So if the globe isn't warming..why are you calling it global warming?

[RollingThunder]

Yup! That long list of evidence presented by NASA does, in fact, "constitute evidence that man is causing climate change". Unfortunately you are just too retarded and brainwashed to understand that.

The Greenhouse Gas nature of CO2 is so well established scientifically that your denial of its reality constitutes denier cult insanity. You have been shown the laboratory experiments and other evidence supporting the scientific facts about this many times but again, you are just too stupid and brainwashed to acknowledge that reality.

No thunder...I know this must be hard for you...but all you provided was evidence that the climate is changing....none of it was evidence of the cause...your sources simply assume that man is causing it...there wasn't the first piece of evidence there establishing cause...there was evidence that the climate is changing and simple statements that we are doing it...

And yet, there isn't the first actual measured, quantified evidence of it..

And those lab experiments showed all sorts of things...from the temperature of compression, to abject scientific incompetence...but none of them showed any evidence that CO2 could cause any sort of warming outside of a tightly sealed environment.

You are a believer...you require no actual evidence...your faith is enough...you will accept anything as evidence due to your faith...I am a bit more pragmatic...if you are going to tell me that CO2 causes warming out in the atmosphere, then I would like to see some evidence of it...you haven't shown any...but don't worry, because none exists...

Prove me wrong...lets see some evidence that CO2 causes warming out in the open atmosphere.

Just more denier cult denial of the scientific facts and the scientific evidence, without any evidence at all to support your denial.

 

[SSDD]

Just more denier cult denial of the scientific facts and the scientific evidence, without any evidence at all to support your denial.

Not to worry thunder...I never expected you to provide evidence that doesn't exist...but it was interesting to see what passes for actual evidence in your mind...You show evidence of climate change and just assume that we are causing it...and you can rest easy knowing that you aren't particularly stupid among believers...that is what all of them tend to provide when asked for evidence that we are causing the global climate to change...they also show evidence that the climate is changing and simply assume that it must be us...

And my evidence is your lack of evidence thunder...I can't prove a negative. I challenge you to show me just one piece of actual observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the claim that we are causing climate change and what we are seeing is not just natural variability....you show evidence of change, but the change is all within the bounds of natural variability...you show the sort of changes the earth has been undergoing for billions of years and then with no actual evidence at all, you claim that this time it is us. Do you know what the opposite of skeptical is thunder?.....it is gullible. It describes you to a T...you believe without the slightest bit of uncertainty...you are not skeptical in the least...you have bought the claims hook line and sinker...you are the very definition of gullible...

 

[Crick]

Of course you can prove a negative. AGW could be falsified a dozen different way. But it hasn't.

 

[SSDD]

Of course you can prove a negative. AGW could be falsified a dozen different way. But it hasn't.

It already has been...the absence of a tropospheric hot spot is exhibit 1...the hypothesis fails on that alone...each and every failed prediction is just one more exhibit in the case against the AGW hypothesis...just off the top of my head, there is also:

• The pause that is approaching 20 years while CO2 continues to increase
• 50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010.
• Constantly moving "tipping points"
• 2015 is the ‘last effective opportunity’ to stop catastrophic warming
• U.N.’s top climate scientist said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world
• warned in 2002 the world had a decade to go greenIn the late 1980s the U.N. was already claiming the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences
• February 1993, Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution: “Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late.”
• “Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming.
• “In ten year’s time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.” - reported in 2001

Then there is this sort of tripe:

• Australia will be one of the hardest hit by a rise in global temperatures.”We’re one of the driest continents on the earth and the effects on Australia will be more severe than elsewhere.
• ”The effects of climate change will impact more severely on the economy of Papua New Guinea than on any other in the Pacific
• Bangladesh is one of the hardest hit nations by the impacts of climate change
• Africa will be the hardest hit or most affected region, due to anthropogenic climate change
• Vietnam is likely to be among the countries hardest hit by climate change is likely to be among the countries hardest hit by climate change
• Maldives’ economy hardest hit by climate change
• Climate change is likely to have the strongest impact on Scandinavian countries such as Denmark, Norway and Sweden
• southern Europe and the Mediterranean, including Malta, are forecast to suffer the most adverse effects of climate change, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece are the countries that would be worst affected by global warming
• China’s Poor Farmers Hit Hardest by Climate Change

And on and on and on...the litany of failed predictions of climate science is seemingly endless...and not to mention the more rain, less rain, more storms, less storms, more snow less snow, more tornadoes less tornadoes, more dought less drought craziness that seems to pop up every day in climate science...

The hypothesis has been falsified so many times it is ridiculous...and frankly, considering its history, anyone who still believes...is ridiculous...

 

[RollingThunder]

Of course you can prove a negative. AGW could be falsified a dozen different way. But it hasn't.

It already has been...
the absence of a tropospheric hot spot is exhibit 1...

And the denier cult troll SSoooDDumb once again moronically repeats some of his thoroughly debunked denier cult dogmas and myths.

In the real world.....

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot
PhysOrg
May 14, 2015
Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Letters confirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

The inability to detect this hotspot previously has been used by those who doubt man-made global warming to suggest climate change is not occurring as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

"Using more recent data and better analysis methods we have been able to re-examine the global weather balloon network, known as radiosondes, and have found clear indications of warming in the upper troposphere," said lead author ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Chief Investigator Prof Steve Sherwood.

"We were able to do this by producing a publicly available temperature and wind data set of the upper troposphere extending from 1958-2012, so it is there for anyone to see."

