Thursday, November 16, 2017

History of Ball and Harris is not an ad hominem attack

I recently submitted an editorial to the Moultrie News in response to a deceptive piece written by Tom Harris and Tim Ball. In my response, I attacked the credibility of the two individuals and showed they have a history of deception. Harris then went on his Facebook page and asked supporters to go and comment on my submission. You can read my submission, with comments, here. You can read the piece by Ball and Harris here.

As you can see, the defenders of Ball and Harris had no science to support their objections, never countered any of my claims, and consistently claimed I was only making an ad hominem attack to make my case. This, of course, is a false statement and completely in line with the science haters who deny the reality of manmade climate change. What is particularly amusing is the way several of them made ad hominem attacks by claiming I have no published refereed papers. My publication list is not extensive (I concentrate on teaching more than research), but it is certainly there and the reality of the science is not changed by how many papers I have, or have not, published. So, according to these individuals, my statements concerning Harris and Ball are invalid because they can’t operate something as simple as Google Scholar (search “CF Keating physics”).

But, the question is still there: Did I make a personal attack on Ball and Harris? Let’s take a look, beginning with the definition of ad hominem:

ad ho·mi·nem
adverb and adjective

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

A strict interpretation of this definition would mean any claim concerning any mention of anything about a person is an ad hominem attack and is, therefore, a logical fallacy. But, that is not correct. There are times when attacks on the individual are warranted. For example, it is perfectly acceptable in a court of law to examine the character and credibility of a witness. As a rule, it is admissible to attack the character of a witness when that character has been introduced as evidence. In other words, once someone makes a claim concerning the nature of their character, it is fair game to examine that character but not before. If a drug dealer takes the stand and testifies, you can’t attack him for being a drug dealer unless he claims to be an upright citizen (although there may be other ways the fact can be introduced).

What about credibility, though? Let me quote a law source:

The rules of impeachment allow an attorney to attack the credibility of any witness even a witness called in support of that attorney’s position. An attorney may use any evidence to impeach the credibility of a witness but that rule is not automatic. In most cases courts will only allow an attorney to attack a witness’s credibility using evidence of prior convictions involving dishonesty or untruthfulness. While a court may allow an attorney to question a witness about other incidents in their past, a judge will not allow this line of questioning if he/she determines that it is not probative (tending to prove) in establishing whether a witness is telling the truth or not.

That is all well and good, but the important point is that we are not in a court of law, we are in a public discourse and attacking someone’s character is not logically valid. But, I did not attack the character of either Ball or Harris. Attacking their character would be to make a claim about their private lives. What they do in their private lives has no bearing on the reality of climate change, one way or the other. And, I’m not aware that either Ball or Harris has made claims that they are wonderful people, so it wouldn’t fall under the category of examining their statements. They have both committed fraud concerning their credentials (Harris allows himself to be introduced as ‘Dr. Harris,’ ‘Professor Harris,’ and even as a ‘scientist.’ He is none of these. Ball claims to be a climatology expert and a professor of climatology. He is not.), but that falls under attacking their credibility and not their character.

What is important to understand at this time is that a character attack is usually a logical fallacy but credibility attacks are ALWAYS valid. Quoting from Wikipedia on the subject:

However, in some cases, ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example, if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument—rather than known facts—then pointing out that the person has previously lied is not a fallacious argument.

Wow! Pointing out that the person has previously lied is NOT a fallacious argument! Unfortunately for Ball and Harris, that is an important point.

To make an example, let’s say Joe Smith (a fictional person) likes to kick dogs. This is a reprehensible act and reflects poorly on the character of Joe Smith. Then, Joe Smith takes the position that everyone should eat an apple a day to keep the doctor away. The correctness, or incorrectness, of his position on this matter is not affected by his actions in private. Incidentally, this would also be true if we were talking about Joe Smith spending his spare money and time to help the disadvantaged. It works both ways. Being a saint does not change the reality of the issue any more than being a villain.

But, let’s say Joe Smith has been taking money from the Apple Farmers Association to promote apple sales. Bringing this fact to light is an attack on his credibility – he has a financial interests in telling everyone to eat an apple a day. It is not a character attack, even though the argument can be made his financial matters are private. I think most people would agree with that this is, in fact, relevant information.

But, take it one step further. Let’s say Joe Smith, while in the course of his professional duties, states that he is a medical researcher and that he has conducted medical tests on the benefits of eating apples. It is then perfectly valid to investigate this claim. If it turns out that Joe Smith never did any of that, bringing this point to light is not a character attack, it is attacking his credibility.

And, let’s take it to the next step. Suppose Joe Smith is also found to associate with people and organizations that engage in activities that are valid credibility failures (for instance, someone who has been shown to falsify medical records concerning the benefits of apples). It is a valid credibility attack to show that Joe Smith not only has associations with these individuals, but has failed to distance himself from them in any way. In other words, if Joe Smith is keeping company with and supporting individuals with questionable credibility, then it is a valid credibility attack on Joe Smith to bring this association to light.

So, let’s see what I said about Harris and Ball:

These are two people whose job it is to deceive the public about climate change and are both paid shills of the fossil fuel industry. Tom Harris has strong ties to the tobacco and fossil fuel industries, even though he continues to deny it. He also has a strong affiliation with the Heartland Institute which is currently recommending the EPA appoint a man who was arrested on charges of raping his own children and convicted of attempted sodomy on his own under-age daughter. ( These are the people Tom Harris has professional association with. You can read more about his deceptions on climate change at

Contrary to his by-line, Tim Ball is a doctor of historical geography. He is not a climatologist as he claimed and was not a member of the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. There was no such department while he was there. He has never been a climate scientist and does not have any peer-reviewed papers on the subject. When Ball sued a paper for libel, the court documents stated, Ball "never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming." Continuing, the courts also stated, "The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media,” and "The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."

As you can see, I never said anything about the private lives of Harris or Ball. I spoke to their professional actions and attacked their credibility. In fact, both of these individuals have had their credibility examined and they are both found to have none. Click on the links I provided above to get started, if you need some help.

To summarize:
  • Ball and Harris both have extensive associations with the fossil fuel industry and are paid to promote the interests of that industry;
  • Ball and Harris have both lied about this association on numerous occasions;
  • Ball and Harris have both lied about their credentials or permitted others to lie about them without correcting them;
  • Ball and Harris are both listed as associates of the Heartland Institute and neither has criticized that organization for it’s actions or done anything to distance themselves from it;
  • Ball and Harris have both, on numerous occasions provided false, misleading, or deceptive clams concerning climate change.
These are all actions taken in the PROFESSIONAL capacity. Addressing these issues is an attack on their credibility and is logically correct. To put it bluntly, they are both liars when it comes to making statements concerning the science of climate change. Pure and simple. And, that is NOT an ad hominem.

So, when you read anything written by either of these two, all I can say is, “Buyer beware!”

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Avalanche of Disinformation from Harris and Ball

Two of biggest frauds in the anti-science industry are Tom Harris and Tim Ball. They recently ran an editorial that had numerous faults, fallacies, and false arguments that I had to respond. Essentially, they claim global warming isn't real because they want to question one data base. Of course, they conveniently forget to mention how there are numerous data bases and they all show the same thing. Also, they especially fail to mention Berkeley Earth. That's because it's the grand embarrassment for the anti-science crowd. This is an organization which was initially funded by the Heartland Institute for the purpose of showing AGW isn't real. It developed a data base completely separate from the ones used by the four governmental organizations. What did they find? Almost exactly the same thing. Hmmm. No wonder Ball and Harris fail to mention it.

You can read the original piece by Ball and Harris here. You can read my response here. I'm also reproducing it below.


