2011-01-29 06:49:32Finally, a skeptic reaction to the Guide to Skepticism
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21

Just got sent this link from Bud Ward at the Yale Forum:

http://www.climateviews.com/Climate_Views/Download_Articles_files/CookRebuttalb.pdf

As far as I know, first posted at:

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/12/new-global-warming-skepticism-booklet-in-brief-plain-language/

He hasn't even posted a comment on SkS. It's only linked to from his own site as far as I can tell:

http://www.climateviews.com/Climate_Views/Download_Articles.html
Critique of The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism by James Cook

I wondered why no skeptics had responded to the Guide. This may explain why. Lame, lame, lame!

So what's the best response? Blog post drawing attention and oxygen to him? Response at the Yale Forum?

2011-01-29 07:05:08
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.96.254
It doesn't seem to be worth a response.
2011-01-29 07:31:23
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.50.53

I agree with Ari: Look at whom he's attacking:

- Chicago Field Museum

- Philadelphia Franklin Institute

- Boston Museum of Science

- California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco

- plus an anti-AGU poster, for the 2010 AGU meeting! I'm sure that got a lot of attention.

 

He has a Quixote complex; in other words, a complete crank.

I think any effort spent to refute him would bring him more credibility than his own text would. The material is just about a half-step above Jawarowski's original slides, which looked almost hand-drawn.

Fugedaboutid!

P.S.: I notice that the author is Norman Rogers; the name looks like the Norman L. Rogers from the Heartland Institute who has been writing comments to the article in the New Mexico newspaper. Claims his position in the HI is unpaid, purely honorary. 

 

 

 

 

 

2011-01-29 08:44:51Morano has picked this up
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9583/Rebuttal-to-John-Cook700s-Scientific-Guide-to-Global-Warming-Skepticism-and-SkepticalSciencecom

Morano is a fairly marginalised website preaching mainly to the choir but will be interesting to see whether this leads to other skeptic blogs picking up the criticism. Neal is probably right that this guy is fairly minor but if the critique propogates throughout the denialosphere, then it will probably require a response.

I HOPE it does spread through the denialosphere. How do we encourage that? :-)

I'm surprised Morano didn't include my email. Either he doesn't have it or he doesn't deem it worthwhile pointing the daily 2 minutes of hate in my direction. I'm guessing he doesn't have it.

2011-01-29 08:49:18BTW, info on Norman Rogers
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21

Norman Rogers is a retired US entrepreneur. He has a PhD in physics.

Norm Rogers is a senior policy advisor to The Heartland Institute, speaking and sometimes writing on the topic of global warming. He divides his time between residences in Chicago and Florida.

Rogers has held a variety of engineering and computer programming jobs with IBM, Hewlett Packard and other companies. In 1980 he started a high tech company in Santa Clara, California that gradually grew into a much larger company and was sold in 2005. Currently he is developing a new business, ScienceLights.com, that will manufacture easy-to-install home fluorescent lighting.

Rogers took up the study of global warming as a retirement project. His position, expressed in a 2009 essay titled "Global Warming Blues" available at AmericanThinker.com, is that computer climate models are vastly overrated and their predictions are so speculative as to be meaningless. He also believes that some moderate warning would produce benefits as well as harms, and that reducing emissions without the participation of China and India would be pointless.

Rogers received a bachelor of arts degree in physics at the University of California at Berkeley and a master of science degree in physics from the University of Hawaii, where he also completed coursework for a Ph.D. in physics. For two years he was director of operations at Zero Population Growth, a fairly radical environmental advocacy group led by Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich. He is currently a member of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.

Heartland Institute profile

2011-01-29 09:11:49garbage
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

I agree it's not worth a response unless it's disseminated more widely.  About half of the damn thing is just saying "skeptics don't make this argument" (i.e. that the planet isn't warming).  Except then he goes on to say that it's barely warmed since 1998, and that the oceans haven't warmed since 2003.  Straight-up contradicts himself, aside from the fact that the vast majority of skeptics do deny that the planet is warming.

I also didn't notice a single reference or any evidence to support his claims.  He makes shit up and expects people to believe him.

2011-01-29 10:39:07
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.50.53

I have argued with him on the article in the New Mexican: I'm not impressed with his knowledge, insight, or ability to find weak points. His only rebuttal of the Guide is: "Read my document." That is so pathetic that I don't bother to respond to it - because nobody will look at it.

(If I cared to take it apart, I'd invite him to walk through it point by point, to expose the fact that, as Dana points out, there is no there there: No evidence, just assertions. I will hold that in reserve. I'm sure we could take it/him apart point by painful point.)

2011-01-29 12:18:42
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.80

Good God, I'm seriously beginning to think that almost all skeptics are stupid, ignorant, in serious psychological denial or honestly part of some kind of conspiracy.

 

 

Can someone with a PhD in physics be that retarded? Either he's ignorant, or he's lying.

2011-01-29 12:20:09
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.80

Not worth a response unless it goes larger. It's pretty easy to show how retarded most of his points are (except where he agrees with you or throws other 'skeptics' under the bus)

 

 

On the plus side, with a PhD in physics he can't be as scientifically illiterate as most 'skeptics'. If this is the best criticism they end up coming up with then it says you've done an absolutely sterling job John - not one genuine error pointed out yet!

2011-01-29 12:58:44
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.50.53

Physicists are not automatically capable of shifting their technical judgment to areas outside their experience; that requires some flexibility, and it IS possible to finish a PhD in physics without it.

In particular, when there are ideological considerations at play, this can override any purely technical capabilities.