The new dataset was the result of extending an existing data record and then removing artefacts caused by station moves and instrument changes. This revealed real changes in temperature as opposed to the artificial changes generated by alterations to the way the data was collected.

No climate models were used in the process that revealed the tropospheric hotspot. The researchers instead used observations and combined two well-known techniques—linear regression and Kriging.

"We deduced from the data what natural weather and climate variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these natural variations and removed them," said Prof Sherwood.

"All of this was done using a well established procedure developed by statisticians in 1977."

The results show that the warming has continued strongly throughout the troposphere except for a very thin layer at around 14-15km above the surface of the Earth where it has warmed slightly less.

As well as confirming the tropospheric hotspot, the researchers also found a 10% increase in winds over the Southern Ocean. The character of this increase suggests it may be the result of ozone depletion.

"I am very interested in these wind speed increases and whether they may have also played some role in slowing down the warming at the surface of the ocean," said Prof Sherwood.

"However, one thing this improved data set shows us is that we should no longer accept the claim that there is warming missing higher in the atmosphere. That warming is now clearly seen."

More information: Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenised radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUK v2) , Environmental Research Letters , iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007

Journal reference: Environmental Research Letters

Provided by: University of New South Wales [/quote]

The pause that is approaching 20 years while CO2 continues to increase

In the real world....

Global warming data that riled doubters is confirmed
By Jim Spencer
January 4, 2017
WASHINGTON (AP) — A new independent study shows no pause in global warming, confirming a set of temperature readings adjusted by U.S. government scientists that some who reject mainstream climate science have questioned.

The adjustments , made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2015 to take into account changes in how ocean temperatures have been measured over the decades, riled a House committee and others who claimed the changes were made to show rising temperatures. The House Science Committee subpoenaed the agency’s scientists and then complained that NOAA wasn’t answering its requests quickly enough.

The new international study looked at satellite data, readings from buoys and other marine floats for ocean temperatures. Each measurement system independently showed the same 20 years of increase in temperatures that NOAA found: about two-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit per decade since 2000, said the study’s lead author, Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley.

“Our research confirms that NOAA scientists were right,” Hausfather said. “They were not in any way cooking the books.”

NOAA adjusted past data to take into account old measurements by ships that often recorded temperatures from their engine rooms, where heat from the engines skewed the data. Buoys and satellite data don’t have such artificial warming, Hausfather said.

In 1990, about 90 percent of the ocean temperature readings were done by ships, now it is about 85 percent by the more accurate buoys, Hausfather said.

Scientists Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University and Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who weren’t part the original study or the more recent one that confirmed its conclusions, called both accurate.

“This paper further allays any qualms that there may have been scientific errors or any non-scientific agendas,” Trenberth said in an email.

Officials at the House Science Committee did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Hausfather’s study was published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances .

 

[SSDD]

Thunder you poor idiot...climate pseudoscience finally found a way to adjust the already accurate temperature recording of the radiosondes to produce a hot spot..By the way...weren't the people who produced that paper the same wackos that sponsored the ship of fools?...I am sure that they were...and, by their own admission, they had to throw out data, and to do a series of adjustments to station data to find the signal they were looking for

the same way they adjust the ground stations....eliminate those pesky rural stations that don't show any warming...and fill in ridiculous amounts of surface in order to manage to say that this year was the hottest ever by 100th of a degree...

People who believe that sort of crap are idiots...

 

[RollingThunder]

Thunder you poor idiot...climate pseudoscience finally found a way to adjust the already accurate temperature recording of the radiosondes to produce a hot spot..the same way they adjust the ground stations....eliminate those pesky rural stations that don't show any warming...and fill in ridiculous amounts of surface in order to manage to say that this year was the hottest ever by 100th of a degree...

People who believe that sort of crap are idiots...

People who believe in crackpot conspiracy theories that involve the totally insane claim that, for no comprehensible reason, virtually all of the world's scientists....hundreds of thousands of independent scientists all around the world, from many different fields of science, who study any aspect of the Earth's climate systems....are ALL part of a vast international conspiracy to supposedly "dishonestly adjust or alter or fudge" all of their data in unison to show a supposedly "non-existent" rapid and abrupt warming over the last century, without any of them ever refusing to cooperate in the supposed conspiracy, or blowing the whistle on the rest of them and publically denouncing the scheme (the Mafia would be jealous)....and, moreover, somehow those pesky scientists managed to melt all those gigatons of ice all around the world with hairdryers or something........are beyond merely 'idiotic', way off into severe retardation and utter insanity. And that describes denier cult trolls like SSoooDDumb perfectly.

Notice how, when two of his favorite bogus claims in post #144 were immediately debunked by the scientific facts, he doesn't try to defend them with any evidence to support his claims, he just defaults to the crackpot conspiracy theory about all of the scientists fraudulently "adjusting" the data.

 

[SSDD]

People who believe in crackpot conspiracy theories that involve the totally insane claim that, for no comprehensible reason, virtually all of the world's scientists

First, it isn't all the world's scientists..or virtually all the world's scientists...it is climate scientists...a very small percentage of the world's scientists...and even among them, less than half are on board with the IPCC claims.

hundreds of thousands of independent scientists all around the world, from many different fields of science, who study any aspect of the Earth's climate systems

There are not hundreds of thousands of scientists who study the earth's climate systems...just more bullshit you regurgitate in an attempt to convince people you aren't a nut.

