James Diamond, a chemistry professor at Linfield College (a great liberal arts college just south of Portland) had an op-ed in yesterday's Oregonian: "What you can do to cut your carbon footprint: Guest opinion," inspired by his recent trip to the American Chemical Society's national meeting.
Some people apparently think that such articles are not allowed. So they report you to to your boss and cc all their denier friends in their denier mailing group, who pile on and harass further with their personal emails (Those replies, there or here, are why comment sections exist).
Gordon Fulks is their ringleader, just as he was for the harassment I went through a week ago.
Fulks isn't content to merely comment on the article on the Oregonian's site (it's the second comment here) -- he sent it as an email to the president of Linfield College, as if he expected it would get Diamond reprimanded or fired.
From: Gordon Fulks <gordonfulks@hotmail.com>
Date: August 2, 2014 at 3:49:57 PM EDT
To: "global-warming-realists@googlegroups.com" <global-warming-realists@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Jim Diamond, Thomas Hellie
Subject: Linfield College again displays ignorance
By now Fulks schtick is clear: pretend he's sciencer-than-thou, accuse another scientist of "ignorance," and whine that no one pays him any attention -- as if a president of a college would give more than aHello everyone,
Linfield College Chemist Jim Diamond is promoting solutions to a 'problem' that he will not discuss and does not understand:
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/08/what_you_can_do_to_cut_your_ca.html
I wrote this response on Oregonlive:
Dear Dr. Diamond,
You and I have tried to discuss the science of climate on a number of occasions, but you refuse all substantive discussions. I have challenged you to debate the issue in front of your students at Linfield College, but you refuse.
After Linfield College allowed the notorious meteorologist Dr. Michael Mann to speak, I asked Linfield President Thomas Hellie to allow someone to provide the skeptical perspective, but he would not even return my telephone calls.
I suggested to you that you invite Professor of Physics Will Happer from Princeton University. Will is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a Fellow of the American Physical Society. When he gave a lecture to Nobel Laureates at UC Berkeley, they listened attentively and asked good questions. When he gave the same lecture at a nearby junior college, the audience was disruptive. Is the intellectual tradition at Linfield College still lower than a junior college?
Neither you nor apparently any of your faculty have ANY background in climate science, yet you profess complete devotion to "the cause." Isn't that a bit outrageous for someone who considers himself a scientist? You are supposed to be able to discuss the logic and evidence on whatever topic you profess competence. Can you?
Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA
cc: Dr. Thomas Hellie, President of Linfield College
Fulks always cc's his buddies -- global-warming-realists@googlegroups.com -- who in this case quickly piled on with their usual piffle:
From: Ken Schlichte <kensforsoil@comcast.net>
Date: August 1, 2014 at 8:03:17 PM EDT
To: 'global-warming-realists' <global-warming-realists@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Jim Diamond
Subject: What You Can Do To Cut Your Carbon Footprint: Guest Opinion - The Oregonian
andWhat You Can Do To Cut Your Carbon Footprint: Guest OpinionWhat You Can Do To Cut Your Carbon Footprint: Guest Opinion, by Dr. James J. Diamond, professor of chemistry at Linfield College, and in the August 1 The Oregonian link at http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/08/what_you_can_do_to_cut_your_ca.html, is copied at the bottom of the page and concludes with the following statements,"Worldwide emissions now are 165 percent of those in 1988. If 1988 was the time to act to reduce CO2 emissions, what should we be doing now? It is up to us to act together to reduce our reliance on burning carbon."Dr. Diamond states above that worldwide CO2 emissions are now 165 percent of those in 1988 and that it is up to us to act together to reduce our reliance on burning carbon, but he will be relieved to learn that the NOAA National Climatic Data Center Climate at a Glance site at www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/ reports the official Oregon climate data indicating that:· Annual temperatures in Oregon's Climate Division 2 (The Willamette Valley) have trended downward at a rate of 0.3 degrees F per decade since 1988.· Annual temperatures in Oregon's Climate Division 2 (The Willamette Valley) have trended downward at a rate of 0.5 degrees F per decade over the last 20 years.· Annual temperatures in Oregon's Climate Division 2 (The Willamette Valley) have trended downward at a rate of 1.4 degrees F per decade over the last 10 years.Annual temperatures in Oregon's Climate Division 2 (The Willamette Valley) have trended downward at increasing downward rates since 1988, as indicated by the official NCDC data above, even while our worldwide CO2 emissions have continued to increase to 165 percent of those in 1988.