Climate Change Deniers Attempt to Bury Public with an Avalanche of Propaganda

By Dr. Christopher Keating

Tim Ball and Tom Harris inform the reader with their title that they are not serious when they use the term “propaganda” to describe climate science.

information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

These are two people whose job it is to deceive the public about climate change and are both paid shills of the fossil fuel industry. Tom Harris has strong ties to the tobacco and fossil fuel industries, even though he continues to deny it. He also has a strong affiliation with the Heartland Institute which is currently recommending the EPA appoint a man who was arrested on charges of raping his own children and convicted of attempted sodomy on his own under-age daughter. ( These are the people Tom Harris has professional association with. You can read more about his deceptions on climate change at

Contrary to his by-line, Tim Ball is a doctor of historical geography. He is not a climatologist as he claimed and was not a member of the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. There was no such department while he was there. He has never been a climate scientist and does not have any peer-reviewed papers on the subject. When Ball sued a paper for libel, the court documents stated, Ball "never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming."  Continuing, the courts also stated, "The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media,” and "The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."

Now that we know the nature of these two individuals, we shouldn’t be surprised to find their article is full of deceptions and they do not disappoint. It’s important to note they produce not even a single scientific reference to support any of their claims. They simply want you to accept their word for it.
In the opening paragraph, Ball and Harris state, “We’ll be told that extreme weather, sea level rise, and shrinking sea ice are all about to get much worse if we do not quickly phase out our use of fossil fuels.” Strangely enough, we were told exactly that, but not by the UN Conference. The Trump administration this week released the Fourth National Climate Assessment ( Among other things, the report states, “It is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” And, “In addition to warming, many other aspects of global climate are changing, primarily in response to human activities.  Thousands of studies conducted by researchers around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean acidification; and increasing atmospheric water vapor.” There is more. Read the NOAA summary at: And, let’s be clear that this assessment comes from an administration that has repeatedly stated that manmade climate change is not real and has done everything in its power to undermine climate science.

Ball and Harris make several dubious comments that have no basis in reality. For instance, they claim that without a good understanding of past weather, forecasts of future climate change are “impossible.” This is a false statement in multiple ways. First, contrary to their claim, we have a good understanding of past weather conditions. And, not only is it possible to make meaningful forecasts, but we are already doing a good job of it. Again, contrary to what the science-haters will tell you, climate models are good and getting better. Read more about models here:; and here: There are many other places, but these, and the links therein, will get you started.

The science-hating tandem then attacks the data, which is a losing proposition. What Ball and Harris attempt to do is attack one data set with deceptive claims, with the hope that it will taint all data. They do this all the while failing to mention that the data are all confirmed with multiple data sources. People like Ball and Harris like to cherry-pick one datum point to support their claims (citing how a given town is experiencing the coldest temperature in some long period of time, for instance), but scientists don’t. Data is collected from multiple sources, such as tree rings or cores from sea floor and ice shelves, plus others. What we find is that the multiple sources are all consistent, each confirming the findings of the others.

They state, “Most of the rest of the planet had very few temperature sensing stations. And none of the Earth’s oceans, which cover 70% of the planet, had more than the occasional station separated from its neighbor by thousands of kilometers.” So? What is the significance of this statement? They give none, which is good because there is none. But they continue, stating, “Averaging such poor data in an attempt to determine global conditions cannot yield anything meaningful.” Of course, this is a false statement. What is true is that the resolution and fidelity is not ideal, but the data is most definitely meaningful, especially when confirmed by those many other data sets. And, the data is only improving with time and this improving resolution is showing the same trend as before.

They continue, claiming satellite data does not show global warming. This claim is based on papers by Roy Spencer and John Christy, two well-known climate change deniers. Review of their papers found them to be so flawed they were withdrawn. And yet, Ball and Harris want you to believe the false claims. Read about these papers here:

They then make the preposterous claim, “So, bureaucrats closed most of the colder rural surface temperature sensing stations, thereby yielding the warming desired for political purposes.” As you might expect by now, the reality is vastly different. Read a detailed report on this here:

Their conclusion from this deception? They claim the data is meaningless. Take a moment to think about this statement. They themselves claim the data has become more accurate over time, therefore, according to them, this makes it ‘meaningless.’

And, they want you to believe this.

The reality is, our understanding of the historical climate is quite good and our understanding of the present day climate is excellent and getting better. What they don’t want you to know is that the science is overwhelming conclusive and nearly all climate scientists around the world agree – manmade emissions are causing the world’s climate to change.

As it turns out, there really was an avalanche of propaganda, but it came from Ball and Harris, not the climate scientists.

Dr. Christopher Keating is a physicist and conducts research in planetary geophysics, including climate change.

Saturday, November 4, 2017

A Small Vicitory For The Envionment - Clovis is Gone

Trump's nominee to be the chief scientist at the Department of Agriculture, Sam Clovis, has withdrawn his nomination. I've written about this guy before, as has the entire news media, and there is no question about how he is unqualified for the position and didn't even meet the minimum standards set by law (must be a scientist). But, that isn't even why he withdrew his nomination - it was his links to Russia that finally nixed him. Apparently, he was completely prepared to go into his Senate confirmation hearing to address his record of bigotry, his anti-science record, and even the fact that he is unqualified for the job. None of that phased him. But, he was not willing to face questions about his link to the Russia probe.

Trump didn't drain the swamp, he brought it with him.

However, let's not get too excited. Trump will certainly nominate someone from the same mold. Trump has clearly demonstrated he hates science, the science community, and the environment. He is using his position to inflict as much damage as possible. So, we can be confident the next nominee for the position will be a white male with a record of bigoted comments and history of hating science.

You heard it hear first.

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Heartland Institute Reveals Its True Character

If you are at all familiar with the Heartland Institute you have probably formed a strong opinion of them and their character. But, there's nothing like examining their own actions to see just who they are. As they say, actions speak louder than words.

There's this report that when Heartland submitted its list of names for the proposed EPA red team/blue team debates, they included a man convicted of attempting to sodomize his own 11-year old daughter. While the attempted sodomy charge is the only one he was convicted of, he was arrested in 2006 on two counts of rape, four counts of sodomy and one count of attempted sodomy as a result of sex abuse accusations by his children dating back decades. The other charges were dropped. 

As they say, you can tell a lot about someone by the company they keep. And, Heartland keeps company with a man convicted of trying to sodomize his own underage daughter and was arrested on multiple charges of sexually assaulting his own children. Quite a resume.

But, it continues. Here's a partial list of some of the 'climate experts' Heartland is recommending to the EPA:

[Anthony]Watts was also on list the Heartland Institute gave to the EPA. Other names included Edwin Berry, the self-funded researcher who spews Islamophobic vitriol online and compares belief in climate change to Aztec human sacrifices; Alan Carlin, the so-called “whistleblower” who challenged the EPA’s finding that rising greenhouse gases warm the planet; and Joe Bastardi, a meteorologist who made repeated appearances on disgraced former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly’s show to yell about why global warming isn’t a problem.

          Source: Huffington Post

Notice that not a single person listed in that paragraph has any background as a climate scientist. I guess you can also tell a lot about someone by the company they don't keep. You can see the entire list of names they submitted here.

