On October 14, 2008 Pielke posted ‘Dr. Richard Keen’s “Global Warming Quiz”‘
Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (ATOC) at the University of Colorado has a very interesting set of questions that he has posted with respect to global warming. It can be viewed at
http://atoc.colorado.edu/wxlab/atoc1050/1050%20ppt/Global%20warming%20quiz.ppt
His class website, which illustrates his expertise in atmospheric science, is at http://atoc.colorado.edu/wxlab/atoc1050/Syl1050F08.htm.
His global warming quiz is quite informative.”
Which raises some interesting, amazing, and (in)convenient questions. Specifically, why would two scientists out themselves as corrupt or incompetent?
You would think it is the sort of thing that they would want to keep quiet. Certainly nothing to be proud of.
Why do I say that? Let’s have a look at Keen’s Quiz
We start with some blatant cherry picking of historical data with a collection of historical examples of warm periods and extreme weather events. This is followed by quoting
Thomas Jefferson “A change in our climate however is taking place very sensibly. Both heats and colds are become much more moderate within the memory even of the middle-aged. Snows are less frequent and less deep.”— Notes on the State of Virginia, 1778“1 and similar quotes from American and British figures.
His conclusions are that “There’s nothing new about climate change and “global warming”, “Destructive climate events are not new, either!” Apparently implying that climate rationalists have ever said otherwise, which they have not. This is a Straw Man fallacy used to try and create the impression that he is somehow revealing something that climate science ignores.
Put simply, it is a lie. Climate scientists are well aware of historical climate changes … in many cases they are the ones who discovered them, and they have most certainly factored them into the science.
Let’s be clear here, we are not talking about complicated or arcane matters of climate science. Why cherry picking and misrepresenting data is bad science is 2nd year undergrad at most. Practice this kind of nonsense in your Jr year and watch yourself get tossed out of the program. When done by someone who is naive it is bad science. It is fraud when practiced by professionals who allegedly know better.
Pushing on, he then repeats the bogus “The Earth is Cooling” meme, and actually goes so far as to reproduce the obviously fraudulent “Monthly Temperature Projections” that Gunter used. It’s bad enough when a hack journalist feigning competence about climate issues peddles this farce, but that someone in the sciences would be presenting it as legitimate is completely inexcusable.
But we should not be too quick to judge, because it turns out there is far worse coming. Our next slide shows how IPCC projections are way off, predicting temperatures well above the actual temperatures. How amazing that Keen is the only one who caught this flagrant IPCC error!
Of course other researchers have been hampered by the fact that they use the actual, current IPCC predictions instead of cherry picking two extreme, outdated scenarios and falsely presenting them as “the IPCC predictions.” See “Climate Models” and “The 16 Climate Models” for more on understanding on these.
Easy to see why Pielke Sr. isn’t familiar with this second graph of course …
Apparently not finished with destroying any credibility he may have ever had as an academic, Keen goes on to make the absurd claim that the name of the phenomena “global warming” has been changed to “climate change” to disguise this supposedly inexplicable recent cooling.
Hello! Reality calling Richard Keen! You just cited the 20 yr old Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change! not the “Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming“. It is called the IPCC because real scientists have been calling the phenomena “climate change” for decades.
Having discredited himself beyond all question Keen then ventures into misrepresenting the facts to make political points. He attempts to credit the virulently anti-science Bush administration with having achieved CO2 reductions that are in fact a consequence of disastrous economic policies.
This is followed by an equally flawed and misleading analysis of Kyoto, and then falsely crediting Bush with causing normal fluctuations in sea level.
Why isn’t Keen’s work published in the scientific literature? Because the literature is reserved for science, not sophomoric frauds. Is Keen so grossly incompetent that he does not recognize this for total nonsense? or so corrupt that he presents it even though he realizes that it is lying crap? Certainly any 3rd or 4th yr undergraduate in any branch of science should have had no trouble exposing this pathetic sham for what it is.
Equally, since Pielke tacitly endorses Keen, we must ask the same questions of him. Frankly, if Pielke has even a shred of integrity as a scientist he will not merely withdraw his implied endorsement of Keen, but will in fact denounce this fraud.
Regardless, they are certainly not doing the skeptic cause any favours, but then Deniers1 never do. Every time the skeptics present or accept utter idiocy as credible they discredit themselves in the process , and thereby diminish any hope of ever being taken seriously.
Certainly any respect I may have had for Pielke has evapourated as a result of this.
——
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 19 … still no evidence.
1As I discuss here I do not use the term “Denier” to refer to all climate change doubters. Those who thoughtfully and intelligently address the facts I call ’skeptics’.
Those who irrationally deny the existence of the science and instead propagate the lies and distortions such as those discussed above and linked to the right under “Debunking Denier Nonsense” are “Deniers”.
The choice of the correct term is based on their actions, not their conclusions.