....are ALL part of a vast international conspiracy to supposedly "dishonestly adjust or alter or fudge" all of their data in unison to show a supposedly "non-existent" rapid and abrupt warming over the last century, without any of them ever refusing to cooperate in the supposed conspiracy, or blowing the whistle on the rest of them and publically denouncing the scheme (the Mafia would be jealous)....and, moreover, somehow those pesky scientists managed to melt all those gigatons of ice all around the world with hairdryers or something........are beyond merely 'idiotic', way off into severe retardation and utter insanity. And that describes denier cult trolls like SSoooDDumb perfectly.

You don't think a cut of trillions of dollars will corrupt a relatively small group of people? Who is the denier here thunder?

Notice how, when two of his favorite bogus claims in post #144 were immediately debunked by the scientific facts, he doesn't try to defend them with any evidence to support his claims, he just defaults to the crackpot conspiracy theory about all of the scientists fraudulently "adjusting" the data.

All you managed to show thunder is that climate pseudoscience is willing to torture data in order to make it conform to the narrative. that isn't science...and care to explain why the satellite data which specifically measures the upper troposphere doesn't detect that hot spot they tortured the data to produce?

 

[Ima Cat]

CONTINUATION....

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Changes in temperature and water depth of a small mountain lake during the past 3000 years in Central Kamchatka reflected by a chironomid record

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n3/full/ngeo2891.html

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Temperature variations since 1750 CE inferred from an alpine lake in the southeastern margin of the Tibetan Plateau

https://www.researchgate.net/public...enland_from_the_first_regional_diatom_dataset

Quantitative reconstruction of temperature at a Jōmon site in the Incipient Jōmon Period in northern Japan and its implications for the production of early pottery and stone arrowheads

Climate variability in the past ∼19,000 yr in NE Tibetan Plateau inferred from biomarker and stable isotope records of Lake Donggi Cona

https://www.researchgate.net/public...nce_from_the_mid-_to_outer_Great_Barrier_Reef

Holocene hydrological and sea surface temperature changes in the northern coast of the South China Sea

Oscillations in the Indian summer monsoon during the Holocene inferred from a stable isotope record from pyrogenic carbon from Lake Chenghai, southwest China

https://www.researchgate.net/public...mental_change_for_southern_Pacific_Costa_Rica

Solar and tropical ocean forcing of late-Holocene climate change in coastal East Asia

Just for fun, here are a few more...



Late Glacial to Holocene paleoenvironmental change on the northwestern Pacific seaboard, Kamchatka Peninsula (Russia)


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683616683255


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018217300500


https://www.researchgate.net/public...olocene_and_its_sensitivity_to_climate_change

Sure, i believe an anonymous poster's cherry-picked (and fabricated?) charts and not atmospheric physicists and climatologists. Some of the above charts go back 4000 years, others 200, and they are all local, not global. And by the way, there were no thermometers 4000 years ago.

Post a chart of atmospheric CO2 levels going back 600,000 years, where there is actual data from Antarctic ice corps samples, and you'll see an exponential spike in the last 200 years, since the industrial revolution, rising steeper the last 50 years.

 

[SSDD]

Sure, i believe an anonymous poster's cherry-picked (and fabricated?) charts and not atmospheric physicists and climatologists. Some of the above charts go back 4000 years, others 200, and they are all local, not global. And by the way, there were no thermometers 4000 years ago.

Post a chart of atmospheric CO2 levels going back 600,000 years, where there is actual data from Antarctic ice corps samples, and you'll see an exponential spike in the last 200 years, since the industrial revolution, rising steeper the last 50 years.

Why restrict the view to 600,000 years? That time frame would be entirely within an ice age...a time of cold water and as a result, low atmospheric CO2... Lets look all the way back as far as possible...because when you look at the real big picture, you can see that the present hysteria is laughable.

The blue line is temperature...the black line is atmospheric CO2. Note the number of times the earth decended into ice ages with atmospheric CO2 levels above 1000ppm...Note the average temperature of the earth across its existence compared to today..

There is a reason that climate science wants to restrict the view to short periods of geological time...when you extend the view, it is clear to see that the present is a period of unusual cold in terms of earth history...and a period of CO2 starvation in the atmosphere.

You believe what you do as a result of your political leanings...not because of any actual scientific evidence...but if you believe that there is even one single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis over natural variability, by all means, bring it here and show me...I have been asking for such evidence for more than 20 years now and haven't seen the first shred...I predict that you won't be able to produce it either.

 

[RollingThunder]

Sure, i believe an anonymous poster's cherry-picked (and fabricated?) charts and not atmospheric physicists and climatologists. Some of the above charts go back 4000 years, others 200, and they are all local, not global. And by the way, there were no thermometers 4000 years ago.

Post a chart of atmospheric CO2 levels going back 600,000 years, where there is actual data from Antarctic ice corps samples, and you'll see an exponential spike in the last 200 years, since the industrial revolution, rising steeper the last 50 years.

Why restrict the view to 600,000 years?

Actually that number is way too high.....the natural condition of the planet millions of years ago, or even hundreds of thousands of years ago, has almost no relevance to the current situation where humans have created un-natural, very fast global warming, you poor dumbshit. The human race itself is much younger than that.

Although the human race had hominid precursors going back over two million years, "the anatomically modern Homo sapiens only evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago".[6][7] (- Wikipedia)

It is the radical changes.....to the climate patterns that previously were fairly stable over the Holocene period when the human race developed agriculture and civilization and a population of seven and a half billion.....that are happening now that are significant.

Your demented post, SSoooDDumb's, amounts to just more of the usual, very ignorant, very clueless, total bullshit you always post.

