of our department, Don Easterbrook, presented his opinions on human-caused global climate change to the Washington State Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee at the invitation of the committee chair Sen. Doug Ericksen, R.-Ferndale. We, the active faculty of the Geology Department at Western Washington University, express our unanimous and significant concerns regarding the views espoused by Easterbrook, who holds a doctorate in geology; they are neither scientifically valid nor supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence on the topic. We also decry the injection of such poor quality science into the public discourse regarding important policy decisions for our state's future; the chair of the committee was presented with numerous options and opportunities to invite current experts to present the best-available science on this subject, and chose instead to, apparently, appeal to a narrow partisan element with his choice of speaker.
We concur with the vast consensus of the science community that recent global warming is very real, human greenhouse-gas emissions are the primary cause, and their environmental and economic impacts on our society will likely be severe if we don't make significant efforts to address the problem. Claims to the contrary fly in the face of an overwhelming body of rigorous scientific literature.
We intend no disrespect to Easterbrook personally. We appreciate his previous service to our department and to Western. His present appointment as emeritus professor was made in light of his long-standing history at WWU. But people of the state of Washington need to understand that Easterbrook's ideas on anthropogenic global warming have not passed through rigorous peer review in the scientific literature. Additionally, Easterbrook's claims in this forum and elsewhere require the existence of a broad, decades-long conspiracy amongst literally thousands of scientists to falsify climate data and to prevent publication of opposing research. This opinion demonstrates a profound rejection of the scientific process and the fundamental value of rigorous peer review, and is also simply wrong.
Science thrives on controversies; it rewards innovative, unexpected findings, but only when they are backed by rigorous, painstaking evidence and reasoning. Without such standards, science would be ineffective as a tool to improve our society. It is worth acknowledging that nearly every technological advance in modern society is a direct result of that same scientific method (think the Internet, airplanes, antibiotics, and even your smartphone).
Easterbrook's views, as exemplified by his Senate presentation, are a stark contrast to that standard; they are filled with misrepresentations, misuse of data and repeated mixing of local vs. global records. Nearly every graphic in the hours-long presentation to the Senate was flawed, as was Easterbrook's discussion of them. For example, more than 100 years of research in physics, chemistry, atmospheric science and oceanography has, via experiments, numerous physical observations and theoretic calculations, clearly demonstrate - and have communicated via the scientific literature - that carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas; its presence and variations in Earth's atmosphere have significant and measureable impacts on the surface temperature of our planet. Alternatively, you can take Easterbrook's word - not supported by any published science - that the concentration and effects of carbon dioxide are so small as to not matter a bit.
In a specific example, Easterbrook referred to a graph of temperatures from an ice core of the Greenland ice sheet to claim that global temperatures were warmer than present over most of the last 10,000 years. First, this record is of temperature from a single spot on Earth, central Greenland (thus it is not a "global record"). Second, and perhaps more importantly, Easterbrook's definition of "present temperature" in the graph is based on the most recent data point in that record, which is actually 1855, more than 150 years ago when the world was still in the depths of the Little Ice Age, and well before any hint of human-caused climate change.
As the active faculty of the Western Washington University Geology Department that he lists as his affiliation, we conclude that Easterbrook's presentation clearly does not represent the best-available science on this subject, and urge the Senate, our state government, and the citizens of Washington State to rely on rigorous peer-reviewed science rather than conspiracy-based ideas to steer their decisions on matters concerning our environment and economic future.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Western Washington University WWU Geology Department faculty members who authored this column are Douglas H. Clark, who holds a doctorate in geology; Bernard A. Housen, who is the department chair and holds a doctorate in geophysics; Susan Debari, who holds a doctorate in geology; Colin B. Amos, who holds a doctorate in geology; Scott R. Linneman, who holds a doctorate in geology; Robert J. Mitchell, who holds doctorates in engineering and geology; David M. Hirsch, who holds a doctorate in geology; Jaqueline Caplan-Auerbach, who holds a doctorate in geophysics; Pete Stelling, who holds a doctorate in geology; Elizabeth R. Schermer, who holds a doctorate in geology; Christopher Suczek, who holds a doctorate in geology; and Scott Babcock, who holds a doctorate in geology.