And, there is this list of strategy points from a Joseph Bast email:

ast listed assorted “thoughts” and “highlights” in the leaked email, including:
  • “be briefing news reporters and news readers at Fox News.”
  • “reach the President by tweeting on the issue.”
  • “hold more congressional hearings.”
  • “simplify the issue by focusing on one or only a few arguments and images.”
  • “identify a few good spokespersons and focus on promoting them.”
  • “stop chasing the other side’s latest argument and focus instead on the benefits of CO2.”
  • “focus on the 'tuning scandal' that discredits the models.”
  • “turn debate from referring to median temperatures to high temperatures, which show no trend.”
  • “find independent funding for Roy SpencerDavid SchnareWillie Soon, Craig IdsoDavid Legates, etc.”
  • “push Pruitt to start a proceeding for reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding… he won’t do it without pressure”
  • “we need to be able to say 'EPA is reconsidering whether CO2 is a pollutant.'”
  • “emphasize that we are pro-science and pro-environment… and the other side is not”
  • “fundamentally challenge, reform, or replace the National Academy of Sciences, the source of much pseudoscience.”
  • “conduct a new survey of scientists to refute the 97% consensus claims.”
  • “sue a company for not increasing CO2 emissions, force a court to consider the evidence on CO2 benefits.”
                Source: DeSmogBlog

Really? They plan on suing a company because it didn't emit enough CO2? I wonder what they'll use for legal standing. Maybe they can claim there are too many healthy people using up resources and it's the responsibility of industry to kill off as many people as possible with its pollution. I also love the one about finding independent funding for the list of anti-science people. That is essentially an admission that they only place these individuals can get funding is Heartland, and Heartland is funding anti-science false research.

Also, notice the reference to Fox News. It's true, you can tell a lot about people by the company they keep. Except in this case, is it Heartland or Fox News that is getting dirty?

For fun, you can review this leaked 2012 fund-raising plan from Heartland. It's telling. In it, it talks about receiving funds from the Kochs - do I need to say more?

The facts were already in - Heartland Institute is one of the scuzziest organizations out there, as are the people associated with it. All this did was to illustrate it once again.

If you want to know more about how despicable this group is, you can read about it at these references:

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Arctic Sea Ice Minimum 2017

I've been absent for awhile and missed the Arctic sea ice minimum. I was involved in some major projects, got wrapped up with some personal affairs, and then went on a three-week walk-about through the western US (a really great experience). But, I'm back now and ready to go back to work.

So, the sea ice minimum occurred on September 13 with an extent of 4.636 million square kilometers. My extremely way too early forecast on March 22 was for 3 million square kilometers, which I then doubled down on with my way too early forecast on July 16. The actual extent was about 55% more than that, which illustrates why you don't put much weight on way too early forecasts. The extent was at record lows through June, but cold weather late in the summer saved us from a new record minimum extent.

While this was one time I was glad to be wrong, we shouldn't get too comfortable with these results. They are still bad. This minimum was low enough to rank as the eighth-worse, but that doesn't tell the story.  The worst minimum is still the one recorded in 2012 at 3.387 million square kilometers. But, the next seven minimum extents were between 4.137 million square kilometers (2016) and 4.636 million square kilometers (2017). (In order, the other years were: 2007, 2011, 2015, 2008, and 2010.) That is a difference of less than 500,000 square kilometers. These minimum sea ice extents are crowding into a narrow range.

The trend is pretty clear. Here is the trend for the September sea ice extent (minimum):
Source: NSIDC Sea Ice Index

There is a lot of variability from year to year, but the overall trend is not only unmistakable, but alarming. There is a long-term downward trend, but we see the slope of that trend is more than -13% per decade.

Meanwhile, the current sea ice extent, while greater than at this time last year (the worst winter extent recorded), is still in excess of three standard deviations below the 1981 - 2010 average.

So,while it thankfully was not as bad as I had forecast earlier in the year, we can see the Arctic is very sick and that does not bode well for the rest of the planet.

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Climate change is not about models

One of the most frequent claims deniers make to refute the science is that the models don't work. This is not only false, but irrelevant. The reality is, climate models are working quite well (Sorry, all of you anti-science people, but it's true.) But, climate change isn't about models, it's about the science - the data. If you doubt that, take a look at this nice series of graphics:

What's Really Warming the World?

Monday, September 11, 2017

Yes, this is the right time to talk about climate change

Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA, has stated that now is not the time to discuss whether or not Hurricanes Harvey and Irma are partly the result of climate change. This is not surprising. Scott Pruitt is one of the most corrupt people in Washington (and that's saying a lot) and is under investigation for lying during his Senate confirmation hearing. It is documented that he would take donations from fossil fuel companies, only to conduct private communications with those same companies before acting in their favor, even so far as to submit a letter to the US Interior Secretary on the letterhead of the Oklahoma Attorney General's office, which Pruitt was head of, even though it was written by Devon Energy. He is strongly anti-science and, even though he is charged with protecting it, has a record of hating the environment. It is, therefore, not surprising that he doesn't want to discuss science.

But, he's wrong. this is the right time to discuss climate change and it's effects on the twin disasters. In fact, it is our moral responsibility to discuss it in the light of what is happening. People are dying and suffering and we need to start acting to help prevent this from happening again. What the Trump administration, and anti-science people everywhere, want is to hide until the public attention moves to something else. They don't want to have to answer to the public about how they have acted all these years to prevent exactly this kind of occurrence. By denying the reality of climate change, they prevented actions from being taken to address the problems. The amount of human suffering is directly on their heads, and they know it. Now, they don't want to face reality. Why should they? They have been denying it all along.

But, the discussions are happening, whether they want them or not. The media is pointing out the science connecting the hurricanes to climate science, and this is a good thing. I'll have more to say on Harvey and Irma in a future post, but I wanted to bring your attention to a couple of well written editorials. Amazingly enough, one of them is in the fashion magazine Vogue. Even fashion people understand science better than the head of the EPA.

This is the editorial in Vogue:

And, this one is in the New York Times:

In the meantime, do what you can to help the people who are suffering from these twin hurricanes. If the anti-science right gets its way, you could be a victim of climate change yourself in the next few years. 

Saturday, September 9, 2017

Trump Continues His Vendetta Against Science

President Trump has made his disdain for science clear to everyone. The appointment of the strongly anti-science Scott Pruitt to head the EPA should be proof enough. But, he has continued with numerous other appointments and actions, including withdrawing from the Paris accord. Recently, he has really proven his utter hatred of science with two other nominations: Sam Clovis and Representative Jim Brindenstine.

Trump nominated Clovis to be the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics. Essentially, this position is the chief scientist in the department and overseas the agency's $3 billion research budget. Clovis graduated from the US Air Force Academy with a bachelor's degree in political science. After graduation, he served in the USAF for 25 years as a fighter pilot and instructor, retiring with the rank of colonel. He holds an MBA from Golden Gate University and a Ph.D. in public administration from the University of Alabama. He taught economics and business at Morningside College in Sioux City, Iowa and hosted a radio talk show.

All very fine qualifications, but none of them are applicable to the job. By law, this position must be filled by someone who is "among distinguished scientists with specialized training or significant experience in agricultural research, education or economics." Clovis has no qualifications to justify that distinction.

But, this isn't what qualifies Clovis as someone who hates science. His comments do.

Clovis has spoken out concerning climate change and called it "junk science." He has called climate change a "hoax" and stated that it was a "campaign to redistribute the wealth." While campaigning for the US Senate in 2014, he stated, "I have looked at the sciencenand I have enough of a science background to know when I'm being boofed. And a lot of what we see is junk science." In response, I would suggest you take another look at his credentials above. In fact, he has no science background at all. No wonder he's "boofed" by the science, he's listening to the anti-science crowd and not the climate scientists.

He has stated that homosexuality is a choice, saying the science is "unsettled." (Does that phrase sound familiar?) He stated the legalization of same-sex marriage would lead to pedophilia and pastors wouldn't be allowed to preach against the "aberration" that "alternative lifestyles" were to church doctrine. He has also claimed Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States. When asked if he thought his words might be extreme, Clovis responded, "I don't think it's extreme. I think it's a logical extension of thought. And if you cannot follow the logic then you're denying your in denial."

And, this is who Trump wants to head a massive research program. But, Trump didn't stop there. He next had to find an new NASA Administrator because the last one resigned before Trump even took office. The agency has been under an acting administrator since then. Trump finally nominated Oklahoma US Representative Jim Bridenstine.

