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
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.”
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.