From: jim karlock <jjkarlock@gmail.com>
Date: August 1, 2014 at 8:32:39 PM EDT
To: Jim Diamond
Cc: gwr <Global-warming-realists@googlegroups.com>
Subject: A question
Karlock -- who on the Oregonian's boards seems to go by both his real name and "Logical Thinker" -- has trailed me on comment boards for years, always asking if "man's CO2 is causing dangerous global warming." Of course, a thoughtful reply never works -- he just asks over and over, because apparently he thinks it's a killer question -- or, at least, the only trick he has. So anymore I ask him to please define the word "dangerous," because it's not a scientific term but one of human values, but never replies to that, not even once, I think.Jim,
I saw you article in the Oregonian and have two questions:
1. Why do you believe that man?s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming?
2. What is the actual proof that man's CO2 is causing dangerous global warming?
Keep in mind that:
* Past warming periods such as the Minoen, Roman and Medieval were as warm or warmer than the present time.
* The ice core data used by Al Gore actually show CO2 following, not leading temperature.
* The historical temperature chart used by AL Gore showing a sudden recent increase in temperature is simply wrong and has been dropped from the latest IPCC report.
* Man emits around 5% of the annual CO2 emission, while natural sources emit about 95%.
* Water vapor causes more greenhouse effect than CO2.
* The rate of recent warming is within historical norms. (The late 1800s and early 1900s warming rates are statistically indistinguishable form the current according to CRU head Phil Jones in his BBC interview).
* Glaciers retreated faster in the 1930s (before most of man's CO2 emission) than recently.
* Climate warming slowed (or quit) 15 years ago (depending on data source and criteria) and the IPCC climate models did not predict this pause.
* Coincidence does not prove causation.
* Many, if not all, claimed extreme weather is actually not extreme when looking back a few hundred years, let alone compared to earlier times where no good records exist.
Thank You
Jim Karlock
So it seems now you can't even write a simple op-ed in the Oregonian about climate change without them coming after you. You can't suggest how to lower your carbon footprint. Apparently you can't even claim that climate change is anthropogenic. With the science getting ever stronger, the harassment gets ever nastier.
Added 4:43 pm PDT: And it continues:
> From: rogerwcohen@comcast.net
> Date: August 2, 2014 at 6:47:52 PM EDT
> To: Gordon Fulks <gordonfulks@hotmail.com>
> Cc: global-warming-realists@googlegroups.com, Jim Diamond, Thomas Hellie
> Subject: Re: [GWR] Linfield College again displays ignorance
>
> Frankly most chemists know very little about the processes that lead to climate and climate change, and Diamond is a perfect example of one ignorant of the science. Why chemists and the ACS should feel the need to chime in on something they know so little about might be considered a mystery, unless they merely seek to cash in on the torrent of funding supporting continued alarmism. In any event this piece is simply a silly embarrassment to chemists, and to Linfield College, whatever that is.
>
Chin up and wear it like a badge of honour!
ReplyDeleteOh, and sorry, on behalf of physicists everywhere.
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting some of our emails that demonstrate our willingness to discuss climate issues from a scientific perspective, including the very basic issues of what constitutes science and what is merely storytelling.
As someone who long ago spent time in science, you know that real scientists love to discuss and argue the subjects where they are well-informed. Hence it should not seem strange to you that we try to engage Dr. Diamond and his college.
What is very strange is that they refuse all scientific dialogue. That certainly says that they feel unable to hold their own on this subject. Yet it is not a subject where one needs a PhD to realize that most of the lore is desperately wrong.
By the way, Roger Cohen (whose email you show above)is also a PhD physicist and a Fellow of the American Physical Society. That makes him one of the top physicists in the USA.
>>Thanks for posting some of our emails that demonstrate our willingness to discuss climate issues from a scientific perspective<<
ReplyDeleteHere is your "willingness" to discuss climate issues, Gordon Fulks:
“Are there any true intellectuals left at UW?” taunted retired astrophysicist Gordon Fulks, in an email to much of the atmospheric sciences faculty. “Or have you ALL morphed into climate automatons?"
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021826582_westneat15xml.html
With "willingness" like that, it's no wonder no one will debate you.