 

[SSDD]

Actually that number is way too high.....the natural condition of the planet millions of years ago, or even hundreds of thousands of years ago, has almost no relevance to the current situation where humans have created un-natural, very fast global warming, you poor dumbshit. The human race itself is much younger than that.

Actually thunder, I have already shown you gold standard temperature reconstructions from both poles that show greater temperature changes than we have seen in shorter periods of time...your claims that the present is outside the realm of natural variability is unsupportable.

It is the radical changes.....to the climate patterns that previously were fairly stable over the Holocene period when the human race developed agriculture and civilization and a population of seven and a half billion.....that are happening now that are significant.

Which radical changes are you talking about? What do you think is happening now that is outside natural variability...examples please and do see if you can keep it concise rather than simply posting great steaming piles of bullshit hoping that you can fool someone with quantity instead of quality.

 

[RollingThunder]

Actually that number is way too high.....the natural condition of the planet millions of years ago, or even hundreds of thousands of years ago, has almost no relevance to the current situation where humans have created un-natural, very fast global warming, you poor dumbshit. The human race itself is much younger than that.

Although the human race had hominid precursors going back over two million years, "the anatomically modern Homo sapiens only evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago".[6][7] (- Wikipedia)

It is the radical changes.....to the climate patterns that previously were fairly stable over the Holocene period when the human race developed agriculture and civilization and a population of seven and a half billion.....that are happening now that are significant.

Your demented post, SSoooDDumb's, amounts to just more of the usual, very ignorant, very clueless, total bullshit you always post

Actually thunder, I have already shown you gold standard temperature reconstructions from both poles that show greater temperature changes than we have seen in shorter periods of time...

Nope, you haven't done that at all except in your deranged hallucinations, SSoooDDumb.

Which pretty much describes everything you post, you retarded troll.

In the real world.....

Paper after paper has basically affirmed that current warming is outside the bounds of natural variation, and therefore likely due to human activities. For example we have seen a sea level hockey stick, an underwater hockey stick, a South American hockey stick, an Arctic summer temperature hockey stick, a tropical glacier hockey stick, a North American mountain snowpack hockey stick, a glacier length hockey stick, and warming of Atlantic water into the Arctic hockey stick.
- (source)

 

[SSDD]

Actually that number is way too high.....the natural condition of the planet millions of years ago, or even hundreds of thousands of years ago, has almost no relevance to the current situation where humans have created un-natural, very fast global warming, you poor dumbshit. The human race itself is much younger than that.

Although the human race had hominid precursors going back over two million years, "the anatomically modern Homo sapiens only evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago".[6][7] (- Wikipedia)

It is the radical changes.....to the climate patterns that previously were fairly stable over the Holocene period when the human race developed agriculture and civilization and a population of seven and a half billion.....that are happening now that are significant.

Your demented post, SSoooDDumb's, amounts to just more of the usual, very ignorant, very clueless, total bullshit you always post

Actually thunder, I have already shown you gold standard temperature reconstructions from both poles that show greater temperature changes than we have seen in shorter periods of time...

Nope, you haven't done that at all except in your deranged hallucinations, SSoooDDumb.

Which pretty much describes everything you post, you retarded troll.

In the real world.....

Paper after paper has basically affirmed that current warming is outside the bounds of natural variation, and therefore likely due to human activities. For example we have seen a sea level hockey stick, an underwater hockey stick, a South American hockey stick, an Arctic summer temperature hockey stick, a tropical glacier hockey stick, a North American mountain snowpack hockey stick, a glacier length hockey stick, and warming of Atlantic water into the Arctic hockey stick.

like it or not thunder...ice core data is the gold standard for temperature reconstructions...This is THE gold standard temperature reconstruction for the northern hemisphere for the past 10,000 years... Sorry you don't like it...sorry that it puts the lie to your beliefs...but it is what it is. Now if you would care to show any published papers that explicitly refute the greenland ice core data as the gold standard temperature reconstruction for the northern hemisphere...by all means, bring it here and lets take a look.

Paper after paper has basically affirmed that current warming is outside the bounds of natural variation, and therefore likely due to human activities.

Once again thunder, you have a problem with separating fantasy from reality. The graph above represents what science itself calls the gold standard in temperature reconstructions...papers that run afoul of what science itself calls a gold standard reconstruction have serious problems right out of the gate...the graph above shows very clearly that what small bit of temperature change we have seen doesn't even come close to the boundaries of natural variation...what we are seeing is barely a ripple when compared to natural variation...

And there are plenty of published works that actually reflect reality rather than opinion.

Here is a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters in 2017: Collapse of the North American ice saddle 14,500 years ago caused widespread cooling and reduced ocean overturning circulation

Collapse of the North American ice saddle 14,500 years ago caused widespread cooling and reduced ocean overturning circulation

“During the Last Glacial Maximum 26–19 thousand years ago (ka), a vast ice sheet stretched over North America [Clark et al., 2009]. In subsequent millennia, as climate warmed and this ice sheet decayed, large volumes of meltwater flooded to the oceans [Tarasov and Peltier, 2006; Wickert, 2016]. This period, known as the “last deglaciation,” included episodes of abrupt climate change, such as the Bølling warming [~14.7–14.5 ka], when Northern Hemisphere temperatures increased by 4–5°C in just a few decades [Lea et al., 2003; Buizert et al., 2014], coinciding with a 12–22 m sea level rise in less than 340 years [5.3 meters per century] (Meltwater Pulse 1a (MWP1a)) [Deschamps et al., 2012].

