by Ed Berry
[This is my reply to Dr. Grimsrud’s article in The Daily Inter Lake on April 19, 2011, published in DIL on April 28, 2011.]
Dr. Eric Grimsrud had from September 26, 2010, to February 11, 2011, to make his case for manmade global warming (AGW) on Climate Clash. He failed while admitting I gave him a fair chance to make his case.
Here are summary quotes from ClimateClash using Section@Comment references.
Tekhasski and Weinstein are very good atmospheric scientists who participated in the discussion.
Tekhasski 1@34: Eric, Simply speaking, there is no such thing as EXCESS CO2. We know from experiments by Mother Nature that system response is about 1.5 to 3.0 years. Now, would you please publicly admit that all your concerns about “millenniums” are vastly overblown?
Tekhasski 1@44: I don’t know how good Dr. Eric is at analytical chemistry, but what he is proposing is preposterous. He essentially said you MUST twist the scientific method to make his goals ACCOMPLISH-ABLE even if available data cannot warrant any statement.
Weinstein 2@25: I started out accepting AGW, however the evidence made me skeptical. I am convinced the next 20 years will be cooling, which will put the whole argument to rest.
Berry 6@144: Eric, The proper null hypothesis is: “Global climate changes are presumed to be natural unless and until specific evidence is forthcoming for human causation.” Neither you nor anyone has yet provided any such evidence.
Berry 6@152: Eric, You have proved nothing except your conclusion depends totally upon your assumption. GIGO.
Berry 6@158: Eric, You can quickly see the invalidity of your hypothesis if you look at formula (1) of @106. Your hypothesis has been invalidated by its very formulation.
The final debate, H4: The Battle of the Scientists, begins with 2 open letters. (a) 18 Climate Alarmists made 9 claims, and (b) 81 Climate Scientists responded with references to thousands of scientific studies that dispute the 9 Alarmist claims. Unless countered, these references show AGW is false.
But Dr. Grimsrud never did attempt to show these reports were inaccurate. Therefore, he lost the debate. Rather, he complained that “Alarmist” in the title was “unfair” even though “Scientists” is in the main title and “alarmist” is the term used in the letters.
Here are more summary quotes that put Dr. Grimsrud’s case to rest.
Weinstein O@37: Here is an essay by a 15 year old girl, written in 2007, that puts all of us to shame with our bickering.
Grimsrud O@38: Very cute indeed. An absolutely hard core denier in the form of “Goodie Two Shoes”.
Weinstein H4@20: Eric, This 15 year-old’s analysis is far better than anything I have seen from you. You present nothing but a bunch of opinions that you now treat the same as a religion. I have tried to get you to read other views with FACTS associated with them, but all you do is repeat the same positions that lead to no supportable result.
Grimsrud H4@28: I have been given sufficient space for making my case and I have done exactly that.
Paul M H4@ 31: Eric, She discusses it on page 1 of her document! Clearly you have not even read what she wrote. But despite this you seem to think yourself qualified to comment on it.
Rogers H4@43: I have no idea what kind of a “doctor” Dr. Eric is, but I would bet my best snow boots he is not a Scientist. He sounds more like the Progressives on other blogs who say absolutely nothing and make no sense.
Grimsrud H4@48: Ed, I hope I have made it as clear as I possibly can how very little respect I have for you (essentially none at all, in fact).
Weinstein H4@51: Eric, you continue to take the position that the increase in CO2 that occurred in the glacial to interglacial transitions was the main cause of the temperature increase. Unless you can give demonstrated real DATA (not models) that show otherwise, you have a poor case.
Grimsrud H4@56: We need a really big event soon such as Pearl Harbor to force us into action.
Weinstein H4@58: Eric, By insisting the 15 year old girl, and also myself and most skeptics, are wrong (and indicating you are absolutely correct), you show just how little you understand of the actual state of present knowledge. The analysis of that child is a far more consistent and logical presentation of facts with a logical conclusion than anything I have seen from you.
In summary, I gave Dr. Grimsrud every opportunity to present his case for AGW. But he could not separate science from his ad hominem attacks. Ultimately, I got sick of babysitting his continuing bitching and I closed the debate.
Now, Dr. Grimsrud is complaining again. But nothing will change the fact that he was not able to demonstrate a valid hypothesis for global warming in 4-1/2 months.