ANU scientists just can't help making fools of themselves

Written by Simon, Australian Climate Madness.

Andrew GliksonAndrew GliksonApart from the ubiquitous Will Steffen, the other "big name" at the ANU Climate Change Institute is (warmist, naturally) Andrew Glikson (see here for previous form).

Glikson, who is clearly annoyed that Steffen gets all the limelight, has decided to make a complete and utter twit of himself by writing a huffy letter to Richard Bean, the writer of the climate change play currently showing in Melbourne, The Heretic, in terms that can only be regarded by any normally balanced individual as deeply comic (my emphasis):

Dear Mr Richard Bean

As an Earth and paleo-climate scientist of some 45 years-long experience and more than 150 peer-reviewed publications, I suggest the show “The Heretic”, which I have not seen but about which I have read, can only lead to trivialization and further denial of what the scientific world regards as the greatest threat humanity and nature are facing.

I suggest the show plays into the hands of those who support the use of the thin terrestrial atmosphere (breathable thickness of less than 10 km) for further carbon emission on top of the 350 billion tons of carbon already emitted since the 18th century and >150 billion tons carbon released by land clearing, fires etc.. As shown in my enclosed paper, the pace of CO2 rise over the last 40 years, recently reaching >2 ppm CO2/year, has now exceeded any recorded for the last 65 million years, while the atmospheric level of 394 ppm CO2 is now near that of the warm Pliocene era some 3 million years-ago. Our empirical evidence is based on direct observations of the atmosphere-ocean-cryosphere system by the world’s climate monitoring bodies - including NOAA, NASA, NSIDC, Hadley-MET, Tyndale, Potsdam, CSIRO, BOM and other.

Opinion and "belief" are no substitute for evidence. Those who doubt the basic laws of nature and empirical data are always welcome to submit research to peer review journals where their papers will be treated the same as any other. In so far as their propositions are upheld, anyone who is able to demonstrate as if:

  1. The Earth's climate is not warming, or
  2. The anthropogenic release of >500 billion tons of carbon since the 18th century is not the primary factor responsible for global warming

is bound to receive the highest accolades.

I wonder whether such a show, if concerned with denial of the holocaust of world war II, would have been conceived?

I suggest that, given the threat of anthropogenic global warming to the terrestrial climate and to marine ecosystems, a theatric show making mockery of the gravity of the climate issue for future generations can only be seriously mistaken.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Glikson
Earth and paleo-climate scientist
Australian National University

They really have no idea, do they? How utterly embarrassing for Glikson, ANU and Australia.

Thanks to Bishop Hill.

Source

Comments  

 
Charles Higley
# Charles Higley 05-15-2012 13:19
Andrew Glikson - CHECK!

That's 150 papers (by him) that I do not need to read. Thanks for decreasing my reading pile.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 05-15-2012 15:00
God! What is it with these lunatics and their goofy comb overs?

Obviously the only person in denial here, is the follicly challenged Glikson, who thinks we don't know he is losing his hair. (It's probably attempting to follow his brain, wherever that may have gone)

Too many naked emperors running around... :-x
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Boxorox
# Boxorox 05-16-2012 07:06
This moron, Glikson, is making statements based purely on the slam-dunk thinking that carbon dioxide is directly related to temperature of the atmosphere. Has he checked recently to see that there has been no warming for the past 15 years?

It is ridiculous to the extreme that he condemns the show "The Heretic" and admits in the same breath he has not seen it.

Oh, the comedy of all!!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Robert
# Robert 05-16-2012 09:59
While you and I would see it as ridiculous people like Glikson, Gleick, et. al. see it as "normal" to condemn a book without reading it, a show without seeing it, or a principle of science without understanding it.

To read it, see it, or understand it would involve thinking and that thinking could lead to the realization that they are wrong.

Can't have that now can we?
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Gator
# Gator 05-16-2012 10:06
Quote:
"...Gleick, et. al. see it as "normal" to condemn a book without reading it, a show without seeing it, or a principle of science without understanding it."
Hey Robert! You beat me to it. Well said.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 

Add comment

Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.

PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.


Security code
Refresh