David Appell – Lost, Confused And Double Standards

Appell says that Nicholas Drapela was not dismissed for being a skeptic, then explains that he was deservedly dismissed for being a skeptic – for making these comments.

My dear colleague Professor Hansen, I believe, has finally gone off the deep end.

The “consensus” card. I feel sorry for this human being….

Errant, capricious statements. 99% certainty on global warming? This sounds truly more like a senile senior citizen that a lucid scientist….

Ultimatums. Act now or you die. Right now. This very instant. Don’t think. You have 5 seconds to decide. I ask you, is this science or high-pressure salesmanship? But I cannot go on….

The fact that the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute apparently has the inability to use reason unsettles me. I’m worried about Professor Hansen….

Quark Soup by David Appell: OSU Instructor, Dismissed Justifiably

Criticizing Hansen is not grounds for dismissal. Hansen himself has written that people who disagree with him should be prosecuted, and yet Hansen was not fired. The Climategate e-mails show much stronger language – including threats of physical violence – from the team.

Why hasn’t Appell called for the hockey team to be fired?

Then Appell goes full stupid with the usual nonsense about big skeptic money.

But I do have to say this: this is Nicholas Drapela’s moment. If he plays his cards right he has a bright future, with the potential of gleaming riches ahead.

But it won’t be in academia. Nor should it be.

Not to mention this idiocy.

He’s a scientist. If the science is wrong, then he should write a paper. Or write a dozen of them. Based on what he thinks he knows, it should be like shooting fish in a oil barrel. He’d be famous, known forever more as the scientist who disproved manmade warming.

Appell willfully ignores mountains of evidence every day, by closing his eyes and plugging his ears.

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

80 Responses to David Appell – Lost, Confused And Double Standards

  1. suyts says:

    You’re right, there are thousands of papers which run contrary to the idiocy of CAGW, Appell and the others simply pretend they don’t exist. What would a couple more papers do?

    • Exactly. If a glacier knocked his house over he would still blame it on global warming.

      • Ben says:

        Well sure…the warming increases the evaporation rate, climate change pushes the moisture packets north, condensation, precipitation, white stuff, permanent albedo change, no more melt (except at the north pole) Presto! Glacier….house go boom.

        I’m learning to connect the dots…

        Hansenized. Appellated. Mann-handled. Jones-ed…

      • Glacierman says:

        Yea Ben, now you’re learning climate logic.

      • philjourdan says:

        They already have.

  2. Andy DC says:

    Sounds just like when a cold blooded killer sticks a gun in your back and says “your money or your life”. Only this time the robber doesn’t have a gun, just a lot of insane scary talk. Would you turn your money over under those circumstances?

  3. Glacierman says:

    “Based on what he thinks he knows, it should be like shooting fish in a oil barrel.”

    He had to change a well known saying and include the word oil…….his bias is out in the open for all to see.

    Oh, David, thanks for criticizing Hansen, Mann, and the rest of the climate alarmists when they tell us how to live based on their opinions. Straight down the middle huh?

    I can hear David yelling “La la la…..can’t hear you” from hear.

  4. omnologos says:

    Appell lost me when it appeared clear he isn’t in the business of changing his mind on anything. The guy must’ve been dreaming all along of the good old.times when readers read and journalists wrote without having much to answer.

  5. leftinbrooklyn says:

    We can tear down our churches. They’ve been replaced by our universities. I thought, at least most of the western world had moved past allowing religious ideology to control individual thought.
    So much for separation of church and state…

  6. gator69 says:

    “What is cognitive impairment?

    Cognitive impairment occurs when problems with thought processes occur. It can include loss of higher reasoning, forgetfulness, learning disabilities, concentration difficulties, decreased intelligence, and other reductions in mental functions. Cognitive impairment may be present at birth or can occur at any point in a person’s lifespan.

    Some early causes of cognitive impairment include chromosome abnormalities and genetic syndromes, malnutrition, prenatal drug exposure, poisoning due to lead or other heavy metals, hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), neonatal jaundice (high bilirubin levels developing after birth), hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid), complications of prematurity, trauma or child abuse such as shaken baby syndrome, or oxygen deprivation in the womb or during or after birth.”

    My deepest sympathies for David, he is ill…

    • Lou says:

      Chronic vitamin D deficiency probably plays the strongest role for cognitive impairment.

      • gator69 says:

        I would argue that is right-brained thinkers.