Northern Hemisphere temperatures increased by 4 - 5 degrees C in just a few decades...we have seen a fraction of a degree in 150 years and you believe that the temperature change we have seen is unprecedented and outside the boundaries of natural variability?

And during the same period, sea level rose at least 12 meters in 340 years..compare that to the 1.7 mm per year that we have seen throughout the 20th century and into the 21st century.

And here...published in AAAS http://epic.awi.de/17919/1/Ste2007b.pdf


High-Resolution Greenland Ice Core Data Show Abrupt Climate Change Happens in Few Years Jørgen Peder Steffensen, et al.
Science 321, 680 (2008); DOI: 10.1126/science.1157707

“A northern shift of the Intertropical Convergence Zone could be the trigger of these abrupt shifts of Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, resulting in changes of 2 to 4 kelvin in Greenland moisture source temperature from one year to the next.” “The d18O warming transition at 14.7 ka [14,700 years ago] was the most rapid and occurred within a remarkable 3 years, whereas the warming transition at 11.7 ka [11,700 years ago] lasted 60 years; both correspond to a warming of more than 10 K.”

And I could go on and on if you like...how many would you like to see?...papers that actually agree with what the science community calls the gold standard temperature reconstruction showing that the minor temperature variation we have seen is hardly a ripple when compared the range of natural variability vs papers that say what you want to believe but go against what science calls the gold standard of temperature reconstructions and claim that the fraction of a degree of change that we have seen is unprecedented and outside of the range of natural variability. Which do you believe are more likely to reflect reality? And do keep in mind that the definition of insanity is an inability to distinguish between reality and fantasy....reality = papers that agree with the gold standard temperature reconstruction....fantasy = papers that go against the gold standard temperature reconstruction. Which do you believe?

 

[RollingThunder]

like it or not thunder...ice core data is the gold standard for temperature reconstructions...

No it isn't, you ignorant retard.

Ice core data gives a picture of conditions on top of polar ice sheets, often at a five or ten thousand feet altitude, and they are not that accurate at revealing conditions at sea level in the mid-latitudes or at the equator.

The best temperature reconstructions use a wide variety of temperature proxies from all over the world.

As Dr. Shaun Marcott said in talking about his 2013 paper in the journal Science, called "A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years"......

"While we do use these ice cores in our study, they are limited to the polar regions and so give only a local or regional picture of temperature changes. Just as it would not be reasonable to use the recent instrumental temperature history from Greenland (for example) as being representative of the planet as a whole, one would similarly not use just a few ice cores from polar locations to reconstruct past temperature change for the entire planet......We therefore cannot rely on any single location as being representative of global temperature change. This is why our study includes data from around the world......To develop a longer record, we used primarily marine and terrestrial fossils, biomolecules, or isotopes that were recovered from ocean and lake sediments and ice cores. All of these proxies have been independently calibrated to provide reliable estimates of temperature."
- (source)

Given that you obviously, not just know nothing, but think you 'know' a bunch of BS that isn't true, the rest of your garbage pseudo-science post isn't even worth debunking.

 

[SSDD]

No it isn't, you ignorant retard.

Yes..it is you glassy eyed chanting cultist...

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years | Die kalte Sonne

Although the GISP2 ice core data is site specific (Greenland), it has been well correlated with global glacial fluctuations and a wide range of other climate proxies and has become the ‘gold standard’ among global climate reconstructions.

old-ice.shtml

"The problem with ice core records, it's never enough ice [for research]," he said, though stressed that ice cores remain the "gold standard" for climate research. "Ice cores are a crucial part of the Antarctica science program."

and on and on I could go. Like it or not, ice cores are the gold standard..

"While we do use these ice cores in our study, they are limited to the polar regions and so give only a local or regional picture of temperature changes.

When ice cores from both the arctic and the antarctic show the same warming fingerprints, then you can bet the temperature change is global...and both arctic and antarctic ice cores show the same warming trends...and if it was warming several degrees per decade at 10,000 feet, how much warming do you think was happening at sea level?

Given that you obviously, not just know nothing, but think you 'know' a bunch of BS that isn't true, the rest of your garbage pseudo-science post isn't even worth debunking.

You only further prove that you will accept anything as science so long as it supports your belief.

 

[RollingThunder]

No it isn't, you ignorant retard.

Ice core data gives a picture of conditions on top of polar ice sheets, often at a five or ten thousand feet altitude, and they are not that accurate at revealing conditions at sea level in the mid-latitudes or at the equator.

The best temperature reconstructions use a wide variety of temperature proxies from all over the world.

As Dr. Shaun Marcott said in talking about his 2013 paper in the journal Science, called "A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years"......

"While we do use these ice cores in our study, they are limited to the polar regions and so give only a local or regional picture of temperature changes. Just as it would not be reasonable to use the recent instrumental temperature history from Greenland (for example) as being representative of the planet as a whole, one would similarly not use just a few ice cores from polar locations to reconstruct past temperature change for the entire planet......We therefore cannot rely on any single location as being representative of global temperature change. This is why our study includes data from around the world......To develop a longer record, we used primarily marine and terrestrial fossils, biomolecules, or isotopes that were recovered from ocean and lake sediments and ice cores. All of these proxies have been independently calibrated to provide reliable estimates of temperature."
- (source)

Given that you obviously, not just know nothing, but think you 'know' a bunch of BS that isn't true, the rest of your garbage pseudo-science post isn't even worth debunking.