This post was edited on 2/8/14 at 7:29 pm
Posted on 2/8/14 at 7:37 pm to Cruiserhog
Nobody is going to read all that.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 7:38 pm to Roger Klarvin
I read maybe 6% of that
Posted on 2/8/14 at 7:50 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Nobody is going to read all that.
well, misinformed people are/tend to be lazy
This post was edited on 2/8/14 at 7:52 pm
Posted on 2/8/14 at 9:55 pm to Cruiserhog
Climate Depot is a great site with tons of articles showing how big a fraud the IPCC and the warmists are.
Posted on 2/8/14 at 10:23 pm to Cruiserhog
Oh, snap! Flat-earthers don't really like words and stuff.
I'm gonna say you're all full of shite. I'm no scientist but I have perused the internet lookin for answers and to actually understand what these reports are actually saying, you have to have far more intelligence than any of you folks have displayed.
It's far more likely that you all have a few tidbits you gleamed from right-wing media that you use to confirm what you want to be true.
I'll at least be honest and say I understand the basic principles of agw. To say without doubt that I know that one side is right, would be absurd. The chuckleheads that speak with such conviction are a joke. And that's being polite.
I'm gonna say you're all full of shite. I'm no scientist but I have perused the internet lookin for answers and to actually understand what these reports are actually saying, you have to have far more intelligence than any of you folks have displayed.
It's far more likely that you all have a few tidbits you gleamed from right-wing media that you use to confirm what you want to be true.
I'll at least be honest and say I understand the basic principles of agw. To say without doubt that I know that one side is right, would be absurd. The chuckleheads that speak with such conviction are a joke. And that's being polite.
Posted on 2/9/14 at 12:32 am to Cruiserhog
quote:Would you say, that using only a single co-located data point would invalidate the work of... any climate scientists that did such a thing?
First, this record is of temperature from a single spot on Earth, central Greenland (thus it is not a "global record").
This post was edited on 2/9/14 at 12:34 am
Posted on 2/9/14 at 2:16 am to bencoleman
quote:
I am sick and tired of you flat-earthers denying science. Havent you learned anything? these cold winters are caused by global warming. Now it is only going to get worse. If we don't do something soon we will all freeze to death.
It's almost as if none of them saw "The Day After Tomorrow".
Posted on 2/9/14 at 3:31 am to Cruiserhog
quote:Presumably you mean intellectually lazy?
misinformed people are/tend to be lazy
So true.
When those lazy people cannot smoothly correlate rising CO2 with terrestrial temperature, they instead simply make an explanation up. For example, they might claim the science is sound, but essentially atmospheric molecules haven't quite figured that out yet.
They also tend to be the type who would trust, out-of-hand, a Truffle Farmer's opinion about AGW. Rather than thinking on their own. they'd assume the truffle-raiser knows more than scientists he criticizes simply because he sounds impressive.
quote:Lag and sensitivity will catch up?
We havent even begun to feel the affects of going from 300 to 400 ppm CO2 in 55 years when the last natural rise to those number took 7000 years. Lag and sensitivity will catch up
So that's it.
It just takes a while for the CO2 molecules to warm up, but once they do it's going to get hot.
Good to know.
============
The problem with the nitwit warmist you quoted is if facts were his frind he would illustrate them.
They are not. So he doesn't.
Instead, he strives to create his own facts, hoping gullible folks will take his pseudointellectual yammering at face value. Obviously it works.
e.g., He claims:
quote:First off, Easterbrook did no such thing.
More recently (12/28/10) he incorrectly labeled a graph of temperatures for the previous 10,000 years to claim that most of these years were warmer than present. His “current temperature” was really 1855 and not the much warmer present day. He was notified of his mistake but refuses to issue a retraction (see LINK
He quoted data the IPCC has tried to bury.
