The Oregonian just published an Op-Ed by a retired professor of medicine that is entirely supportive of our position:
I left this comment:
Thank you Professor Nebert.
You correctly point out that science is forever changing, just like our climate. If science is to continue making the remarkable progress it has over the last four centuries, it must never be allowed to fall into a look-alike that amounts to no more than tall tales, politics, and sugar pills. The original scientists who formed the first scientific society, the British Royal Society, understood this and adopted the motto "Take no one's word for it" to express their determination to avoid the domination of authority. They were resolved to keep the political and religious spheres from telling them what to believe, as had occurred with Galileo decades earlier.
Unfortunately, science like all human activities is subject to the encroachment of corruption. When vast sums of money hang in the balance, as for instance in drug trials, there is the ever present danger of deliberate cheating or just inadvertent skewing of the data toward a positive result. A recent study of journal articles by Dr. Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute showed a tremendous skewing of published articles toward positive results likely to further careers. The medical community has been very wise to use double blind studies to nearly eliminate such bias. In other fields, such an approach is largely impractical.
How then is science audited? In many cases today, it is not. Papers that produce the results that scientific journal editors support get only 'pal-review' while papers that run contrary to a consensus are relegated to the rubbish bin. This is especially true of journals like Nature and Science.
Real science MUST be audited by a free and open discussion of the issues. When we are working on the frontiers of science, there are and should be sharp differences of opinion that get a full airing. At the just concluded 9th International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas, speakers and their colleagues differed sharply over terrestrial versus extraterrestrial origins for the climate variations we have observed recently. Astrophysicist Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov from St Petersburg, Russia argued for a strong solar component while Professor William Gray from Colorado State argued the case for an ocean origin. Many others took varying positions in these two camps.
No one argued the case for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, although many thought that there might be a small anthropogenic component from man-made carbon dioxide. Why was the fanatical warming crowd absent, although invited? They know that their arguments cannot stand up to free and open discussion. And if they were to try and lose, they would face severe retribution from the government's contract monitors who enforce the 'settle science' demands of the Obama Administration. Losing in front of some 55 journalists from around the world would have been a financial disaster for them.
Again, 'Thank You' Professor Nebert for recognizing the similarities between medical and climate science.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
_____________________
‘UNSTOPPABLE COLLAPSE’ OF THE WEST ANTARCTIC ICE
SHEET IS NOT HAPPENING
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA
A New York Times headline reads “Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans From Polar Melt” and goes on to say:
“A large section of the mighty West Antarctica ice sheet has begun falling apart and its continued melting now
appears to be unstoppable, two groups of scientists reported on Monday. If the findings hold up, they suggest that
the melting could destabilize neighboring parts of the ice sheet and a rise in sea level of 10 feet or more may be
unavoidable in coming centuries.” The story, based on studies of the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers in
West Antarctica, went ballistic in the news media with dire predictions of the ‘unstoppable’ catastrophe
about to unfold. The authors of the Pine Island paper, Justin Gillis and Kenneth Chang say in their paper:
“…we find no major bed obstacle that would prevent the glaciers from further retreat and draw down the entire
basin.” In a second paper, “Marine Ice Sheet Collapse Potentially Underway for the Thwaites Glacier Basin, West
Antarctica,” the authors (Joughin, Smith, and Medley) also infer that the entire West Antarctic ice sheet
will soon disappear, resulting in a sea level rise of up to 10 feet. The governor of California is now
suggesting moving LAX and San Francisco airports.
Figure 1. Antarctica. The East Antarctic ice sheet makes up more than 90% of Antarctic ice and has
been growing. The West Antarctic ice sheet accounts for only 8½ % of Antarctic ice and the Pine Island
glacier (red dot) makes up only about 10% of that. (NASA image)
WHAT’S HAPPENING NOW
Since last week’s press releases, thousands of Antarctic photos and text items on the internet have
been relabeled, and you can scarcely find any mention of Antarctica now without reference to ‘the
unstoppable, collapsing Antarctic ice sheet.’ From all of the media hype, you would think that the West
Antarctic ice sheet is presently in the process of collapsing and drastic sea level rise is imminent. THE
WEST ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET IS NOT NOW COLLAPSING! The two papers predict that it could collapse in
several hundred years, based on retreat of two outlet glaciers that drain part of the ice sheet. The
authors contend that recent retreat of the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers has occurred because warm
ocean water has caused melting of ice on the underside of the glaciers, causing them to thin and calve
more rapidly. Because the base of most of the West Antarctic ice sheet lies below sea level, the authors
contend that ocean water will melt its way up several small embayments under the ice sheet, which is
more than 1000 miles across, and cause it to collapse abruptly. They refer to this as “unstoppable”
because the glacier base is below sea level and they claim that there is nowhere that the glacier can
ground so it will all collapse into the sea.