Yes..it is you glassy eyed chanting cultist...

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years | Die kalte Sonne

Wow, a lie filled article from several years ago, appearing on an obscure German denier cult blog, written by Don J. Easterbrook, a crackpot retired Professor of Geology and hard-core denier cult nutbagger and science-whore for the fossil fuel industry.

You are SO laughable, SSOoooDDumb, and SO pathetic.

In the real world....here's a good debunking of Easterbrook's lies and science fraud.....

Cooling-gate! Easterbrook fakes his figures, hides the incline
May 21, 2010
(excerpts)
Don Easterbrook, the retired geology professor who predicted that the world was headed for decades of global cooling at the recent Heartland climate sceptic conference, appears to have crudely faked one of the key graphs in his presentation in order to reduce modern temperatures and make historical climate look warmer than justified. Looking through Easterbrook’s slides, it seems he has taken a graph of Holocene temperature variations prepared by Global Warming Art (used at Wikipedia), and altered it to fraudulently bolster his case.

Here’s Easterbrook’s graph (slide 9, ppt file available here):

When I saw that graphic, it struck me as strangely familiar. The typefaces and presentation are reminiscent of graphs prepared by Robert A Rohde for Global Warming Art. So I checked, and this is what I found:

Here’s the source page. Note that the typeface and scaling of the axes are identical, save for the y-axis being swapped over to the left. The thick black curve, the median of the reconstructions Rohde has used, is identical.

Easterbrook has altered the graph considerably. The dotted line across the graph marks the zero anomaly, which Rohde has set at the mid-20th century average values. To put current temperatures in perspective, he has provided an arrow indicating 2004’s temperature and a box providing an expanded scale for the last 2000 years. Easterbrook has erased that arrow, all the individual reconstructions and the detail box, and drawn a new line at 0.25ºC below zero. This he labels “present day temperature”. Areas above the new line are infilled in red, those below in blue. Easterbrook has quite deliberately altered the graph to reduce “current temperatures” by 0.75ºC and make the curve fit his storyline. The original suggests that current temperatures are comparable to, perhaps higher than the warmest period of the Holocene, the post-glacial climatic optimum 8000 years ago. Easterbrook’s version gives the impression that for most of the last 10,000 years temperature has been warmer than today. It’s interesting to note that Easterbrook has added a pointer to the Younger Dryas, but has managed to misspell it “Dyas”.

(- continued)

 

[SSDD]

Wow, a lie filled article from several years ago, appearing on an obscure German denier cult blog, written by Don J. Easterbrook, a crackpot retired Professor of Geology and hard-core denier cult nutbagger and science-whore for the fossil fuel industry.

Wow...you really are detached from reality...aren't you?

Don J. Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Easterbrook was educated at the University of Washington, where he received the BSc in 1958, the MSc in 1959, and the PhD (Geology) in 1962. His doctoral dissertation was entitled Pleistocene Geology of the Northern Part of the Puget Lowland, Washington. Easterbrook has studied global climate change for five decades. He was chairman of the Geology Department at Western Washington University for 12 years. He is an active environmentalist, having initiated undergraduate and graduate programs in environmental geology at Western Washington University.

• President of the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division of the Geological Society of America
• Chairman of the 1977 National Geological Society of America meeting
• U.S. representative to the United Nations International Geological Correlation Program
• Associate Editor of the Geological Society of America Bulletin for 15 years
• Associate Editor of the Geomorphology International Journal
• Director of Field Excursions for the 2003 International Quaternary Association Congress
• Founder of the Pacific Coast Friends of the Pleistocene
• Founding member of American Quaternary Association

• National award for ‘Distinguished Service to the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division’, Geological Society of America
• Lifetime Achievement Award, Northwest Geological Society

Doesn't sound obscure at all to me...and I don't find any reference to him being an oil company whore anywhere at all...but if taking money from organizations to do research makes one a whore, then all your priests are first order prostitutes to the church of environmentalist cults.

As usual, you have nothing but insult, name calling, logical fallacy and opinion. Typical thunder. One can only dream of the day when you learn a new trick.

 

[RollingThunder]

Wow, a lie filled article from several years ago, appearing on an obscure German denier cult blog, written by Don J. Easterbrook, a crackpot retired Professor of Geology and hard-core denier cult nutbagger and science-whore for the fossil fuel industry.

You are SO laughable, SSOoooDDumb, and SO pathetic.

In the real world....here's a good debunking of Easterbrook's lies and science fraud.....

Cooling-gate! Easterbrook fakes his figures, hides the incline
May 21, 2010
(excerpts)
Don Easterbrook, the retired geology professor who predicted that the world was headed for decades of global cooling at the recent Heartland climate sceptic conference, appears to have crudely faked one of the key graphs in his presentation in order to reduce modern temperatures and make historical climate look warmer than justified. Looking through Easterbrook’s slides, it seems he has taken a graph of Holocene temperature variations prepared by Global Warming Art (used at Wikipedia), and altered it to fraudulently bolster his case.

Here’s Easterbrook’s graph (slide 9, ppt file available here):

When I saw that graphic, it struck me as strangely familiar. The typefaces and presentation are reminiscent of graphs prepared by Robert A Rohde for Global Warming Art. So I checked, and this is what I found:

Here’s the source page. Note that the typeface and scaling of the axes are identical, save for the y-axis being swapped over to the left. The thick black curve, the median of the reconstructions Rohde has used, is identical.