He referenced a graph of IPCC data comprising 10Kyrs temperature data which terminates at 1855. That IS the dataset. Had he added to it by filling in the 1855-2014 gap, warmists would have objected to that as well. So instead, Easterbrook simply pointed out several points contained in the GISP2 data set were warmer than today.
Let's see who was correct, shall we?
Easterbrook claims that GISP2 demonstrates previous warmer periods.
Your warmist claims Easterbrook is wrong.
Here is the GISP2 data extrapolated to the present.
(based on addition of East Anglia's global temp data 1860 to present)
Why wouldn't Gareth Renowden, the warmist author of your rebuttal, simply layout today's temperatures vs those of 1855 to make his point?
Because there is no factual point to be made in his argument.
Because Easterbrook is correct.
Because extrapolating the data to present would simply serve to highlight that.
Of course, the fact Renowden's nothing more than a truffle grower trying to sell copies of his book, "The Burning World," probably has something to do with it too.
( No, I'm not kidding)
================
Which raises a more salient question:
Why is it that the GISP2 series collection abruptly terminates at 1855, with no attempt whatsoever by the IPCC to continue a temperature record forward on that dataset?
This post was edited on 2/9/14 at 7:43 am
Posted on 2/9/14 at 6:50 am to Draconian Sanctions
So I guess time magazine was wrong when they said we were headed for an ice age?
Liar liar pants on fire
So everytime the media says something I'm supposed to believe it? Every week they come up with more bullshite. Chocolate cause rectal cancer then the next week it cures Alzheimer's or some crap. Make up your mind.
Liar liar pants on fire
So everytime the media says something I'm supposed to believe it? Every week they come up with more bullshite. Chocolate cause rectal cancer then the next week it cures Alzheimer's or some crap. Make up your mind.
Posted on 2/9/14 at 7:37 am to ironsides
quote:
quote:
I could give a shite what you know and don't know.
Maybe if you did you'd learn something.
I doubt it.
Posted on 2/9/14 at 7:39 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
No. It's a hoax because it's a hoax.
Wow, look, someone who opposes AGW said on a blog that it was a hoax! WHOAAA!!!!
Posted on 2/9/14 at 7:40 am to jimbeam
quote:
Global changes cannot be proven or disproven by one winter
But...but... Shreveport had a 150 year weather record this year!!!
Posted on 2/9/14 at 7:41 am to Zach
quote:
GW cannot be disproven by anything.
It could be disproven with a self-consistent model that accounts for the warming without the extra Co2.
quote:
If it's warmer, GW is right.
If it's colder , GW is right.
You are confusing diurnal changes with multi-decadal trends.
Posted on 2/9/14 at 7:45 am to wickowick
quote:
I hope you are not so ignorant to think than humans can control and keep temps constant on the earth...
Why not? Bush controlled hurricanes.
Posted on 2/9/14 at 7:46 am to Cruiserhog
quote:
Don Easterbrook, a Professor Emeritus
Retirees seem to be a favorite among the denialists. Seems like the majority of the scientists they quote who have actual publications in climate science are retired.
Wasn't that long ago a sizeable fraction of late career and retired physics professors refused to accept quantum mechanics.
This post was edited on 2/9/14 at 7:48 am
Posted on 2/9/14 at 7:49 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
diurnal changes
You mean the sun contributes to warming?
Posted on 2/9/14 at 7:49 am to Zach
I see all the usual charlatans on this topic are out in full force. A doctor a retired high school teacher and an accountant are all experts on climate science. How lucky of us to be graced with their presence here
Posted on 2/9/14 at 7:52 am to Govt Tide
quote:
Climate Depot is a great site with tons of articles showing how big a fraud the IPCC and the warmists are.
That website is very well done. Its so well organized. Its just gotta be true.
And like most good science, its funding source is a well kept secret. You can't have good science when the funders are acknowledged, right?
quote:
ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
quote:
CFACT is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit group under the of code of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.[8] On its website, CFACT does not disclose its corporate or foundation funders.[9]
ClimateDepot.com is LEGIT! We have NO IDEA who funds them - you KNOW that's good science man!!!
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News