I have by personal experience seen them do that to the following people:
The Viscount Monkton
Dr. Jefferey Glassman
Professor Monte Heib
In each case it was in reaction to my posting links to their writing on the issue of climate.In a forum populated by AGW's who are often arrogant and snobbish.I have posted a thread about one such forum and how they reacted to my started a thread about a paper written by Viscount Monkton.
The name calling.The Ad Homenium attacks and more juvenile responses.
Here is an example written by Dr. Glassman in reaction to Gavin Schmidt and his so called scientists in their reaction to Monte Heibs CO2 and temperature chart that spans 600 million years.
It is in the comment section (
at the bottom of the page) following an interesting paper Dr. Glassman posted.
The paper:
SOLAR WIND HAS TWICE
THE GLOBAL WARMING EFFECT
OF EL NIŅO
THE CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE
MISTAKENLY ATTRIBUTES SOLAR WIND WARMING
TO MANMADE CARBON DIOXIDE
------------------------------------------------------------
SOLAR WIND, EL NIŅO/SOUTHERN OSCILLATION,
& GLOBAL TEMPERATURE:
EVENTS & CORRELATIONS
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
The link to it and the comment:
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/200...d.html#commentsDan Pangburn wrote:
I am convinced that CO2 is not a significant factor in the planet getting warmer. This is apparent by plotting the carbon level and temperature level vs time since 1860.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm [RSJ: This chart shows the estimate for global carbon emissions since 1750 in metric tons. A search for this type of chart in the TAR and 4AR was not productive. Cumulative global emissions since 1850 is cited as 156 GtC (4AR, p. 139), which is about 20 times the maximum scale of the CDIAC chart! (1Pg = 103Tg = 103Mt = 1Gt, peta = 1015, tera=1012, giga=109, mega=106. For more on relevant units, see TAR, p. 869.) Global emissions rate in GtC/yr is in Figure 2.3(B), 4AR, p. 138. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in ppm from year 0 to 2000 are shown in FAQ 2.1, Figure 1 (unpaginated). Similar concentrations for the past 10,000 years are in Figure SPM.1, p. 3, with insets for the period since 1750. The caption says the Consensus attributes the increases since about 1750 "to human activities in the industrial era."]and
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear.../anomalies.html [RSJ: This chart from the National Climatic Data Center is a slight revision and seven year update of data presented by the IPCC in TAR, p. 107, Figure 2.1(a). The NCDC provides links to the data in tabular form, including monthly beginning January, 1880 and current through September, 2007.]Also from 440 mya when temperature was the same as now but CO2 level was 10 times the present
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/...us_climate.html.
[RSJ: This page, dating from 1996 and last updated 9/19/06 was posted by AGW skeptic Monte Hieb, Chief Engineer, West Virginia Office of Miners Health Safety and Training. Monte Hieb has been well excoriated by the AGW folks. When someone criticized an article by Ray Pierrehumbert wearing his RealClimate hat, suggesting the group might read Hieb, Gavin Schmidt replied,
[[Response: Far be it for me to start the whole engineers vs. scientists thing again, but Monte Hieb's calculations are, to quote Senator Dirksen, "hogwash" and are almost as wrong as it is possible to be! - see: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...enhouse-effect/ . I hope that the rigour he applies to his mine safety calculations is significantly higher.].
[Pat II: What Angstrom didn't know, Comment 77. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...gument-part-ii/. The paper, Calculating the greenhouse effect, is by Schmidt to criticize "an Australian climate 'contrarian'", perhaps the late John L. Daly, Still Waiting for Greenhouse, http://www.john-daly.com/, a valuable site. Schmidt's reference says nothing about Hieb or his writings.
[Pointing to a merely different calculation in no way demonstrates a challenged calculation is wrong. Whichever calculation proves correct, the error is RealClimate's for failure to engage in a rational argument.
[Similarly, the first rounds of the debate against Monte Hieb are won by the defendant. He is accused of being an engineer and not a climatologist, of being biased and a tool of the coal industry, of being uncredentialed, of not publishing in peer reviewed journals, and of getting (unspecified) facts wrong. Except for the one blank, it's a firing squad with the man at the post, not his arguments.
[Back to Pangburn, what he cites is a graph by Monte Hieb containing two traces, Atmospheric CO2 and Ave. Global Temp, over a range of the last 600 million years. Hieb attributes his data to fully qualified climatologists, or better. His AGW prosecutors say nothing about the reliability of any of Hieb's data, much less these two records. For the purposes here, we must accept the data as valid, and Pangburn's datum extract is correct, even a bit understated.]Correlation does not prove causation but lack of correlation proves lack of causation. The irradiance data is not completely satisfactory. This analysis helps.
[RSJ: Pangburn's observation at 440 mya coincides with the minor ice age called the Andean-Saharan. Between about 330 and 260 mya, the Karoo Ice Age, Hieb shows atmospheric CO2 was also comparable to the modern levels. However, Hieb's data show a hot climate, about eight degrees hotter than the present for the first quarter of the epoch, even while CO2 concentration was falling. If the CO2 concentration were predictive of the temperature changes, the lags were in the millions of years.
[The disconnect between the Consensus and responsible critics lies in just such simple observations. What is not brought to the surface is that the GCMs, once meaning Global Climate Models, and now Global Circulation Models, cannot predict climate, and cannot even reproduce the climate over the 430,000 to 600,000 years of the Vostok record or the 600 million years of Hieb's sources. The models are initialized in an equilibrium state for modern climate, and then tipped over by the addition of some anthropogenic CO2. They're still GCMs -- Global Catastrophe Models.
[Observations like Pangburn's and Hieb's are telling, but the Consensus remains undeterred. Notwithstanding the imperatives of science, climatologists are not trying to replicate the time before the present. Their models only look forward. At least if they offered a defense other than ad hominem attacks, that's what they would say. They don't know what happened before the Big Bang, either.
[And so, the objective of the Rocket Scientist's Journal on climate is not to offer contesting theories to that of the Consensus. It is to expose the errors in the AGW conjecture as set forth in the IPCC Reports.
[Pangburn's closing observation about causation and correlation is often repeated, and true. Most often, correlation requires fine mathematical computations. In this case of the two records over-plotted by Hieb, the lack of correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperature is abundantly obvious. Clearly the AGW conjecture that CO2 drives the climate doesn't hold on the scale of the ice ages any more than it did on the scale of the glacial epochs. See The Acquittal of Carbon Dioxide.
[Pangburn's last two observation about irradiance and an analysis that helps seemed out of place and ambiguous. Perhaps he will elucidate.]Posted by Dan Pangburn | November 12, 2007 3:28 PM