The other weakness he has is that he just doesn't know how to argue. He doesn't seem to have any weapon at his disposal beyond "proof by assertion" and "claim of authority"; he hasn't prepared himself with any evidence or references to back himself up. And he doesn't know how to seek the weak point in his interlocutor's argument. 

OK, bottom line: He's just not very smart. Sorry, John, I differ with MarkR on this point: I don't think you can conclude ANYTHING about the Guide based on the fact that Rogers hasn't laid a glove on you: Rogers couldn't lay a glove on the table.

2011-01-30 11:09:58Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.163.105
I agree with neal,
He really isn't that smart.

Some interesting things I noted in his response:
<> He attacks Michael Mann when the graph we use is Moburg (apparently during his ph.d he never learned to read)
<> He makes the claim that it has barely warmed since 1998 (my post earlier discusses this at length)
<> He claims that previous rates were just as quick in terms of warming (my post earlier discusses this at length)


This guy is nuts to be honest.
2011-01-30 12:34:47I've responded to it
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21
I posted a comment on the Yale Forum (link above) which gives it the attention it deserves. The comment is still awaiting moderation:
Norman, on page 4, you say no one disputes global warming is happening. Yet immediately afterwards, you claim temperature has shown little change since 1998. On page 2, you claim the ocean has not been warming since about 2003. Please provide a response with some internal consistency and I’ll have a closer look at it.
2011-01-30 23:01:42Just figured out why this rebuttal happened
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21

I posted a comment on the New Mexican, linking to the Guide:

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Opinion/Looking-in--Mark-Boslough-Climate-change-deniers-ignore-science#comment-135093391

Norman Rogers was on that discussion thread. Within a day or two, he posts that PDF on the Yale Forum.

Nice to join the dots.

2011-01-31 10:39:21# of Guide downloads
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21

BTW, just checked the stats on the Guide to Skepticism - it's been downloaded 82,558 times since launch on Dec 8.

I've been beating myself up that I didn't do enough networking and marketing leading up to launch of the Guide. But 80,000+ downloads is not too shabby so I'll try to see the glass as half-full :-)

2011-01-31 11:00:08
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.112.237

It seems to me that there is the opportunity for a relaunch: do a revision.

This has two uses:

- a revision gives you a chance to do a PR do-over

- planning a revision gives you a chance to engage people about the contents. For example, that lady Donna (?) at the New Mexican article: She seemed to be more interested in the rebuttals to the Guide than in the Guide itself. Go back and ask her if anything is unclear. If she says that Motl's critique is convincing, tell her that you didn't find it so, and that you would be interested in exactly what she got out of both views on each topic (one at a time), because the Guide is aimed at people who have legitimate doubt, and you'd like to improve it. Draw her out dispassionately on the two views, and see if she's getting hung up on something or if she just wants to believe what she wants to believe.  If she says she doesn't want to help you improve your propaganda, then point out that it's only propaganda if the information presented is either incomplete or biased, so here is her opportunity to make it more complete and less biased.

 

2011-01-31 22:26:45
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209

We missed this one.

Klaus Kaiser is the one who sent emails to "who contributed and commented on this document."

2011-02-01 04:41:28comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.14.78
Is that all he's got? baha... that was the lamest rebuttal I have seen.

For one. The Ozone hole is not fixed yet. What a dummy...
2011-02-01 06:14:39WOW
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

Holy crap.  You thought Norman Rodgers was dumb?  Kaiser makes him look like Einstein.

The amount of absolutely stupid statements he manages to pack into those 4 short paragraphs is just stunning.  First off, not even realizing that ozone and CFCs are also GHGs.  Even if you don't know that, how about looking it up before making such a stupid statement?  It took me a 5-second Google search to find the information on Wikipedia.  Then to say the ozone hole was repaired long ago...geez.

He finishes off by claiming ocean acidification has been debunked.  His source?  An incredibly stupid article on Canada Free Press.  Author?  Klaus Kaiser!

This guy is a complete numbskull.  He claims to be a Dr. - I wonder what field he could possibly have gotten a doctorate in.  By the way, his "rebuttal" has fewer than 80 page views over the past month.

2011-02-01 07:18:13Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
134.153.163.105
Dr. Kaiser has a ph.d in chemistry...

http://www.convenientmyths.com/author.html
2011-02-01 07:59:22no kidding?
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
Boy, that's hard to believe.  You would think a chemist would know enough not to make such grossly ignorant statements about greenhouse gases and the ozone hole.
2011-02-01 08:39:14
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.54.211

At some point, after the DD series are done, it would make sense to seek out & attack these critiques of the Guide. Yes, I know it will bring attention to them - but it will also bring attention to the Guide, which is what we want, right?

The whole point is to show up their shallow thinking. Ultimately that will take direct engagement.

2011-02-01 09:16:21Reminds me of Iron Man 2
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21
After Kaiser's ominous emails, the final product reminds me of Hammer in Iron Man 2. Early in the movie, he's talking up this super bullet and at the end, when they shoot it at the villain, it's a feeble dud.

This also stresses the importance of relying on peer review as much as possible. Then they have to go up against peer review, not us. The result - Kaiser takes on Harries 2001 and looks very silly as a result.

2011-02-01 23:34:57
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
192.171.166.144
Wow. The guy can't even read an equation correctly. What a paglaccio.
2011-02-02 20:11:03Kaiser repost
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21
Found another instance of Kaiser's rebuttal, at sustainableliving.co.uk ironically:

http://www.sustainableliving.co.uk/2011/1/4/the-not-so-scientific-guide-to-global-warming-skepticism