Bridenstine graduated from Rice University with majors in Economics, Psychology, and Business and has an MBA from Cornell University. He flies E2-C Hawkeyes in the US Navy Reserve and is the former executive director of the Tulsa Air and Space Museum and Planetarium. He has been a US Representative since 2013. Some nice credentials. But, none of them qualify him to lead NASA, one of the most premier science agencies in the world.

He, too, is a vocal climate change denier and has been quoted several times making false statements that do not conform to the facts, such as "if you look at the Chinese and the Russian and the Indian production of carbon emissions, it is overwhelmingly massive compared to the carbon footprint of the United States of America.” (The US is currently the second largest carbon emitter. Until recently, it was long the number one emitter.) In a 2013 speech on the House floor, Bridenstine stated, "Global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago. Global temperature changes, when they exist, correlate with sun output and ocean cycles.” The facts say otherwise.

Interestingly enough, both US Senators from Florida have already stated they are opposed to his appointment. NASA is big business in Florida, remember.

We can only hope these two individuals will not have their appointments confirmed. That would slow down Trump's science hate-train a little, but I'm sure he'll find plenty of other science haters to nominate if these two aren't.

Friday, September 8, 2017

Rush Limbaugh Runs From A Hoax

After calling hurricanes a liberal hoax, Rush Limbaugh has evacuated from his home in southern Florida ahead of Hurricane Irma.  I can just hear Bugs Bunny

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Hurricanes Are A Hoax: Rush Limbaugh

Just how bad has it gotten in the anti-science camp? Rush Limbaugh said Monday night that hurricanes are a liberal conspiracy to convince people that climate change is real. Read about it here. Of course, that would be the liberal media's conspiracy version, so go here and listen to it for yourself. He starts talking about the hurricane at the 1:30 mark.

I'm always amazed at how incredibly ignorant the anti-science people get, but please tell me no one believes this nonsense. Just his rant about bottled and tap water is astounding. Is he really so stupid to believe the "big water" business merely pumps water out of a lake and puts it in the stores without having to worry about environmental laws?

I'm wondering if Rush ever bothered to comment on the report of the anti-science denier organization that admitted to using false data. The British-based Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) admitted that it used "erroneous" graphs. My guess is Rush isn't quite smart enough to figure out what that means.

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Weather Extremes

While everyone's attention has been focused on the tragedy from Hurricane Harvey (more on that in a future posting), there are some other weather extremes that have been taking place.

I was talking to a friend who lives in San Francisco and she told me the temperature there was over 100 degrees. I was floored! Sure enough, the recorded temperature on September 1 was 106 degrees F. We have a word for temperatures like that in Texas - heat wave! And, we're use to temperatures over 100 degrees. How does this compare to normal San Francisco temperatures? It's the all time high temperature ever recorded there. The average high for September 1 is 70 degrees - 36 degrees cooler.

At the same time, there are wildfires raging in the west. Fires have been burning all summer and, as of September, there are dozens still burning.

This is not some cherry-picking, either. While it is true the Northwest US is experiencing widespread record high temperatures, it actually is a worldwide thing. Worldwide 2016 temperature averages were the highest ever recorded and by a wide margin, breaking the previous record, set in 2015, by .2 degrees C (.36 F). That makes 2016 the third year in a row to set a new record high average temperature. (What was that? There hasn't been any warming since when?)

The thing I find interesting is how as soon as a snowflake falls, climate change deniers are out laughing and asking 'where is global warming.' And yet, when temperature records are smashed, they remain silent. The amusing thing is that their posturing actually supports the scientific evidence. When deniers come out and say something along the lines of, 'This particular date in this particular city was the coldest day recorded in 30 years,' what they're really saying is that temperatures that used to be the norm haven't been experienced in 30 years. Why would that be?

Meanwhile, Bangladesh is suffering from the worst flooding in 40 years. Bangladesh is a country prone to severe flooding, so that statement is highly significant. The death toll in Bangladesh from this one event is estimated at 142, as of September 3. Stunningly, over 1200 people have perished in flooding in Nepal, India and Bangladesh since June.

Even without Hurricane Harvey, we see severe weather is becoming worse and worse. And now, Hurricane Irma is on the way.

Monday, September 4, 2017

The Oceans Are Losing Oxygen

Two recent publications have shown that the oxygen level in the world's oceans has decreased over the last few decades.

Decline in global oceanic oxygen content during the past five decades, by Sunke Schmidtko, Lothar Stramma and Martin Visbeck, a letter in the scientific journal Nature in February 2017, found the average oxygen content decreased by 2% since 1960 in the zone between 100 and 1000 meters deep. Some areas experienced as much as 4% decrease with the largest decreases being measured in the tropical and North Pacific Ocean. Depths between 1000 and 2000 meters also experienced oxygen loss. While there are multiple reasons for the oxygen level to be decreasing, ocean warming is a main cause. The upper-level of the ocean is typically saturated with oxygen - even supersaturated. But, this saturation level goes down as the temperature goes up. The authors of this paper attribute 50% of the upper-level loss to thermal causes and 25% to thermal causes when the deeper layer is included. Overall, 15% of the total ocean oxygen loss is attributed to global warming, which is consistent with predictions from models. This is also consistent with reports showing the oceans have been taking up the vast majority of global warming heat.

The second paper is Upper ocean O2 trends: 1958–2015, by Takamitsu Ito, Shoshiro Minobe, Matthew C. Long, and Curtis Deutsch, and appeared in the journal Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) May 2017.They found a decrease in ocean oxygen levels since 1980 with a corresponding increase in the ocean heat content. They find that, while most of the decline can attributed to non-thermally induced changes in solubility, they find the measured changes are still beyond what can be expected from natural fluctuations alone. Their study also reveals a tight relationship between O2 inventories and the ocean heat content and these findings were consistent with models. They state the trends they have documented are suggestive of the effects of the ocean warming beginning to supersede natural variability and emerge as a recognizable signal.

So, how does a warming ocean lead to a decrease in dissolved oxygen?

As the oceans get warmer, the solubility of gases decreases. The oceans' ability to dissolve both carbon dioxide and oxygen decreases. There is very little good about this. You can point out the acidification of the oceans would decrease if less CO2 is absorbed, and that would be good. However, the acidification will continue because the oceans are not saturated with CO2, even at the higher temperatures. Instead, the amount of CO2 taken up by the oceans will decrease and the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 will increase. 

But, the more important point is the decrease in oxygen, which the marine life needs to survive. This will impact fisheries, tourism and ocean nutrient cycles. Lower oxygen levels particularly affect larger animals, who find they don't have enough oxygen to engage in high-energy activities like feeding. Fisheries around the world are already stressed by over-fishing and pollution and now have another stress factor to make things worse. According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, over one billion people worldwide (17% of the population) rely on seafood as their primary source of protein. Over 3 billion people get almost 20% of their protein from fish. So, the problem extents beyond simply warmer air temperature.

The Schmidtko, et al. paper also discusses the outgassing of N2O - nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide is both a greenhouse gas and attacks the ozone layer, providing a double whammy effect, neither of which is good for us. As a greenhouse gas, it is about 300 times as effective as CO2. Nitrous is formed and destroyed in the ocean by bacteria and is normally made and destroyed at nearly the same rate. Oxygen-depleted zones create an imbalance between formation and breakdown and a surplus of nitrous is the result. Some gets absorbed by the water. The excess then gets released into the atmosphere but that amount increases with decreasing solubility. Fortunately, the concentration of atmospheric nitrous is very low - about a thousanth as dense as CO2 - and ocean production is estimated to be only about 4 million tons per year, which is much lower than worldwide CO2 production. But, these new studies indicate it may be increasing as the ocean loses its oxygen. Considering the size of the oceans, that has the potential to be a very serious problem. And, the studies indicate even a small imbalance in the bacterial formation/destruction cycle can have large effects on the amount of gas being released to the atmosphere.