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing to see all of the excuses you can dredge up for NOT discussing the science. But the "you offended us" excuse is probably the most absurd.
Please tell us how the well-known professor of physics at Princeton University (Will Happer) offended you or Jim Diamond or Thomas Hellie?
He was NOT invited to speak as a counterpoint to Michael Mann, yet has far better academic qualifications. Were these what caused offense? Does it anger you and Linfield College that a member of the US National Academy of Sciences is willing to speak out against climate hysteria? Or was it the fact that he is a Fellow of the American Physical Society? Or was it the fact that he is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science?
Skeptics are forever bombarded with sarcasm and personal attacks to try to get them to cower. Yet we keep coming back pointing out that science is not conducted by character assassination and urging you to discuss the scientific issues, if you can.
Perhaps you should consider a constructive approach?
Gordon Fulks: You had a chance to discuss science at the conference Cliff Mass was organizing.
ReplyDeleteInstead, you taunted people and were uncivil before it even got off the ground.
You claim you want a disussion, but your unsavory actions reveal something much different.
PS: Will Happer seems cut from the same cloth:
"Princeton prof: 'Shut up' over climate change," 14 Jul 2014
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000292359#.
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteDo you have any other approach aside from personal attacks on scientists you dislike? Your characterizations of my interactions with UW Professor Cliff Mass are far from correct.
Cliff and I do not see eye-to-eye on Global Warming but we have been able to manage some reasonable discussions. AND I supported him when he was being attacked by colleagues at the University of Washington over his daring articles about 'Ocean Acidification.'
But to return this discussion to science, let me send some provocative questions your way, courtesy of Dr. Roy Spencer:
1. Do you deny that climate has always changed, even without the help of humans?
2. Do you trust climate models to tell us the future, even when none of them predicted the recent 17+ year stoppage of global warming?
3. Do you believe severe weather has gotten worse from climate change, even though the IPCC (and observations) show that it hasn’t?
4. Do you support EPA regulations on power plants that will increase electricity costs and hurt the economy, even though they will have no measurable effect on future global temperatures?
Will your only response be to attack Dr. Spencer?
Gordon Fulks: I simply quoted what the Seattle Times reported about your correspondence with Cliff Mass et al:
ReplyDeletehttp://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021826582_westneat15xml.html
It looks like they had some emails in their possession. If they reported falsely, I'd be happy to read the correspondence myself and set the record straight, if need be. Just forward the correspondence to me.
But unless and until that happens, let's not pretend you're intersted in any "discussion." The Times article clearly showed that, given such an opportunity, you were unable to handle it:
"Some scientists are wary of these debates because they say they foster a false perception that there is a real “pro or con” debate. But their reluctance prompted one skeptic, in caustic emails, to brand all the University of Washington scientists as “dishonest” or “blind fanatics” who are peddling “political nonsense” in the guise of science.
“Are there any true intellectuals left at UW?” taunted retired astrophysicist Gordon Fulks, in an email to much of the atmospheric sciences faculty. “Or have you ALL morphed into climate automatons?”
"There was so much smack-talk, most of it from Fulks, that Mass canceled the seminar."
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteThanks for proving my point that you will not discuss the science.
Contending that the science supporting Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is "getting ever stronger" is a boast, not an argument.
Scientists who make such broad claims usually realize that they have to back them up.
Do you really think that you win arguments in science by deflecting the conversation into personalities and never discussing the logic and evidence that drive science?
It should be obvious to all who read what has been said here that you have avoided ALL of the science. WHY?
Gordon Fulks: Your experience with Cliff Mass et al shows your true motivation isn't in discussing science.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's not just Mass and the UW faculty you've been uncivil to. You've also been uncivil to Jim Diamond and to his college's President.
You aren't fooling anyone, and until you end your harassment of those who actually are discussing the science and its ramifications, you'll continue to get the same answer.
Gordon Fulks: You and your mealy-mouth are done here. Move along.
ReplyDeleteCrap. Is Karlock still alive? I can tell you that when he finally does us all a favor I will get the WORST leg cramps dancing on his grave. I may not be able to stop for days.
ReplyDeleteChuck Weise is a pilot for a major airline. It should be easy to put some pressure on them as far as having an idiot flying a plane goes. SOMEONE IS NOT DOING THEIR JOB!