Easterbrook has altered the graph considerably. The dotted line across the graph marks the zero anomaly, which Rohde has set at the mid-20th century average values. To put current temperatures in perspective, he has provided an arrow indicating 2004’s temperature and a box providing an expanded scale for the last 2000 years. Easterbrook has erased that arrow, all the individual reconstructions and the detail box, and drawn a new line at 0.25ºC below zero. This he labels “present day temperature”. Areas above the new line are infilled in red, those below in blue. Easterbrook has quite deliberately altered the graph to reduce “current temperatures” by 0.75ºC and make the curve fit his storyline. The original suggests that current temperatures are comparable to, perhaps higher than the warmest period of the Holocene, the post-glacial climatic optimum 8000 years ago. Easterbrook’s version gives the impression that for most of the last 10,000 years temperature has been warmer than today. It’s interesting to note that Easterbrook has added a pointer to the Younger Dryas, but has managed to misspell it “Dyas”.

(- continued)

Given that you obviously, not just know nothing, but think you 'know' a bunch of BS that isn't true, the rest of your garbage pseudo-science post isn't even worth debunking.

Wow...you really are detached from reality...aren't you?

Nope! You are! As your every post reveals quite clearly.

Don J. Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Easterbrook was educated at the University of Washington, where he received the BSc in 1958, the MSc in 1959, and the PhD (Geology) in 1962. His doctoral dissertation was entitled Pleistocene Geology of the Northern Part of the Puget Lowland, Washington. Easterbrook has studied global climate change for five decades. He was chairman of the Geology Department at Western Washington University for 12 years.

Easterbrook is a retired geologist with no education or experience in modern climate science. Your quote is from a page on Wikipedia that was heavily edited by some denier cultist a few weeks ago, who inserted some lies that haven't been edited out yet. That denier cult science-whore did not "study global climate change" for five days, let alone five decades.....the closest he came was studying ancient glaciation around the Hudson Bay, which has virtually nothing to do with the scientific issues involved in modern human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes.

Moreover, he is a fraud and a liar....he distorts other scientists' graphs and data, changes dates on graphs, and makes idiotic predictions that never come true.

He is an active environmentalist, having initiated undergraduate and graduate programs in environmental geology at Western Washington University.

Another lie edited into his wiki page. Teaching Environmental Geology has nothing at all to do with being an environmentalist....."An environmentalist is a supporter of the goals of the environmental movement, "a political and ethical movement that seeks to improve and protect the quality of the natural environment through changes to environmentally harmful human activities".[1] An environmentalist is engaged in or believes in the philosophy of environmentalism."

Easterbrook is, if anything, an anti-environmentalist.

"Environmental geology, like hydrogeology, is an applied science concerned with the practical application of the principles of geology in the solving of environmental problems. It is a multidisciplinary field that is closely related to engineering geology and, to a lesser extent, to environmental geography. Each of these fields involves the study of the interaction of humans with the geologic environment, including the biosphere, the lithosphere, the hydrosphere, and to some extent the atmosphere. In other words, environmental geology is the application of geological information to solve conflicts, minimizing possible adverse environmental degradation or maximizing possible advantageous condition resulting from the use of natural and modified environment."
(source)



You seen so proud of his former career as a geology professor at Western Washington University. The entire Geology department there signed a letter denouncing Easterbrook and his academic dishonesty in pushing his crappy pseudo-science on the public without submitting it to the normal academic process of peer review.

The Letter from the WWU Geology Faculty
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.

Doesn't sound obscure at all to me...

You moronic idiot.....I didn't say he was "obscure".....he is a well known crackpot and denier cult douch-bag.....what I said was that the German denier cult blog you cited his article from is an obscure piece of shit blog, not a reputable source of actual science.

What I said:
"...a lie filled article from several years ago, appearing on an obscure German denier cult blog, written by Don J. Easterbrook, a crackpot retired Professor of Geology and hard-core denier cult nutbagger and science-whore for the fossil fuel industry."

and I don't find any reference to him being an oil company whore anywhere at all...

You couldn't find your own ass if you used both hands, a roadmap and a GPS, SSoooDDumb.

Easterbrook is in the pocket of the Heartland Institute, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and other groups who funnel money from EXXON, the Koch brothers and far rightwing Foundations set up by oil barrons, to science-whores like Easterbrook, to lie about the science.

For more info....

Don Easterbrook

As usual, you have nothing but insult, name calling, logical fallacy and opinion.

As usual, you have NOTHING AT ALL.

Certainly not any answer to this.....

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 Whose lie is it anyway? Easterbrook caught red-handed) 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 Easterbrook’s wrong (again)). A good scientist corrects and learns from mistakes, but this seems foreign to Easterbrook.
(source)

 

[skookerasbil]

Wow, a lie filled article from several years ago, appearing on an obscure German denier cult blog, written by Don J. Easterbrook, a crackpot retired Professor of Geology and hard-core denier cult nutbagger and science-whore for the fossil fuel industry.

You are SO laughable, SSOoooDDumb, and SO pathetic.

In the real world....here's a good debunking of Easterbrook's lies and science fraud.....

Cooling-gate! Easterbrook fakes his figures, hides the incline
May 21, 2010
(excerpts)
Don Easterbrook, the retired geology professor who predicted that the world was headed for decades of global cooling at the recent Heartland climate sceptic conference, appears to have crudely faked one of the key graphs in his presentation in order to reduce modern temperatures and make historical climate look warmer than justified. Looking through Easterbrook’s slides, it seems he has taken a graph of Holocene temperature variations prepared by Global Warming Art (used at Wikipedia), and altered it to fraudulently bolster his case.