Overall, these studies indicate another area of concern about global warming and climate change.

Thursday, August 31, 2017


Two years ago, I posted that I would be closing this blog on August 30, 2017 - yesterday. This was because I wanted to simply walk away from the real world and its problems. However, something happened in the meantime - the 2016 election. In short, I'm proof it really is possible to hate both of the main candidates equally. People speak of how dismayed the were the day after the election when they learned Trump had won. That's the way I felt when Trump and Clinton became the two principle candidates during the primaries. I'm still disgusted that we chose those two candidates. (By the way, only 11% of eligible voters picked them in the primaries.) And, as much as I despise Donald Trump, you would have a hard time convincing me we would be better off with a President Hillary Clinton.

As you can imagine, this made me pretty angry and I realized I could not walk away from the fight over climate change. I have been involved for too long and have a history of being involved in fights - both literal and figurative ones. I spent 35 years in Naval Intelligence and was involved with a number of wars. I've also been involved with climate science for about the same length of time (I was a reservist, hence two careers). I'm trained and experienced in fighting and it's ingrained in my personality, as is research.

"Fine," you say, "What do you plan on doing about it?"

I'm not quite prepared to answer that question. I have made plans and am working on a project. I'm very dedicated to this project and it's taking most of my time this summer. I should know the initial results before Christmas and will then reveal what I'm up to. Until then, I will continue to make posts here.

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

CFACT Fraud About Climate Hustle

The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) is a far-right, anti-science organization that acts as a front-group for the fossil fuel industry, receiving millions of dollars per year from sources such as the dark money Donors Trust and the coal company Peabody Energy. ExxonMobil gave them over $500,000 between 1998 and 2007. Numerous other fossil fuel companies have donated to them. The list of people associated with CFACT reads as a who’s who of anti-science climate change deniers. None of this is controversial or a secret. In fact, CFACT seems to take pride in these facts.

CFACT is one of the most active organizations in the climate change denier front – working to undermine climate science with false claims and logic failures. One of their recent creations is the anti-science movie Climate Hustle. This, they claim, has been a huge success and, according to them, is changing the entire debate. In one recent posting, David Rothbard, the president and co-founder of CFACT, boasted “When CFACT's Climate Hustle hit theaters it came in at number one per screen and it was shown in over 400 theaters nationwide!” Their website for the movie states, “CLIMATE HUSTLE was the #1 movie in America (per screen average) during its one-night national theater event and had enthusiastic audiences in over 400 theaters with sell-outs or near sell outs in multiple cities!” This is all very impressive, impressive enough that I did some fact checking and I discovered something.

It’s all a lie. It did not open in any theaters at all and did not have a single penny of box office revenue.

Yes, you read that correctly. The movie did NOT open in 400 theaters. In fact, it didn’t open in even ONE theater. And, it had ZERO box office receipts.

Take a look at Movie Insider, which lists all movie openings. The listing for May 2016 showed there were NO movies at all opening on May 2, 2016. A check for the rest of May 2016 did not show any listing for Climate Hustle. I checked April 2016 to ensure it was not listed there (May 2nd was the last weekend of April) and there was no listing there, either. Even the opening date should have been an alarm bell and an indicator of the coming deceit. May 2, 2016 was a Monday and there are, typically, no movies opening on a Monday. In other words, Climate Hustle could have generated $1 in box office receipts and it would have been the #1 opening movie simply because there would have been no other movie opening on the same day. You have to assume that was their strategy all along.

But, it didn’t get even the $1! Take a look Box Office Mojo, which lists all of the domestic movie grosses. The 2016 listing has Rogue One: A Star Wars Story as the #1 movie of the year in 4,157 theaters with $532,177,324 in revenue for the year. The last movie listed, at #736, is Satanic, which opened at 3 theaters and made $252. What you don’t find anywhere between #1 and #736 is Climate Hustle. Not anywhere.

The record shows the movie did not open in any theaters and did not have any box office revenue. CFACT is lying!

What if someone comes forward and states they know the data is wrong because they went to see it on that night. First, I would want to see some proof because I’ve dealt with these people enough to know just how much they’re willing to lie. Did CFACT rent a bunch of theaters and have a private showing? It’s possible. But, then why are they hiding the attendance and revenue figures? Could it be because the movie was a bomb and they don’t want anyone to know?

Someone may argue that they are not being deceitful if it was all private screenings. The answer is, yes, they are. They specifically stated that it "hit theaters" and was the number one movie per screen. Both of those statements are lies.

CFACT has continued its train of fraud by taking Climate Hustle to Australia in July 2017. Again, they boasted of huge turnouts. Let’s check the facts.

The Australia box office receipts for the week of June 29 – July 2 listed Climate Hustle at: NOTHING! The movie did not appear in the box office receipts. It appears we’re seeing a pattern develop here. How about following weeks? July 6 – 9? Nope, no Climate Hustle. How about the following week, July 13 – 16? Nope. July 20 – 23? Fraid not. In fact, there is no listing for Climate Hustle box office receipts at all in Australia.

It appears they may have had at least one show. This website purportedly shows a crowd attending a showing. They claimed there were 300 people for the showing. Maybe, but with their record of lies and deceit, it's anyone’s guess what this picture is actually showing. As far as I know, this is a group of employees showing up to hear about the corporate medical plan and has nothing to do with Climate Hustle. Either way, it still did NOT open in theaters in Australia and had NO box office receipts.

They are being deceitful about this movie and you have to ask why. My guess is that it bombed beyond their biggest fears. And, by keeping the data secret, they can attack other movies they get so angry about – namely Merchants of Doubt and An Inconvenient Sequel. Let’s check in on the data for those movies. Not surprisingly, it’s easy to find the data on both of them.

Merchants of Doubt, which exposed the corruption of the anti-science organizations, was released in 2015 and came in at #298 with $308,156 in box office receipts from 30 screens. As of today (August 16), An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power is coming in at #105 with $2,401,130 in receipts at 556 theaters.

So, unlike CFACT’s fake-science movie, these two movies actually did appear in theaters and had box office receipts. What a difference!

Again, you have to wonder why CFACT is being so deceptive about this. Well, just take a look at the organization and the people involved. Really, you only have to look at one of them – Marc Morano.

Marc Morano is a guy with a B.A. in political science from George Mason University who thinks this somehow qualifies him as a ‘climate science expert’ and thinks he’s smarter than all of the climate scientists in the world combined. He is paid $150,000 per year to act as the front man for CFACT as the executive director and chief correspondent for CFACT’s Climate Depot blog. On the subject of deceiving people on the climate science, Morano stated,

“The media is so easy to fall for misdirections on this issue, and the Trump nominees have mastered that this week,” he said. “You sort of just laugh at how gullible the media is.”

Morano has a long, dirty history of association with the fossil fuel industry and the incredibly corrupt James Inhofe, the senator from Oklahoma who has received more fossil fuel money than any other senator. But, that isn’t even the best highlight of Morano’s career. That would be the way he provides the email addresses of climate scientists and advocates his readers to commit hate crimes against those scientists and their families. In the movie Merchants of Doubt, he acknowledges this, laughs about it, and says its one of his proudest accomplishments.

Marc Morano is not qualified to speak about climate science, is a consummate liar, and advocates hate crimes. Yet, this is the guy CFACT pays to represent them. Do you still need to ask why they are lying about the movie? There is certainly a hustle going on here, and it is on the part of CFACT. After all, why bother producing any science when lies and deceit will work?

I just wonder - did they really think they would get away with this? Yes, it's been 15 months, but the Internet has a LONG memory.