      • Lou says:

        Actually, neonational jaundice is caused by vitamin D deficiency. I should know because my daughter had it after birth and had to have light therapy. Also, having enough vitamin D would up-regulate glutathione production which in turns speeds up removal of heavy toxic metal. All the things you listed are brought on by vitamin D deficiency. Yep. The actual root cause. Explain why we get 10,000-20,000 IU after 15-30 minutes from the sun (for people with light skin, blacks 6-10 times longer) compared to federal guideline of only 600 IU a day and telling us to avoid sun or put on sunblock at all times… We have a widespread vitamin D deficiency now… Oh well.

  7. Owen says:

    Appell is an arrogant know-it-all. These traits are common among the Climate Liars. It’s a sign of extreme stupidity.

  8. David Appell says:

    Is there evidence Drapela was dismissed for being a skeptic/denier?

    • You said that his dismissal was justified, and then cited his skeptical comments as due cause for dismissal. Are you asking a trick question?

      • gator69 says:

        Maybe we should call a doctor for David, it could be a stroke… but not of genius. ;)

      • David Appell says:

        I said his comments were sufficiently dumb and immature to warrant dismissal…. Again, do you have evidence Drapela was dismissed for being a skeptic/denier?

      • philjourdan says:

        @David Appell says: June 12, 2012 at 7:13 pm

        If your criteria for dismissing is dumb and immature, why are you still employed? That comment was dumb and immature, as is your claims of death threats in light of a total lack of evidence.

        Good thing for you that being dumb and immature is not grounds for dismissal for the cult of Alarmism.

      • David Appell says:

        Can we look forward to you calling for the dismissal of the hockey team too?

        No — I see nothing there even vaguely close to Drapela’s level of crude, unprofessional, unintelligent commentary.

        • David, pull your head out of the sand.

          - 10/9/09, From ClimateGate East Anglia emails, – “From: Ben Santer

          – To: P.Jones

          Subject: Re: CEI formal petition to derail EPA GHG endangerment finding with charge that destruction of CRU raw data undermines integrity of global temperature record. Dear Phil,

          – …I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted. I’ll help you to deal with Michaels and the CEI in any way that I can.

      • David Appell says:

        – “From: Ben Santer
        – To: P.Jones

        Oh, please. People say that kind of stuff to their friends, in private, as a way of offering support and blowing off steam. It was a private email, not a Web commentary.
        (http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=tseuga&date=090215)

      • Dave N says:

        “It was a private email…”

        No, it wasn’t.

        If FOI laws were actually being invoked properly, it wouldn’t have needed to be “leaked”. Emails sent from those accounts are publicly funded, subject to public scrutiny and should contain professional behaviour. Anyone who thinks there wasn’t unprofessional conduct is totally deluding themselves.

        The “private” argument is, and has always been, a cop out matching the teams own behaviour.

      • David Appell says:

        If FOI laws were actually being invoked properly, it wouldn’t have needed to be “leaked”.

        I disagree — everyone needs the ability to communicate informally — but in any case Santer had every expectation that his email was private. Drapela’s writings, however, were explicitedly public.

      • Ben says:

        David,

        Should Eric get fired for calling Lindzen an idiot, and stating further that he gets paid to be an idiot, or is it a one way street?

        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/misrepresentation-from-lindzen/

        “The tenure system exists precisely because Universities (like other bureaucracies) cannot be trusted to tell the difference between ‘horrible mis-statements’ (innocent or otherwise) and outright lies. MIT is in no position to ‘treat’ Lindzen in any formal way regarding his behavior, no matter how unseemly we may all agree it may be. We are all free to behave as idiots on our own time and even — as in Lindzen’s case — to get paid for it. We should celebrate this. There’s one thing that the libertarians and I can agree on.–eric”

    • samitee says:

      Do you have proof that a dark/invisible planet does not exist? No? Then, it must exist. Nice logic. :)

  9. Appell is always asking trick questions.

  10. samitee says:

    Except that his comments were based on facts, something you seem to dismiss, David.

  11. Owen says:

    Appell the only proof you have for global warming is Hansen’s doctored data and outright lies. I can see why you are doing everything in your power to make sure skeptics are harassed, fired and if many in your cult had their way, jailed. You can’t have people running around free telling the world the truth, or your whole quasi-religious ‘science’ comes crashing down, and with it all that funding. Go back to writing the fiction that passes for so-called climate science, you’re attempts at assassinating the reputation of a real scientist are pathetic.

    • David Appell says:

      Do you have evidence that Drapela was dismissed for being a skeptic/denier?

      • You wrote that his dismissal was justified, and now you are claiming that you don’t know why he was dismissed.

        Your logic never ceases to astound.

      • David Appell says:

        I asked if *you* have evidence that Drapela was dismissed for being a skeptic/denier.

        • You posted that his dismissal was justified. If you don’t know why he was dismissed (he doesn’t even know) then you should probably remove your claim.

