Monday, 1 April 2013

Peer review vs Smear Review UPDATED TWICE

Don Easterbrook
Emeritus Professor Don Easterbrook PhD  has published extensively on issues pertaining to global climate change. He edited Evidence-Based Climate Science (2011) a book which contends that increased CO2 emissions aren't the cause of climate change. He predicted lower global temperatures than the IPCC temperature projections.

On his Western Washington University (WWU) site (link) lists his  Professional Interests as:

  • Glacial climate change
  • Glacial geology
  • Quaternary geochronology
  • Geomorphology
  • Environmental geology

and lists his Research Activities (inter alia)  as:

  • Causes of climate changeClimate Change Below Average Temps symbol

  • Correlation of glacial fluctuations, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, climate, and solar variation

  • 500 year record of temp changes using oxygen isotope data from the Greenland ice core

  • Effect of CO2 on climate change

  • Geologic history of climate change

Don wrote a paper  [originally published by Global Research in November 2008] titled 
and in his conclusions he wrote:
Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years. 
The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.
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. (Link)

The Faculty of the Geology Department of WWU have bought the Alarmist's take on the falsified AGW hypothesis (link) hook, line and non-thinker. They responded:
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.
Really? A scientific body from a University exclaims the non-scientific term of consensus? I intend no disrespect to the "active faculty" personally, but, science is science and consensus is politics. The consensus of science said that "Ulcers were previously connected to bad diet or a stressful lifestyle" however two Australian scientist went against the consensus and revealed the bacterial basis for the world’s second most prevalent disease—gastritis and peptic ulcers.

Why then would a university panel use a non-scientific term like "consensus?"

The WWU authors continue: (link)
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).
Science thrives on Controversies? But only if that scientist believe in their failed theories?

Lord Monckton  has written a rebuttal:

Dr. Easterbrook, to whose excellent book of scientific papers on global warming I had the honour to contribute a couple of years ago, has been libeled. It is the rent-seeking global-warming profiteers of the WWU faculty, not Dr. Easterbrook, who are guilty of misrepresentation.  
To take one of many examples of misrepresentation on their part, they attempt to challenge his statement to the effect that the GISP2 ice-core temperature record from Greenland shows that the temperature of air trapped in ice that formed on the summit plateau 8000 years ago was 2.5 Celsius degrees warmer than in the mid-19th century and, therefore, 1.8 Celsius degrees warmer than the present. 
They attempt to tamper with the truth by suggesting that the air temperature in Greenland is not global; that the record stops in 1850, not the somewhat warmer present; and that, therefore, we cannot say the Holocene climate optimum from 10,000-6000 years ago was globally warmer than the present. 
The racketeers of the WWU faculty either know they are wrong or are ignorant and pretending to know they are right. Either way, they are guilty of deliberate misrepresentation of the objective scientific truth. For it is well understood that temperatures in Greenland and Antarctica change by approximately twice the global average, by what is called "polar amplification". 
This phenomenon occurs because the tropics cannot warm significantly. Advection takes any additional heat poleward. Therefore, if Greenland was 1.8 degrees warmer than the present 8000 years ago, the world was almost a degree warmer than the present at that time. 
In fact, there has been no global warming for 17 years. This is one of many facts the WWU faculty chose not to mention. For the past eight years, according to the ENVISAT sea-level monitoring satellite, sea level has been rising at a rate equivalent to just 1.3 inches per century. 
As an expert reviewer for the IPCC's forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report, I can also report that the IPCC itself plans to publish a graph showing that the predictions of global warming in all four of its previous multi-thousand-page quinquennial Assessment Reports have proven to be enormous exaggerations. The computer models it uses have failed. 
Dr. Easterbrook, therefore, is a great deal closer to the current state of climate science than the money-grubbing gangsters of WWU, who ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves but are too politicized on the far Left to have the grace to blush. 
And the Bellingham Herald should have known better than to publish their poisonously pietistic libel of Dr. Easterbrook, who deserves a handsome apology both from these grasping leeches and from the Herald. Shame on the lot of you.
Yes. Christopher, Shame on the lot of them! And Shame on all the Alarmists!


Dr David Deming appeared before the US Senate on global warming in 2006 and revealed that, before the disgraced Mann Hockey Stick, the IPCC were planning to try to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period.(See Youtube below.) David tried to respond to the SMEAR. The newspaper wouldn't publish David's response so Anthony Watts put it up at WUWT. (link)

Letter to the Editor by Dr. David Deming 
I write in rebuttal to the March 31 letter by WWU geology faculty criticizing Dr. Don Easterbrook. I have a Ph.D in geophysics and have published research papers on climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In 2006 I testified before the US Senate on global warming. Additionally, I am the author of a three-volume history of science
I have never met Don Easterbrook. I write not so much to defend him as to expose the ignorance exhibited in the letter authored by WWU geology faculty. Their attack on Dr. Easterbrook is the most egregious example of pedantic buffoonery since the Pigeon League conspired against Galileo in the seventeenth century. Skepticism is essential to science. But the goal of the geology faculty at WWU seems to be to suppress critical inquiry and insist on dogmatic adherence to ideology. 
The WWU faculty never defined the term “global warming” but described it as “very real,” as if it were possible for something to be more real than real. They claimed that the evidence in support of this “very real” global warming was “overwhelming.” Yet they could not find space in their letter to cite a single specific fact that supports their thesis.
Read more at WUWT here 

Don Easterbrook answers his critics:

Easterbrook disputes WWU faculty global warming opinions

The Bellingham Herald opinion column is a diatribe against me personally (just read the slurs and innuendos) containing misrepresentations, no real data to support their contentions, and displays an abysmal ignorance of published literature. The reason becomes apparent when you realize that not a single one of the 13 Western Washington University authors has ever published a single paper on global climate change and none have any expertise whatsoever in climate issues.
Their claim that my publications "have not passed through rigorous peer review" is false. Virtually all of my 180 publications were peer-reviewed. The real joke here is they "fully support the 2007 IPCC report," but Donna Laframboise in 2011 documented that 30 percent of the references used were not peer-reviewed, so using their own standard, they would be forced to reject the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report!
The authors claim that "CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas" that has "significant and measureable impact on surface temperature." Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but it has little impact on temperature because it makes up only 0.038 percent of the atmosphere, has changed only 0.008 percent since carbon dioxide rose after 1945 (if you double nothing, you still have nothing), and accounts for only 3.6 percent of greenhouse warming. Carbon dioxide is incapable of changing global temperature by more than a fraction of a degree.
Read Don Easterbrook's complete reply HERE.

Read more here:


Read more here:

1 comment:

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!