Sunday, August 6, 2017

Russell Cook and his "25 errors"

I recently made a posting about how the denier hatchet-man Russell Cook had written a letter to the editor to beat up a woman who submitted a letter of her own. You can read about it here. Cook apparently took exception to my post about him and made one of his own, purporting to show 25 errors I made. Certainly, I’m always concerned about making errors and put a lot of effort into my writing to ensure it factually accurate, so I took a look at what he had to say. It was so humorous I had to go through and examine it point by point. I made a screen shot before he realizes how stupid it is. My analysis is below and I hope you have as much reading about it as I had writing it. I start out each section with my comment that Cook states is in error, followed by his comment (reprinted here verbatim). I then respond and determine if I made an error or not.


Me: Tom Harris will lie
Cook:  1. Lie about what? Harris routinely refers to climate assessments from skeptic climate scientists, and what climatology expertise does Keating have to prove such skeptics lie about their science-based assertions
Response: My expertise is that I’m a professor of physics. Unlike Tom, who allows people to call him ‘Dr. Harris,’ or ‘Professor Harris,’ or to state that he’s a scientist, I really am one. I do my research in planetary geophysics and have been actively involved in research in climate science for over 25 years and a student of the subject for a good ten years before that.

As for Harris’ lies, let me provide some links to a few examples:

That is eight separate articles by Harris where I’ve exposed his intentional deceptions (i.e., lies) and documented his false science claims. And, that was for only the last three months. Harris has a very long trail of lies, deceptions, false arguments and false science claims. I’m not sure if Harris has ever gotten the science correct.

Harris continually states he has never been affiliated with the fossil fuel industry. Take a look at his bio from APCO which states, “Specifically, he has worked with oil and gas, coal…” Harris is lying every time he denies his affiliations with the fossil fuel industry.:

And to be clear, if I went around stating Harris was lying and I couldn’t back that statement up, I could be liable under libel and slander laws. You can be sure I was very certain of the accuracy of my statements before I ever made them.
Error/Not Error:  This one is such a non-error that I’m can’t believe Cook even claimed it was. It has to be embarrassing for both Cook and Harris to have his lies documented and pointed out like this. He should have let this sleeping dog lie.

Me: Russell Cook will show up to be his pit bull
Cook: 2.  Hardly. Tom Harris writes op-eds and letters-to-the-editor that I am totally unaware of, but he has alerted me via email to a few where he knows I would have some fun challenging his critics to prove he or others are paid by 'Big Coal & Oil' to lie.
Response: Incredible, Cook just stated he doesn’t come running to defend Harris by claiming he runs to defend Harris. Does he even read these things before he posts them? The truth is, as soon as the comments demand Harris back up his claims with facts and science, he goes into hiding and Cook shows up to try and do the heavy lifting. It’s typically pretty embarrassing for both of them.
Error/Not Error: Laughably far from being an error. Thanks, Russell. I needed that.

Me: Tom Harris is a paid shill of the fossil fuel industry
Cook: 3.  Two words: prove it. Keating has yet to produce an iota of evidence proving 'money paid' came under any instructions from anybody on what, when, where, and how to knowingly lie.
Response: Cook’s logic is that, since I was not sitting in a meeting where some fossil fuel executive said to Harris, “We’ll pay you a bunch of money to lie about climate change,” that Harris is, therefore, not a paid shill. Go back to the first statement about Harris’ lies. Take special note of his APCO bio showing he was a PR man for the fossil fuel industry. Clearly, Harris is lying on a regular basis. Further, all of his lies are to undermine climate science and promote fossil fuels, especially coal. Further, his comments about fossil fuels are almost always lies and work to promote that industry. Someone is paying ICSC to do all of this. Harris has long-standing ties to the fossil fuel and tobacco industries, including Heartland Institute, which is paid by the fossil fuel industry to undermine climate science. There is only one conclusion to reach here.
Error/Not Error: Majestically not an error. Harris paid shill status has been documented for decades.

Me: it's his job to place anti-science pieces
Cook: 4.  Harris often refers to science-based assessments from skeptic climate scientists who in turn cite peer-reviewed material published in science journals to make their case. Exactly what is anti-science about that?
Response: What is anti-science about Harris’ pieces is the fact that there is no credible, supportable science in his claims; the fact (yes, fact) that he lies; the fact that he misleads; the fact that he uses false arguments; the fact that all of this deception is to make the climate science appear to be non-credible and we shouldn’t do anything about it; and the fact that he’s paid to undermine the scientists. That is quite a track record of anti-science activity.

And, don't forget how his nearly sole source of information is the Climate Reconsidered Reconsidered report from the NIPCC. The NIPCC is itself paid by the Heartland Institute, making it a paid shill organization. The smell is getting bad here.
Error/Not Error: Not even close to becoming an error.

Me: campaign to undermine climate science.
Cook: 5.  What campaign? What evidence exists naming the participants, their strategy meetings, and what happens if speakers such as Harris have material which does not meet the approval of fossil fuel executives?
Response: Refer to the Luntz report. Harris, and other paid shills, are following the recommendations of this report to the letter. You can read the entire report at: This is a well-organized and well-funded campaign.
Error/Not Error: Not an error, but good effort on the part of Cook to maintain the appearance that he isn’t following someone else’s talking points.

Me: association with the fossil fuel and tobacco industries
Cook: 6.  "Associations" are worthless as evidence of corruption without proof that money was paid in exchange for material which all parties acknowledge is false, deceptive, etc.
Response: Not true. When Harris lies about his association with these industries and then openly works to promote them, that is corruption.
noun: corruption; plural noun: corruptions
1. dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.
Synonyms: dishonesty, unscrupulousness, double-dealing, fraud, fraudulence, misconduct, crime, criminality, wrongdoing

Yikes! Even without the payoff, Harris has proven to be dishonest and fraudulent. And, of course, refer to the APCO bio above.
Error/Not Error: Most definitely not an error.

Me: TomHarrisPaidShill
Cook: 7.  And the page Keating links to contains zero evidence proving Harris is in any kind of conspiracy where he is paid to lie.
Response: What???? This is an example of Russell’s favorite line of logic: “It’s not true until I say it’s true. Therefore, if I say it isn’t true, it isn’t.” For further amplification, I refer you to my responses above. All of this is documented in the Tom Harris Clearing House, plus much more. And, the APCO bio is included there, among many other gems about Harris.
Error/Not Error: Not an error, but it is a great example of Cook’s faulty logic stem, which we will be seeing more of.

Me: Duluth New Tribune, a news media that is an unfortunately friendly place for the anti-science crowd
Cook: Aside: I'd like to see Keating defend this statement in front of the entire staff of the Duluth News Tribune.
Response: Gladly. And, I’m not the only one who’s noticed. Take a look at this letter to the editor complaining about this very issue. As long as they publish anti-science articles from climate change deniers who are attempting to undermine the science, it will be a friendly place for the anti-science crowd.
Error/Not Error: He didn’t actually call this an error, which is good, because it isn’t.

Me: You can read the response Terry and I made here.
Cook: 8.  Keating's link DOESN'T go to the paper of record, the Duluth News Tribune's version of his letter-to-the-editor, which is at this link:

Why? Because Keating's and his co-author's original version, which he DOES link to. contained unsubstantiated personal attacks against Tom Harris, which the DNT does not permit. Compare what appears at the DNT against what Keating originally proposed. After his LTE did appear online, Keating altered the introductory  paragraph about his LTE to what is seen here , to mention its publication, albeit without a word of why he deleted the post for 10 days.
Response: He isn’t even saying this is an error. He’s merely complaining that he doesn’t like the way the other kids play. I provided a link to my posting on my blog and there was nothing deceptive about it. After all, it says in big letters at the top: Dialogues on Global Warming. Here’s the story: I and Terry wrote a response together and submitted it to the Duluth News Tribune. We received the following response from the editor,

Hello, Mr. Keating. Just an FYI. To help assure the letters to the editor that we publish remain civil, we don't allow letters to be about previous letter writers but rather the content of their letters. That helps head off personal attacks. So your letter in response to Tom Harris's letter was edited as you see it below. Just didn't want you to be surprised.