Figure 2. Pine Island outlet glacier and the northwestern part of the West Antarctic ice sheet.
(modified from Google Earth)
The prediction of catastrophic collapse of the entire West Antarctic ice sheet is based on several lines
of evidence:
1. The Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers have shown recent increases in calving and retreat of their
termini.
2. The base of the West Antarctic ice sheet is mostly 1,000 m (3,300 ft) below sea level, so warm
ocean water can cause melting of basal ice at the terminus, resulting in calving and rapid retreat
of the ice terminus. As the terminus enters deeper water, it can retreat much faster.
3. As the ice retreats, there are no more grounding line positions, so calving will accelerate and
cause collapse of the ice sheet.
4. If a large sector of the West Antarctic ice sheet has gone into irreversible retreat, the entire West
Antarctic ice sheet will collapse, raising sea level 10 feet.
These assertions are not new—36 years ago, Mercer (1978) suggested that the West Antarctic ice
sheet was potentially unstable and others have commented on it before and since then. Here is what
some have said: Calving of large icebergs is a natural process unrelated to warming–this ice shelf and
others spawn huge icebergs every 6-10 years. Releasing a huge iceberg, by itself, is a normal process.
Collapse of Pine Island glacier, if it did occur, would take 1000-2000 years, but it is unlikely to contribute
to more than 2.7 cm of sea level rise over the next 100 years. Every 10 years or so ice shelves calve large
icebergs, which are not worrisome. This ice stream is unlikely to collapse in our lifetime.
THE BIG PICTURE--THE GEOLOGIC SETTING
To get a perspective of what is happening now and what might or might not happen in the future
requires a look at the overall geologic setting and the scale of the size and thickness of the West
Antarctic ice sheet relative to the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers. The East Antarctic ice sheet makes
up more than 90% of Antarctic ice. The West Antarctic ice sheet (Figure 1) makes up only about 8½ % of
Antarctic ice, and the Pine Island glacier makes up about 10% of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Most of
the West Antarctic ice sheet lies SE of the Pine Island glacier and at its SW margin is about 1000 miles
from the Pine Island and Thwaites outlet glaciers. Ice in the SE region flows into the Ross Sea, making the
Ross Ice Shelf, and has little if anything to do with the part of the ice sheet that flows through the Pine
Island and Thwaites outlet glaciers. The Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers are not independent glaciers—
they are ice streams from the NW part of the West Antarctic ice sheet flowing through narrow
embayments bounded by mountains. Their termini calve into the Amundsen Sea, but the rest of the ice
sheet is grounded and all of the southwestern part discharges into the Ross Sea (Figures 3,4). The entire
western and southern margins of the West Antarctic ice sheet are separated from the ocean by
mountains so these are virtually the only outlets for the ice. The total width of the Pine Island and
Thwaites outlet glaciers makes up only about 60 miles of the 2,500 miles of coastline along the western
and southern margins of the ice sheet. The major ice discharge from the SW margin into the Ross ice
shelf is not affected by what goes on in the northern part of the ice sheet. Scale is important--only when
looking a map of the size of the West Antarctic ice sheet does it become apparent just how tiny the Pine
Island and Thwaites outlet glaciers are relative to the size of the West Antarctic ice sheet (Figures 3,4).
Figure 3. West Antarctic ice sheet.
Figure 4. Location of the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers (red dots) and the West Antarctic ice
sheet. The ice sheet is bounded along its entire south coast by mountains so most of the ice discharges
into the Ross ice shelf and several narrow gaps in the mountains where ice discharges into the
Amundsen Sea. Note how much larger the ice sheet margin is at the Ross Sea outlet than that of the
Amundsen Sea outlet. (Modified from Wikipedia).
