Kevin N’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Quaternary and theodicy (what an odd mix)

  Russ:

  Again, I'm not saying that Easterbrook is wrong or right (as I said, I'm a fence-rider), but that he is not a kook to be dismissed lightly. He doesn't say that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist or that it has no effect on climate change, but that there are other factors that may be more important. Don't treat him like a leper because he questions the AGW status quo.

  (And with regards to theodicy (i.e. the problem of evil), at least Christian theologians acknowledge that there is such thing as evil. I can say, "Murder is evil," or "Stealing is evil." In some religions, evil is an illusion or just part of the fabric of the universe. To an atheist or postmodernist, evil is whatever we define it to be. There is no objective standard for saying rape or child abuse or the holocaust is "evil." I'm sorry, but that is scary.)On Marc Morano's secret list of climate deniers posted 9 months, 1 week ago 19 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The Quaternary Period matters

  I'm not saying that Easterbrook is right about everything, but that:
  

  1. You should take what he has to say seriously rather than dismissing him.
     
  2. Current climate change cannot be fully understood apart from its context of Quaternary climate change.

  The Quaternary Period (the past 1.8 million years) is characterized by rapid and extreme changes in climate, some of which are understood, and some of which are not. These natural changes, and their causes, must be taken into account if we are to have any hope of understanding climate change. Many of the arguments regarding AGW discuss present physical processes without taking into full account climate history throughout the Quaternary.On Marc Morano's secret list of climate deniers posted 9 months, 1 week ago 19 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Easterbrook

  I don't know why I'm on some of the mailing lists that I'm on--some of which I find to be rather off base--so I cannot speak for Easterbrook. What I can say is that he is the kind of scientist who should be part of the conversation, rather than being dismissed as a crank scientist because doesn't fit the AGW status quo.On Marc Morano's secret list of climate deniers posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 19 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Easterbrook

  Christophersj:

  Easterbrook is an expert on Quaternary geology. He knows natural climate fluctuations -- their timing, measurement, and causes -- backwards and forward. The climate scientists who are from a meteorology background are mostly trained in what is happening now. Without the historical understanding that geologists (especially those who are experts in the ice ages) bring to the table, understanding climate change is hopeless.

  Not only is the present the key to the past, but the past is key to the present.On Marc Morano's secret list of climate deniers posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 19 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Qualifications

  I am a GW fence-rider (though I lean towards thinking AGW is true). I will state that the third person on your list, Dr. Don Easterbrook, is an expert on Quaternary (Ice Age) geology with decades of experience. Even if you don't agree with him, you would be smart to listen to what he has to say.

  Geologists tend to be more skeptical of AGW than other scientists, and it isn't because they are all in the pockets of the oil companies (Exxon doesn't give out research grants to study glaciers and Quaternary geology). Men like Easterbrook recognize that the Quaternary Period in which we live is one of sometimes rapid and dramatic natural climate change.On Marc Morano's secret list of climate deniers posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 19 Responses