Here’s Easterbrook’s graph (slide 9, ppt file available here):

When I saw that graphic, it struck me as strangely familiar. The typefaces and presentation are reminiscent of graphs prepared by Robert A Rohde for Global Warming Art. So I checked, and this is what I found:

Here’s the source page. Note that the typeface and scaling of the axes are identical, save for the y-axis being swapped over to the left. The thick black curve, the median of the reconstructions Rohde has used, is identical.

Easterbrook has altered the graph considerably. The dotted line across the graph marks the zero anomaly, which Rohde has set at the mid-20th century average values. To put current temperatures in perspective, he has provided an arrow indicating 2004’s temperature and a box providing an expanded scale for the last 2000 years. Easterbrook has erased that arrow, all the individual reconstructions and the detail box, and drawn a new line at 0.25ºC below zero. This he labels “present day temperature”. Areas above the new line are infilled in red, those below in blue. Easterbrook has quite deliberately altered the graph to reduce “current temperatures” by 0.75ºC and make the curve fit his storyline. The original suggests that current temperatures are comparable to, perhaps higher than the warmest period of the Holocene, the post-glacial climatic optimum 8000 years ago. Easterbrook’s version gives the impression that for most of the last 10,000 years temperature has been warmer than today. It’s interesting to note that Easterbrook has added a pointer to the Younger Dryas, but has managed to misspell it “Dyas”.

(- continued)

Given that you obviously, not just know nothing, but think you 'know' a bunch of BS that isn't true, the rest of your garbage pseudo-science post isn't even worth debunking.

Wow...you really are detached from reality...aren't you?

Nope! You are! As your every post reveals quite clearly.

Don J. Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. Easterbrook was educated at the University of Washington, where he received the BSc in 1958, the MSc in 1959, and the PhD (Geology) in 1962. His doctoral dissertation was entitled Pleistocene Geology of the Northern Part of the Puget Lowland, Washington. Easterbrook has studied global climate change for five decades. He was chairman of the Geology Department at Western Washington University for 12 years.

Easterbrook is a retired geologist with no education or experience in modern climate science. Your quote is from a page on Wikipedia that was heavily edited by some denier cultist a few weeks ago, who inserted some lies that haven't been edited out yet. That denier cult science-whore did not "study global climate change" for five days, let alone five decades.....the closest he came was studying ancient glaciation around the Hudson Bay, which has virtually nothing to do with the scientific issues involved in modern human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes.

Moreover, he is a fraud and a liar....he distorts other scientists' graphs and data, changes dates on graphs, and makes idiotic predictions that never come true.

He is an active environmentalist, having initiated undergraduate and graduate programs in environmental geology at Western Washington University.

Another lie edited into his wiki page. Teaching Environmental Geology has nothing at all to do with being an environmentalist....."An environmentalist is a supporter of the goals of the environmental movement, "a political and ethical movement that seeks to improve and protect the quality of the natural environment through changes to environmentally harmful human activities".[1] An environmentalist is engaged in or believes in the philosophy of environmentalism."

Easterbrook is, if anything, an anti-environmentalist.

"Environmental geology, like hydrogeology, is an applied science concerned with the practical application of the principles of geology in the solving of environmental problems. It is a multidisciplinary field that is closely related to engineering geology and, to a lesser extent, to environmental geography. Each of these fields involves the study of the interaction of humans with the geologic environment, including the biosphere, the lithosphere, the hydrosphere, and to some extent the atmosphere. In other words, environmental geology is the application of geological information to solve conflicts, minimizing possible adverse environmental degradation or maximizing possible advantageous condition resulting from the use of natural and modified environment."
(source)



You seen so proud of his former career as a geology professor at Western Washington University. The entire Geology department there signed a letter denouncing Easterbrook and his academic dishonesty in pushing his crappy pseudo-science on the public without submitting it to the normal academic process of peer review.

The Letter from the WWU Geology Faculty
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.

Doesn't sound obscure at all to me...

You moronic idiot.....I didn't say he was "obscure".....he is a well known crackpot and denier cult douch-bag.....what I said was that the German denier cult blog you cited his article from is an obscure piece of shit blog, not a reputable source of actual science.

What I said:
"...a lie filled article from several years ago, appearing on an obscure German denier cult blog, written by Don J. Easterbrook, a crackpot retired Professor of Geology and hard-core denier cult nutbagger and science-whore for the fossil fuel industry."

and I don't find any reference to him being an oil company whore anywhere at all...

You couldn't find your own ass if you used both hands, a roadmap and a GPS, SSoooDDumb.

Easterbrook is in the pocket of the Heartland Institute, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, and other groups who funnel money from EXXON, the Koch brothers and far rightwing Foundations set up by oil barrons, to science-whores like Easterbrook, to lie about the science.

For more info....

Don Easterbrook

As usual, you have nothing but insult, name calling, logical fallacy and opinion.

As usual, you have NOTHING AT ALL.

Certainly not any answer to this.....

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 Whose lie is it anyway? Easterbrook caught red-handed) 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 Easterbrook’s wrong (again)). A good scientist corrects and learns from mistakes, but this seems foreign to Easterbrook.
(source)

meh

The only thing that matters is that a huge majority of Americans think that scientists still dont know dick about the climate..............

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/05/many-americans-are-skeptical-about-scientific-research-on-climate-and-gm-foods/

What that means is........this shit is only relevant in community message boards for people still searching for something meaningful in their lives.