The base of most of the West Antarctic ice sheet lies below sea level (Figure 5) and it is because of
this that the West Antarctic ice sheet is predicted to collapse. The deepest parts of the subglacial basin
are mostly about 1000 m (3,300 ft) deep and lie beneath the central portion of the ice sheet where the
ice is the thickest (Figure 6). More important than just depth below sea level is how thick the ice is
relative to the depth below sea level.
Figure 5. Subglacial topography in Antarctica. Most of the West Antarctic ice sheet lies below sea
level, shown in dark and light blue. (modified from Wikipedia)
THICKNESS OF THE WEST ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET
Figure 6 shows the thickness of the West Antarctic ice sheet. The ice is more than 3,000 feet thick in
the darker red areas and most of the ice sheet is more than 2,000 feet thick. The importance of ice
thickness is that virtually all of the ice sheet is considerably thicker than the depth below sea level to
bedrock, so the ice is grounded and will not float.
Figure 6. Thickness of the West Antarctic ice sheet.
Also important is the source area of the outlet glaciers. Figure 7 shows ice divides and ice drainage
areas. The Pine Island outlet glacier drains only a relative small portion of the West Antarctic ice sheet so
it is difficult to see how events there could result in collapse of the entire Antarctic ice sheet.
Figure 7. Ice divides and ice drainages in the West Antarctic ice sheet. Light green is the area of ice
draining into the Pine Island glacier; dark green is ice draining into the Thwaites glacier; light and dark
blue is ice draining into the Ross Sea (modified from
http://icesat4.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo_data/Rignot_velocity_maps.php)
ARGUMENTS AGAINST POTENTIAL COLLAPSE OF THE ENTIRE WEST ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET
The authors assert that “…we find no major bed obstacle that would prevent the glaciers from further
retreat and draw down of the entire basin.” but that is contrary to what is shown on Fig. 8.
Figure 8 is a profile of the West Antarctic ice sheet from the east coast to the Transantarctic Mts.,
showing thickness of the ice sheet, sea level, and the subglacial floor. At its deepest part, the subglacial
floor is 2,000 m (6,500 ft) below sea level, but almost all of the subglacial floor in this profile is less than
1,000 m (3,300 ft) below sea level. The ice is mostly more than 2,500 m (8,000 ft) thick, so basic physics
tells us it will not float in 1,000 m (3,300 ft) of water nor will sea water melt its way under the ice.
1. At least half a dozen potential grounding lines may be seen in Figure 8.
2. 200 km (125 miles) up-ice from the terminus, the ice sheet is about 1600 m (5,200 ft) thick and
the subglacial floor is above sea level.
3. 300 km from the terminus, the subglacial floor is 1,000 m (3,300 ft) above sea level.
4. About 700 km (2,300 ft) from the terminus, the ice is about 1,700 m (5,500 ft) thick and the
subglacial floor is near sea level.
5. About 800-950 km (500-600 miles) from the terminus, three potential grounding lines occur from
near sea level to a few hundred meters.
6. About 1,050 to 1,150 km (650-700 miles) from the terminus, bedrock occurs at sea level.
Figure 8. Profile through the West Antarctic ice sheet from the Amundsen Sea to the Transantarctic
Mts. (Modified from http://antarcticglacier.org)
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence above shows that:
1. The Pine Island and Thwaites outlet glaciers drain less than half of the West Antarctic ice sheet,
so it is not apparent how they could cause collapse of the entire ice sheet.
2. The Pine Island and Thwaites outlet glaciers are only about 30 miles across so draining 2.2
million km3 of ice through their narrow channels or sending sea water 1,000 miles under the ice
sheet doesn’t seem plausible.
3. Most of the ice sheet is much thicker (2,500 m (8,000 ft) than the depth of the subglacial floor
below sea level (1,000 m (3,300 ft) so the ice will not float and sea water will not extend under
the ice.
4. Even if the ice sheet were to recede significantly, there are at least half a dozen potential
grounding lines at which the glacier would stabilize.
5. The West Antarctic ice sheet is NOT collapsing, the retreat of these small glaciers is NOT caused
by global warming, and sea level is NOT going to rise 10 feet.