PHOTO CREDITS:
Excellent, Mike. You’ve really nailed them on a number of issues. It’s difficult to comprehend what is happening inside the heads of these people.
P.S. Typo at “Reality calling Richard Keenan!” – that should be ‘Keen’, of course.
—-
The earth is certainly a far more complex system that we know, and our current computer models of the effects we are having are clearly not meeting the mark. [1]
I think we need to be careful of extreme views though, unless there is rock solid evidence for them. The pollution we are causing is real, and it must be having an effect. We are creating increasing levels of pollution. Our greed is driving us to achieve continuous growth in profit, and this is the underlying problem.
Whether the sea level is rising or not, we must address the core issues of greed and profit to make sure the problem is dealt with before we all drown in our own muck.
—-
The evidence suggests
Greenfyre – it is amazing.
David — it is difficult to comprehend.
Sort of.
The human mind is oriented to psychological continuity. There is nothing different about a scientific mind, other than that it is stuffed with scientific information rather than other sorts of information. Despite the appeal of some disciplines to rationalism and objectivity (e.g. science, Western philosophy) we must still deal with the human mind and its general psychological processes.
We also tend to be influenced by conceptual traps.
For example, a big byproduct of the long history of patriarchy in science is that our connection to others is ignored in favour of separateness. This is in evidence when we spend time attacking others, instead of improving our ability to communicate information and interact positively with people who are not responding to the reality of a situation.
Cheers.
Do I detect a slight tinge of unintended irony in that remark? Anyway, “we” tried interacting positively with people, but “they” wouldn’t have any of that — Global Warming Is A Myth And Al Gore Is Fat, as they tell us. Oh, and they want Civility. Yeah.
You know what? Screw civility. If “they” don’t want people to call them idiots and liars, well, “they” can simply stop being idiots and liars. It’s simple.
— bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Great site . . .
The oversimplification of complex issues into ‘for’ and ‘against’ is often used by the media and also people (called ‘splitting’ in psychology).
The process allows people to stereotype and generalise and hold fast to their views while painting the opposition as ‘wrong’. ‘Us’ and ‘them’ type thinking. This is the cause of much human and ecological suffering in the past/present and future.
Even seeing things as a spectrum can lead to problems, because things are often not linear.
Within my class of environmental managers at UNSW there are a wide range of knowledge and views on climate change and what needs to be done (and who or what is to blame).
The reductionist blinkers of science often cause many problems. Notice how economists want to use economic tools, engineers use technology, while psychologists want to use individual change or group/social processes, historians look back at past examples, while ecologists continue to do ecology.
Still this reductionist problem is starting to be overcome – environmental engineers and environmental scientists are being slowly replaced with multi-disciplinary ‘holistic’ environmental managers that understand the importance of ‘seeing’ all options/sides and their different underlying assumptions/ethical views.
Anyway, maybe you would enjoy my blog too
http://randommanplanetearth.blogspot.com/
PJ,
I did just take a look and found your wordpress blog
http://artneuro.wordpress.com/
I read your Nov 11 Armistice Day/Hot Teacher post.
I see that the scenario of a female perpetrator and male victim challenges your deeply-held assumptions about heterosexuality, power, and sexual assault. For example, that boys are lucky when they are assaulted by females (especially attractive females) because it’s so exciting. That boys are always seeking sex. That boys are in charge. And that boys accept or decline sexual encounters as they wish.
Perhaps I’ll try you for environmental knowledge, some other time.
Cheers.
Hi I’m Art, (and therefore not PJ) from
http://artneuro.wordpress.com.
That’s not PJ’s blog, so it would be unfair to PJ to ascribe those views to him.
You can ascribe those views to me. I won’t deny them, and you are free to judge me for those things. You can even leave a comment. I won’t bite.
However, PJ’s environmental blog is a separate entity for which he cares greatly, and it would be entirely unfair to him to judge him on views he does not hold or express.
Kindest Regards,
Art
Well, with the inactivists the “wide range” consists of only one possible course of action: Business As Usual, Do Nothing.
Of course, they give lots of varied reasons for their prescription: either global warming isn’t happening, or it’s happening but it’s not by humans, or it’s happening but it’s good, or it’s happening and it’s bad but doing anything about it will be worse, or (!) a combination of the above. But at the end of the day their conclusion’s the same: Do Nothing.
(Well, that’s why I call them inactivists actually.)
I know this post is about a year old. I just wanted to say…THANK YOU.
I had to sit through Keen’s Weather and Atmosphere course at CU as a senior astronomy major. Any time anyone tried to challenge him he told them they were wrong. If they tried to challenge them on those (graded) quizzes, they would lose points.
His class contained the shoddiest science I have ever seen. I am glad to know I am not crazy for disagreeing with him.
[…] Richard knows you nasty warmists are going to accuse him, again, of cherry-picking a convenient example. So he reminds readers that he chose Philadelphia because […]
[…] https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/climate-change-and-picking-cherries-with-richard-keen/ […]