I also posted the original response on my blog. What I didn’t know is that Russell Cook contacted the paper and tried to prevent its publication (see the next Cook statement below.). The paper asked me to take it down because they required it to have not been submitted for publication before. I did not realize that posting it on my blog counted as previously published, so I removed it as they asked. Once it was published, I was allowed to post it again. In order to ensure I wasn’t violating anything, I included the original version instead of the paper’s version. Besides, I wanted to highlight how Harris was deceptive again.
Error/Not Error: Again, he didn’t even say it was an error, so it certainly falls under the Not Error category. This is another example of Cook’s deceptions. All he did was complain about me and then made the bold statement that I had made 25 errors.

Me: called in Russell Cook to do one of his attack pieces.
Cook: 9.  Harris did no such thing. The actual sequence of events happened as follows: Since I periodically look at Keating's blog as a matter of curiosity, I found his then-proposed 6/28/17 letter-to-the-editor (archived in original form here ), and I alerted a DNT editor to it as yet another potential opportunity to challenge people like Keating to prove their assertions. The editor replied to say Keating's publication of it at his blog violated the newspaper's requirement about having first-publication exclusivity to such pieces, and he asked Keating to delete his blog post, which Keating did. Before Keating's LTE reply to Harris was published, I saw another LTE critical of Harris at the DNT of a rather similar nature, which prompted me to write the letter Keating is referring to here. I did this entirely on my own with absolutely zero prompting from Tom Harris.
Response: I’ll stand by this statement without hesitation. It is irrelevant if Harris called him about this specific issue when Cook has already stated Harris has him responding to comments and articles. If that is the working relationship they have established and he acts on his own (or, possibly, not), he is still being called in by Harris.
Error/Not Error: Not an error.

Me: Russell Cook is a hatchet-man for the Heartland Institute
Cook: 10.  No, I'm not. They do know of my history of challenging letter writers and article commenters to show readers where the proof exists indicting skeptics of corporate corruption, and they sometimes suggest places where I can pose those challenges, but I receive no instructions on what to write.
Response: Did he really just say that? Heartland tells me what to do, knowing that I write stupid comments to harass people, but I’m not their hatchet man.
Error/Not Error: Not an error. I’m glad I took a screen shot of this one before Cook realizes what he said and takes it down.

Me: gets paid thousands of dollars
Cook: 11.  I'm not paid a dime by anybody to do what I do. I have fully disclosed my strings-free grants from Heartland from the start of my blog:
Response: Compare this one to the claim above (number 10). Heartland knows what he does, tells him where to go to make comments, and pays him. Somehow, in Cook’s weird universe, that is not getting paid.
Error/Not Error: Not an error. I’m trying to think of some witty comment to go along with this, but I can’t think of anything funnier than what Cook just said.

Me: gets paid thousands of dollars to obsess over Ross Gelbspan.
Cook: 12.  My GelbspanFiles blog - which Keating cannot bring himself to link to here - dissects Gelbspan's role in the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid industry money to lie. Since Gelbspan is widely described as the 'discoverer' of this alleged corruption, astute readers will see this as a focus of mine, and certainly not any kind of unwarranted obsession.
Response:  Let’s see: His blog is called the “GelbspanFiles.” It’s since been changed, but his “Who We Are” page on the Heartland Institute previously stated "He specializes in research of the origins of accusations leveled at skeptics and the associations of people surrounding it, most notably anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan." And, he can’t stop talking about him. Sure looks like obsession from where I’m sitting. As for the pay, see claim number 11 above.
Error/Not Error: Not an error.

Me: won the Pulitzer Prize
Cook: 13.  If this is so, why is it that the Pulitzer organization itself, the final arbiter of who receives their prizes, does not acknowledge Gelbspan as a Pulitzer winner?
Response: Cook is technically correct on this one. Ross Gelbspan conceived, directed and edited a series of articles in the Boston Globe that won a Pulitzer Prize in 1984. The prize actually named Kenneth Cooper, Joan Fitz Gerald, Jonathan Kaufman, Norman Lockman, Gary McMillan, Kirk Scharfenberg and David Wessel of The Boston Globe. So, Gelbspan’s name was not on the prize. 
What is amusing about this is that Cook was the first one to tell me how Gelpspan was a Pulitzer winner. Take a look at his comment:

Meanwhile, what's up with the "the sold[sic] job of attacking one particular blogger" line? What blogger? Show us all exactly where it says that. Surely you don't actually believe the "Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist" Ross Gelbspan is a mere blogger, do you?? Really???

After reading his comment, I did some research and misinterpreted the statement concerning the prize. Apparently, so did Cook.
Error/Not Error: This is an error. I suppose I could try a Russellism and blame him for stating Gelbspan won the prize in the first place. But, I won’t. It was my responsibility to get my facts straight and I obviously take that responsibility much more seriously than Cook, so I’m the one to blame.

Me: My first run-in with Cook was several years ago when he made a poorly-disguised threat on this blog to sue me
Cook: 14.  As I described with screencaptures in my prior analysis of Keating  , his very first reply to me struck me a so bizarre that my immediate response was to re-phrase my challenge in an entirely different manner to overcome any kind of perception problem he had about what the challenge was.
Response: Picture this scenario: You are talking to someone who wants you to stop saying the things you’ve been saying and that person says to you, “If you had to answer a court subpoena as a defense witness supporting people accused of committing libel/slander against skeptic climate scientists, is that material from ExxonSecrets all you'd have to bring with you?” (Exact quote.) How would you interpret that? If you didn’t interpret it as a threat or an effort to intimidate, then you are different from most people.
Error/Not Error: Not an error. Cook can try to recant as many times as he wants, but the fact is that he was trying to intimidate me with a threat of a lawsuit. Suck it up, Russell, put your big boy pants on and take responsibility for your actions.

Me: if I didn't stop criticizing the Heartland Institute.
Cook: 15.  I never even mentioned the Heartland Institute in my very first comment at Keating's blog:
Response: The blog post and the conversation were about Heartland and the NIPCC (Heartland’s fake science group). There was no other topic. If Cook decided to start discussing something else in the middle of the conversation he gave no indication of that. Therefore, it was, and is, logical to assume he was referring to my criticisms of Heartland.
Error/Not Error: Not error and not even very ingenious of Cook.

Me: He quickly backed down
Cook: 16.  Again, my second-ever comment at Keating's blog was to rephrase the identical challenge to produce evidence proving skeptic climate scientists were paid to lie, and I politely but relentlessly posed this challenge, with apparently enough damaging effect that he chose to ban me from commenting there:

One reason why he claimed he did this was my alleged personal attacks, but I'm confident readers will find no such thing within the entire history of my comments at his blog:
Response: I delete comments that are overly offensive. Cook was making repeated uncivil comments and was trolling my blog. After several warnings, I banned him. No, you won’t see his offensive comments on the blog. But then again, you’ll see very few uncivil comments from other trolls. I even banned one person because of a racially offensive handle.

What Cook isn’t telling you here is when he first tried to intimidate me I told him the first thing I was going to do was “subpoena the necessary financials of the individuals and organizations involved.” He immediately backed down and has had a bug up his butt about it ever since. Just like any playground bully, stand up to them and they back down, but they don’t like it.
Error/Not Error: Not an error.

Cook: Aside:  Keating has never yet identified who these lawyers are or what type of law they practice.
Response: Really? That’s your argument? I didn’t identify these lawyers, so, therefore, it isn’t real.Sorry, I'm not providing that kind of information and it really isn't any business of yours.
Error/Not Error: Not an error (or even a credible complaint). But, of course, he didn’t actually say it was an error. He was simply jumping at another opportunity to embarrass himself. I would’ve thought he already had enough of those, but I guess not.