____________________________________________________
You have really got to question who Oregon elects to run the state when you look at this video:
John Oliver- Oregon Idiots
Hello Everyone,
Larry Logan, Chuck Wiese, and I went to the latest of 400+ presentations on Global Warming by Oregon's chief climate propagandist (and former Secretary of State), Bill Bradbury. The meeting occurred on Thursday at Oregon Health Sciences University. It was interesting to see how his presentations have completely evolved into extreme weather presentations, where he tries to make the case that every extreme weather event (like hurricanes) or ocean event (like Jane Lubchenco's 'Dead Zones') that might be perceived as scary is clearly a consequence of our use of fossil fuels.
Since he is a disciple of Al Gore, he begins with Gore's presentation of the ice core climate reconstructions that show the close correlation of temperature and CO2. He then points out how CO2 shot up in the 20th century with the clear implication that temperature is surely following. This gets embellished time and again with dramatic NOAA data and stories of heat waves, followed by droughts, "superstorms," floods, ocean acidification, ocean dead zones, etc. The world is disintegrating before our eyes. It's all very scary, and it's all completely your fault. But don't give up hope. Bradbury has a new solution this time. Its called a "Carbon Tax." Where have we heard that idea before??
Just pay the Carbon Tax, and you will be saved!
Bradbury is much farther Left than mainstream Democrats and has little education, but is also no dummy. Hence, he cannot escape responsibility for what he is saying. He comes from the same exclusive high school I attended, where admission is based on IQ. Bradbury is probably one of the only graduates of the University of Chicago High School to fail to complete college. He clearly knows that what he is saying in these climate presentations is dishonest, because we have repeatedly pointed it out to him. This has never stopped him from continuing to say the outrageous. He refuses to admit any weaknesses in his presentations, and will never admit the many century lag of CO2 behind temperature in the ice core reconstructions.
Yet his assistant, who takes over when he abruptly leaves to avoid tough questions, readily admits that the entire Global Warming alarm may eventually turn out to be wrong. But "Who cares!" she says, "We are doing so many good things anyway." Suzanne V. Casaus has used this escape hatch previously when we have cornered her, notably at a Sigma Xi dinner meeting at Portland State University several years ago. This time when I pointed out to her that the Green Energy she touts as one of the "good things" is also substantially fraudulent, she abruptly changed the subject again. This time she touted her personal experiences with the Portland environmental scene: riding a bicycle to lose weight. She kept changing the subject to try to find some topic where we could not nail her. Finally, she asked an OHSU maintenance man to throw us out. He said that the room was needed for the next meeting. When I pointed out that the posted schedule showed the room reserved for Bradbury until 3 pm, he argued with me! It was all very bizarre.
Happily, only about 20 OHSU employees showed up to hear Bradbury (out of thousands) and none looked like they were professional employees. Most left abruptly as a gesture of contempt when we started to ask questions. They were all true believers.
What do we gain by keeping an eye on Bradbury? We are completely frustrated by the Bradbury/Casaus 'dodge and weave' tactics and can never land a solid blow. But we still deny Bradbury clear sailing. I think that is important. Furthermore, we keep up with the latest thrust of his propaganda and how far he is willing to go with the dishonesty. Bradbury seems to design his presentations around dramatic emotional impact with only a fuzzy logic that he hopes no one will question. Should someone dare to object, his first line of defense is to say that scientists agree with him. He had quotes from James Hansen and Kathryn Hayhoe.
But most questions are left for his NW Power and Conservation Council "Outreach Coordinator" Suzanne Casaus. She claims scientific expertise (at times inferring that she is a PhD or professor), but in reality she has little and is apparently employed by this government agency as a contractor to help Bradbury spread the word. When we last encountered her, she was working for the Oregon Environmental Council in the same capacity. Bradbury is a Director of that organization too. Suzanne strongly denied this time that she has ever inflated her credentials to include a PhD. The topic came up when I pointed out that it was dishonest for Bradbury to imply scientific expertise when he has none.
Chuck went on the Lars Larson radio show today to challenge Bradbury. He will certainly reach many more people than Bradbury did on Thursday. And Bradbury will not be happy to be publicly criticized.
Gordon
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
_______________________________________________
__________________________
Those hysterical about Global Warming have been trying to figure out how to compromise those of us who have been laughing hysterically about their approach for years. They never really come to grips with the basic problem (a failing paradigm), because they assume that they understand the science far better than we do. 'Absolute Arrogance' leading to 'Absolute Knowledge' and 'Absolute Certainty" has been the downfall of many.
Here a professor of philosophy in New York discusses
http://img.youtube.com/vi/
Now we have today another Op-Ed from the New York Times that discusses the failure of their side to effectively promote Global Warming:
This article points out how the upcoming series on the Discovery Channel "Years of Living Dangerously," is massive over-hype from Hollywood that hurts their cause.
And we have this peer-reviewed study from the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society where Stenhouse, Maibach, at al discovered that their supporters were primarily motivated by a perceived consensus and by political ideology:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/
This paper even confirms that Alarmists do not have the super majority "consensus" among scientists that they perpetually claim. In fact, the scientists they surveyed were about evenly divided on this subject.
In other words, the institutions that think about this subject in a sophisticated way, yet still support the hysteria, clearly see some of the fundamental problems. But because they lack enough scientific literacy to think about the science for themselves or are too financially involved to dispute it continue to believe the nonsense.
It is bizarre to see the relatively sophisticated believers unwilling or unable to carry Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming to its logical conclusion: fraud.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
___________________________________
Hello Everyone,Those hysterical about Global Warming have been trying to figure out how to compromise those of us who have been laughing hysterically about their approach for years. They never really come to grips with the basic problem (a failing paradigm), because they assume that they understand the science far better than we do. 'Absolute Arrogance' leading to 'Absolute Knowledge' and 'Absolute Certainty" has been the downfall of many.
Here a professor of philosophy in New York discusses
"The Dangers of Certainty: A Lesson From Auschwitz"
http://opinionator.blogs.http://img.youtube.com/vi/
Now we have today another Op-Ed from the New York Times that discusses the failure of their side to effectively promote Global Warming:
"Global Warming Scare Tactics"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/This article points out how the upcoming series on the Discovery Channel "Years of Living Dangerously," is massive over-hype from Hollywood that hurts their cause.
And we have this peer-reviewed study from the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society where Stenhouse, Maibach, at al discovered that their supporters were primarily motivated by a perceived consensus and by political ideology:
"Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members"
http://journals.ametsoc.org/
"In a survey of American Meteorological Society members, perceived scientific consensus was the strongest predictor of global warming views, followed by political ideology"
This paper even confirms that Alarmists do not have the super majority "consensus" among scientists that they perpetually claim. In fact, the scientists they surveyed were about evenly divided on this subject.
In other words, the institutions that think about this subject in a sophisticated way, yet still support the hysteria, clearly see some of the fundamental problems. But because they lack enough scientific literacy to think about the science for themselves or are too financially involved to dispute it continue to believe the nonsense.
It is bizarre to see the relatively sophisticated believers unwilling or unable to carry Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming to its logical conclusion: fraud.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
___________________________________
The Oregonian is continuing to print claims that I was not honest about local and global temperature trends in my recent Op-Ed:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/
Here is my original Op-Ed:
http://www.oregonlive.com/
and here is the reply Op-Ed from an Urban Planner claiming to be a climate expert:
http://www.oregonlive.com/
I have a call into the editor asking for space to reply. The paper should not allow such bad behavior.
Local climate industries seem especially upset that I would dare to point out the obvious: Oregon's climate has been cooling for a long while and the global climate has not warmed in 16 years:
Climate trends I would like to echo the comments of John Kaufmann (“Evidence is clear: Global warming exists,” March 22), responding to the nonsense of Gordon Fulks (“Let’s go to the climate scorecard,” March 16).
One of the well-known tactics of climate change deniers is to report data that no one else can find and claim these deny science. This is the tried and trusted technique of Sean Hannity and the staff at Faux News.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data for Medford are similar to those of Portland. Here, a warming trend through the 20th century is evident, with warming running at about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit for the century.
Data also show us that snowfall has been diminishing both in the valley and at Crater Lake — a critical problem since agricultural irrigation water during the growing season has been supplied historically from melting snowpack. Warming and reduced water threaten local agriculture.