Me: simply proclaim nothing is evidence until he says it is.
Cook: 17.  Hardly. I demonstrate at considerably length at GelbspanFiles how particular narratives do not line up right, and how the 'corrupt skeptics' accusation falls apart no matter which angle it is viewed from. I leave it to readers' judgement about such problems.
Response: Please see his number 7 claim above for an example of this strategy of his. It is consistent with Harris’ strategy of stating, “I stopped reading when...,” only to then discuss topics that occurred after the point he claimed he quit reading. Cook is kind of similar – a very shallow, unimaginative tactic that proves nothing, but makes him sound clever.
Error/Not Error: Still not an error and yet another statement of mine that Russell proved correct with his own words and actions.

Me: show me where the author describes "cataclysmic-sounding situations" anywhere.
Cook: 18.  "deniers of global climate change also support an "alternate reality," one that may well spell disaster for humans in the next 25 to 50 years" / "the imminent calving of the Larsen C ice shelf" / "continued loss of ice on the Greenland ice sheet" / "water flowing into Davis Strait and the Arctic Ocean, raising sea levels"

When such events are described by global warming believers as potentially causing millions of refugees, that's the definition of cataclysm:
Response: The writer of the letter did not make any claim about millions of refugees, so you’re already wrong on this claim. But, keep in mind that droughts, floods and famines are all disasters. All of these, and much more, are already happening and getting worse because of climate change and will continue to do so. The other instances you mentioned are things that have already occurred. A disaster is not a cataclysmic event.
Error/Not Error: Not an error (or even a very good try).

Me: Maybe it's to attack the author of that letter
Cook: 19.  No, the objective was to set up how such letter writers are enraged when the science-based emotionless assessments from skeptic climate scientists undermine the alarmism of global warming believers, and that such believers often refuse to engage in reasoned, calm debate, but instead launch into emotion-laden personal attacks. Which is exactly what the letter writer did with zero evidence behind the accusation.
Response: First, in this comment Cook is describing the actions of the anti-science deniers, not the writer of that letter. But, in no way did Cook demonstrate that was his intention. What he did was to attack the writer of that letter (and continues to do so in these comments of his). He started with the attack, “are often livid at the mere mention of famous-name climatologists and climate-denier organizations which doubt it,” without ever producing any of these famous-names. He then presents false statements concerning the denier movement as being factual without ever backing them up. Funny, that’s what he accused the letter writer of doing. This is yet another example of his “it’s not true until I say it is” logic.
Error/Not Error: Not an error. Cook is a bully and he showed it by beating up an anonymous woman.

Me: people like Cook hate is the fact that essentially every climate scientists in the world who is active in the field acknowledges manmade climate change is real.
Cook: 20.  Keating is of course guessing what my opinion is. The question of course is not whether humans have some effect over climate, it is entirely whether our activity is the primary driver of global warming.
Response: No, you’ve expressed this opinion many times. There is no guessing involved. Take a look at my last posting about you for an example of this.
Error/Not Error: Not an error.

Me: Cook provided NO climatologists who doubt it.
Cook: Aside:  Letters-to-the-editor have word limitations. Whether Keating chooses to acknowledge it or not, climatologists exist who dispute the notion that human activity is the primary driver of what little global warming we've seen over the last 150 years.
Response: Interesting that Cook didn’t provide any of these climatologists. Maybe he’s thinking of Roy Spencer, who has been caught committing fraud with his research so many times he can’t get anything published anymore. Or, Tim Ball, who is not a climatologist and whose record led a court to state, “The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.” Or, maybe Richard Lindzen, who stated for years he received no money from the fossil fuel industry for his research until it was discovered he was receiving up to $2500 per day for ‘consulting.’ Or maybe he means Willie Soon, who is an aerospace engineer and not a climatologist, who has close ties with the anti-science Heartland Institute and has received over $1 million over the last decade in funding exclusively from the fossil fuel industry. Or, maybe he means Christopher Monckton who is not a climatologist and has falsely claimed, among many other lies, that he is a member of the House of Lords to the point that Parliament sent him a letter to stop making it and posted the letter on its webpage. Or, maybe he means John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, who claims to be a meteorologist, even though he isn’t, and has no degree in science at all and has his every claim routinely debunked. I could go on, but the point is made. I’m waiting for Cook to produce even a single credible climatologist who says manmade global warming isn’t real.

And, please note that he STILL hasn’t produced one, even with as many words as he wants.
Error/Not Error: A complete face-plant by Cook. Not an error.

Me: It's because he can't.
Cook: 21.  Keating's assertion here is acutely ironic, because my first-ever comment at his blog was in reference to the NIPCC Reports, which features numerous names of internationally recognized skeptic climate scientists, and as I mentioned in one of my GelbspanFiles posts , my email address book reads like a “Who’s Who” list of skeptic scientists. 
Response: Take a look here or here to see just how incredibly bad the NIPCC report is. That is only a very small reference list of places you can go to to find out about the lack of credibility in that report.
Anyone who thinks the NIPCC has anything to do with science is suffering a mental illness. This report of theirs has been completely debunked. It’s so bad that it is a joke and a punch line rolled in one. If it is so good, why isn’t they can’t support their claims with any experimental evidence? Answer: It’s because they can’t.
Error/Not Error: Most definitely not an error. Cook needs to seek psychiatric counseling if he really believes the NIPCC reports show any kind of science undermining climate scientists.

Me: Cook goes on to claim there is no evidence that the fossil fuel industry has been funding the anti-science community to protect it's profits.
Cook: 22.  Keating torpedoes his own assertion with my subsequent verbatime quote. Nobody denies that skeptic climate scientists have received some funds from industry people. Clear as day, I say there is no evidence proving the money bought lies as part of any explicit arrangement acknowledged by all parties as corrupt action.
Response: Once again, Cook uses his “it’s not true until I say it is” line of logic. There is a mountain of evidence. See the next comment for some of these references as provided in my original post.
Error/Not Error: No error here except on the part of Cook.

Me: try reading this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.
Cook: 23.  What's the common thread among all those links? 'Deniers are funded.' What's missing at every one of those? Evidence that the funding was in exchange for specific lies that all parties know were lies designed to keep 'Big Coal & Oil' profitable.
Response: So, given nine separate reference, Cook denies them all. “It’s not true…”
Error/Not Error: Not an error so much that it’s pretty disgraceful of Cook to even try.

Me: includes internal documents from the Heartland Institute
Cook: 24.  No, the genuine leaked documents were utterly benign, devoid of any evidence of a conspiracy to lie, but the one fake memo had to be concocted in order to make a conspiracy mountain out of a boring mole hill. See:
Response: Not even the least bid credible, Russell. Take a look here.

Or here.

Or here.

There’s lots more, but the point is made. It was a Heartland internal document and did a lot of damage.
Error/Not Error: Heartland and Cook made errors, but I didn’t.

Me: Cook will just tell you this isn't evidence.
Cook: 25.  The inexplicable appearance here is that Christopher Keating seemingly does not comprehend what the meaning of corrupt is: "having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain."
Response: I posted it above, but it’s worth repeating:
noun: corruption; plural noun: corruptions
1. dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.
Synonyms: dishonesty, unscrupulousness, double-dealing, fraud, fraudulence, misconduct, crime, criminality, wrongdoing
Cook (and Harris) have repeatedly shown intent to deceive. In this way, they are dishonest and fraudulent and that makes them corrupt. But, of course, Cook will tell you, “If I don’t say it’s true…”
Error/Not Error: There was no error here and I stand by my posting. I also stand by this one.

Conclusion: Out of 25 so-called errors, one was, in fact, an error on my part while 24 were not. That’s about right for Russell Cook’s batting average on the facts and science.

Of course, Cook will read this and reply, "Until I say it's true, it isn't true. Therefore, this isn't true."