It is important to realize that climate change is here and now; projections merely continue these trends.
Alan Journet
Jacksonville
Journet is professor emeritus of biology and environmental sciences at Southeast Missouri State University and co-facilitator of Southern Oregon Climate Action Now.
Note that Professor Journet does not understand that the climate models DO NOT "merely continue these [present] trends."
This is the reply that I posted to Journet's letter-to-the-editor:
Those who work for climate industries here in Oregon seem particularly inept at finding the basic climate data for our region and for the globe. John Kaufmann and Alan Journet both claim that they cannot find the Obama Administration's National Climatic Data Center (NOAA/NCDC) data here:
I have repeatedly provided this link, but those who do not want to find it, claim that it does not exist. I doubt that it takes any scientific training to be able to locate this data or use this official interactive site.
For the global temperature data from NASA satellites, one only has to go to:
to find find the entire data set that is fully up-to-date.
Note that the data found here FULLY backs up what I said in my Oregonian Op-Ed:
Furthermore, UW Professor of Meteorologist Cliff Mass (who is an alarmist) and former Washington State Climatologist Mark Albright (who is a skeptic) have pointed out similar things.
Science requires a level of skill and honesty that climate alarmists [like Kaufmann and Journet] seem unable to muster.
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
____________________________
We seem to accumulate more than our share of incompetents here in the backwoods of Oregon. I think they come for the politics (not for the weather!) and don't appreciate it when I point out that their favorite scam is obvious to any who study the data. Unfortunately our local paper takes no responsibility for quality control. Hence, my opponents are able to level any charges that they dream up, and I am not even permitted a reply. Its outrageous. And its symptomatic of a profound scientific illiteracy. There is little support for objective reality here, only politics and pseudo-religion.
Yes, the climate crowd views Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as self-evident, because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas! Therefore all they need to know is that the 20th century warmed slightly to conclude that you and I are responsible. I wonder if it ever occurs to these people that this is completely inconsistent with the need for the very complex and very expensive climate models? Such reasoning is surely light years beyond them, even beyond a biology professor originally from Missouri. :-)
Thanks for writing. I hope you have encountered some "Global Warming." We used to call that "Spring," many, many years ago.
Gordon
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
P.S. to others: Dr. Anthony Lupo is a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Missouri.
Gordon:
Good evening. Interesting exchange. I’m glad Prof. Journet is no longer in my state. Embarrassing. He and Kaufmann are definitely incompetent. Let’s see if I follow them: the climate of the last century has warmed = human cause. A lot of skipped steps in that proof.
Sorry Journet made his home in your state.
Tony
Hi Gordon,
I too have crossed swords with Juornet. We were scheduled to have debate in Rogue River, Ore in March and had agreed on a format when he suddenly backed out altogether. Subsequently, he gave a lecture March 1 with all the usual nonsense unsupported by any real data. I downloaded a file with all of the slides he used and found that he is unusually unaware of the climate literature. I was quite surprised that he apparently showed a hockey stick graph denying the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age (see attached). Later he used a slide purporting to show that the climate hadn't been as warm as present in 22 million years! (see attached). I sent him an email with half a dozen very specific challenges and his response was personal insults, claiming I hadn't published any peer-reviewed literature and therefore had no credibility. He steadfastly refused to respond to any of the challenges for data to support his positions and announced that he was no longer going to respond to any email about this.
Thought you might find this interesting in view of your recent interactions with him.
Dear Professor Easterbrook,
Thanks very much for relating your experiences with Alan Journet. His specialties seem to be personal attacks and wildly inaccurate climate data. It is amazing that he would use Michael Mann's 'Hockey Stick' graph without attribution and without pointing out the known flaws and larceny. His second temperature graph ignores the well-known climate history of this Holocene Climate Optimum.
Even James Hansen uses the attached ice core temperature reconstructions from Penn State alarmist R. B. Alley. They show all of the named warm periods (Minoan, Roman, and Medieval) as well as others that have not been named. They also show the downward temperature trend during this interglacial as the earth's closest approach to the Sun has shifted from July to January in a progressing Milankovitch Cycle. The approximate temperature scale is in degrees C, presumably at the National Science Foundation's Summit Camp on top of the Greenland icecap.
We are colder today than most of the last 10,000 years, by all competent estimates.
The issue with Alan Journet is obviously incompetence. He is NOT a physical scientist. His claim that he cannot find the official NOAA/NCDC climate data that we all use suggests it. The fact that he abruptly canceled your planned debate says he realizes it!
Unfortunately, The Oregonian allows far more incompetents and those heavily conflicted to have their say than those of us with real training and no conflicts. That greatly skews the "debate." Perhaps we should be happy that they have not so far allowed a much broader assault on science.
Thanks again for your help.
Best Regards,
Thanks George,
Alan Journet seems remarkably incompetent. Why would anyone who claims to be a scientist not check readily available data before offering 'expert' opinions in The Oregonian? Can he not find the snow data either?
I suppose that he is playing the alarmist game of using the present drought far out of context. That's not science but pure propaganda. Even the undisputed king of 'disappearing NW snow pack', Phil Mote, can do better than that.
Your graph shows the cyclical nature of Crater Lake snowfall, with no significant trend over half a century.
Thanks again,
Gordon
I am betting tactics such as these will become more common in the future if you attack these government bodies that want their plans rubber stamped by the political leadership because they absolutely can be made to look like the fools and liars they all are if the floor is taken by any realists for any length of time. They have lost all scientific credibility, and I have first hand experience from OCCRI that they are not willing to be honest about their continued willingness to back the Oregon Health Authority on the fake claim that heat waves are becoming more common to our region, even though the climate records do not show this.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
Nice going, Gordon. I'm actually surprised you even got that far. I was expecting that they would shut up dissent if it surfaced by just cutting you off and making the blanket assertion that the science is settled and moved beyond arguing about whether CO2 emissions are causing "climate change" as they define it. Then they control the conversation by only allowing discussion that is related to anyone who supports their agenda and wants to make stupid, unworkable statements related to their frivolous, non scientific ideas contained within the plan to get it rubber stamped and implemented by the current political leadership. Then if you continue to "misbehave" they simply call the police in and claim you are disrupting the meeting and harassing the participants. Then the police ask you to leave or be arrested.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
It is certainly taxing to confront the climate clones on their home turf. But it is also very necessary. If we do not, they quickly gain the impression that they have no opposition and redouble their efforts. If even one little boy mutters something about the emperor having no clothes, it has a magical effect. The politically correct quickly close ranks and point out that the kid does not know what he is talking about. Hence he must be silenced. But everyone has been jarred awake to the fact that there is a vast amount of nonsense coming from their side. Their eyes tell them that, but their minds overprint it with the politically correct.
The talk on Monday from senior members of the 'Portland Sustainability' department was amateurish in the extreme. It was no better than what a high school student might say. It was certainly not a college level thesis. And I think they realized it. My opening came when they stupidly claimed to be following and interested in the science and then repeated it several times. When they asked for comments and questions, I gave them very mild comments (by Chuck's standards) and even agreed that planting trees was beneficial to our environment.
But as soon as I questioned their thesis that we were facing warmer wetter winters and hotter drier summers, they said that I had to ask a question. When I did, they refused to answer and said I had to allow others to ask a question. When they quickly ran out of people willing to ask stupid questions, they closed down the meeting early. They were afraid of me.
Do I look that scary?? Perhaps? :-)
Gordon
Thought you might find this interesting in view of your recent interactions with him.
Don
Thanks very much for relating your experiences with Alan Journet. His specialties seem to be personal attacks and wildly inaccurate climate data. It is amazing that he would use Michael Mann's 'Hockey Stick' graph without attribution and without pointing out the known flaws and larceny. His second temperature graph ignores the well-known climate history of this Holocene Climate Optimum.
Even James Hansen uses the attached ice core temperature reconstructions from Penn State alarmist R. B. Alley. They show all of the named warm periods (Minoan, Roman, and Medieval) as well as others that have not been named. They also show the downward temperature trend during this interglacial as the earth's closest approach to the Sun has shifted from July to January in a progressing Milankovitch Cycle. The approximate temperature scale is in degrees C, presumably at the National Science Foundation's Summit Camp on top of the Greenland icecap.
We are colder today than most of the last 10,000 years, by all competent estimates.
The issue with Alan Journet is obviously incompetence. He is NOT a physical scientist. His claim that he cannot find the official NOAA/NCDC climate data that we all use suggests it. The fact that he abruptly canceled your planned debate says he realizes it!
Unfortunately, The Oregonian allows far more incompetents and those heavily conflicted to have their say than those of us with real training and no conflicts. That greatly skews the "debate." Perhaps we should be happy that they have not so far allowed a much broader assault on science.
Thanks again for your help.
Best Regards,
Gordon
Gordon-
Attached is a chart showing 50 years of Crater Lake annual snowfall. Not much
trend, IMHO!
George
Attached is a chart showing 50 years of Crater Lake annual snowfall. Not much
trend, IMHO!
George
Alan Journet seems remarkably incompetent. Why would anyone who claims to be a scientist not check readily available data before offering 'expert' opinions in The Oregonian? Can he not find the snow data either?
I suppose that he is playing the alarmist game of using the present drought far out of context. That's not science but pure propaganda. Even the undisputed king of 'disappearing NW snow pack', Phil Mote, can do better than that.
Your graph shows the cyclical nature of Crater Lake snowfall, with no significant trend over half a century.
Thanks again,
Gordon
P.S. to others: George Taylor is a former Oregon State Climatologist.
Gordon,
When I first looked into the case for AGW in a serious way, I was amazed at (1) the amount of information and data collected by the US government that is publicly available and easily accessible; and (2) how it largely contradicts what the government is saying.
Roger Cohen
Dear Roger,
That's largely true. The only US climate data that has been obviously doctored to suit the government's storyline is that which they repeatedly present. They must realize that the vast majority of people (including Alan Journet) will never look at the detailed data. As one commenter pointed out to Journet on OregonLive, it takes a slight amount of skill to use the NOAA/NCDC 'Climate at a Glance' website but none to find it:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/
Gordon
P.S. to others: Dr. Roger Cohen is a Fellow of the American Physical Society.
That's largely true. The only US climate data that has been obviously doctored to suit the government's storyline is that which they repeatedly present. They must realize that the vast majority of people (including Alan Journet) will never look at the detailed data. As one commenter pointed out to Journet on OregonLive, it takes a slight amount of skill to use the NOAA/NCDC 'Climate at a Glance' website but none to find it:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/
Gordon
P.S. to others: Dr. Roger Cohen is a Fellow of the American Physical Society.
________________________________
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
Nice going, Gordon. I'm actually surprised you even got that far. I was expecting that they would shut up dissent if it surfaced by just cutting you off and making the blanket assertion that the science is settled and moved beyond arguing about whether CO2 emissions are causing "climate change" as they define it. Then they control the conversation by only allowing discussion that is related to anyone who supports their agenda and wants to make stupid, unworkable statements related to their frivolous, non scientific ideas contained within the plan to get it rubber stamped and implemented by the current political leadership. Then if you continue to "misbehave" they simply call the police in and claim you are disrupting the meeting and harassing the participants. Then the police ask you to leave or be arrested.
Chuck Wiese
Meteorologist
It is certainly taxing to confront the climate clones on their home turf. But it is also very necessary. If we do not, they quickly gain the impression that they have no opposition and redouble their efforts. If even one little boy mutters something about the emperor having no clothes, it has a magical effect. The politically correct quickly close ranks and point out that the kid does not know what he is talking about. Hence he must be silenced. But everyone has been jarred awake to the fact that there is a vast amount of nonsense coming from their side. Their eyes tell them that, but their minds overprint it with the politically correct.
The talk on Monday from senior members of the 'Portland Sustainability' department was amateurish in the extreme. It was no better than what a high school student might say. It was certainly not a college level thesis. And I think they realized it. My opening came when they stupidly claimed to be following and interested in the science and then repeated it several times. When they asked for comments and questions, I gave them very mild comments (by Chuck's standards) and even agreed that planting trees was beneficial to our environment.
But as soon as I questioned their thesis that we were facing warmer wetter winters and hotter drier summers, they said that I had to ask a question. When I did, they refused to answer and said I had to allow others to ask a question. When they quickly ran out of people willing to ask stupid questions, they closed down the meeting early. They were afraid of me.
Do I look that scary?? Perhaps? :-)
Gordon
No comments:
Post a Comment