      • timg56 says:

        Seeing as all the reports to date have said “no reason for his dismissal was given” the answer to your question should be obvious.

        The fact you chose to weigh in with an opinion that borders on juvenile only serves to highlight the growing insignificance of your opinions. Oregonians are well noted for their good nature, politeness and general niceness. You David are doing a good job to deconstruct that reputation.

      • David Appell says:

        You posted that his dismissal was justified.

        As I wrote, based only on what’s publically available, yes, I can certainly understand why someone might have chosen not to renew his contract and wouldn’t want him around students, the department, or the university. It has nothing to do with his beliefs, but about his understanding of the methods of science and his understanding of the culture of knowledge and of science.

    • David Appell says:

      …the reputation of a real scientist are pathetic.

      His Web site lists only one publication, 12 years ago: http://chemistry.oregonstate.edu/~drapelan/drapela.htm

      Are there others not listed there?

  12. tckev says:

    I doubt if he would ever understand but “shooting fish in a oil barrel. He’d be famous, known forever more as the scientist who disproved manmade warming.”
    That threat of being famous is enough to put off many really good scientists. Why would anyone wish for fame?

  13. gator69 says:

    “The Oceans will begin to boil…”

    “The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children. The court jesters are their jesters, occasionally paid for services, and more substantively supported by the captains’ disinformation campaigns.”

    Dr James Hansen

  14. Scott says:

    I actually agree with David that, as of right now, there isn’t much evidence that he was dismissed for his skeptical beliefs. I would also say that it’s doubtful that any such evidence will ever appear. However, lack of proof for any other significant reason for dismissal would be pretty good evidence that this is the reason, because a valid reason should be documented well.

    My problem is that there’s a similar amount of evidence for death threats against CAGW studiers…and David seems to accept that without much issue. Can’t have it both ways.

    -Scott

  15. So long as your keep your stupid opinions and/or honest opinions private and kowtow to orthodoxy in public, you can keep your job.

    Well said Appell.

    • Nixon should have kept Watergate quiet.

    • David Appell says:

      Having differing opinions is one thing. Being a jerk about them is something else.

      • samitee says:

        So, you’re saying he was fired for being a jerk? How does one prove that another is “acting like a jerk”. Is there a committee that reviews one’s actions and determines if they fall into that category?

      • DirkH says:

        David, are you starting to become self-aware?

      • LLAP says:

        @David: “Having differing opinions is one thing. Being a jerk about them is something else.”

        David Suzuki has said that politicians who are deniers should be jailed:

        http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513

        Should Suzuki be fired? Is he just expressing a differing opinion or is he being a jerk?

      • David Appell says:

        So, you’re saying he was fired for being a jerk?

        *I* don’t know why he was fired, and I don’t know even know for sure if he was *fired* or if his contract wasn’t renewed.

        I’m saying I can understand if his jerkiness was a significant factor in whatever decision was made, and that if it were me making the decision, what public writings of his that I’ve seen would be enough to conclude he wasn’t a useful participant in the university’s mission of education and knowledge.

        • The bottom line is that you and your ilk want to purge everyone from academia who has a point of view which differs from your own. You could at least be honest with yourself about it.

      • David Appell says:

        Should Suzuki be fired?

        Fired from what?

      • LLAP says:

        @David: “Fired from what?”

        The CBC; it is publicly funded.

      • David Appell says:

        The bottom line is that you and your ilk want to purge everyone from academia who has a point of view which differs from your own.

        You’re completely wrong. There are many skeptics and contrarians in academia who do their work professionally and honestly.

        • Excellent. So you agree that Mann should be fired for using dirty tricks to keep skeptics from publishing. How about Jones who spent a weekend deleting data to avoid an FOI?

      • David Appell says:

        @David: “Fired from what?”
        The CBC; it is publicly funded.

        The CBC is a broadcaster, in the business of presenting a wide range of views, and also of attracting an audience. So in my opinion, no, the CBC should not have fired him just because of this particular opinion of his, even though it might have been unpopular, and also because it was expressed in a professional manner.

      • David Appell says:

        So you agree that Mann should be fired for using dirty tricks to keep skeptics from publishing. How about Jones who spent a weekend deleting data to avoid an FOI?

        I don’t know that Mann used “dirty tricks,” and from what I know I do not accept that description. So I have no comment about that.

        What data did Jones’ delete?

      • David Appell says:

        Since he deleted it, we will never know.

        In other words, you have no proof of your claim.

        Perhaps it’s time for another “Steve Goddard Bullshit Alert.”

      • Glacierman says:

        Having a contrarian opinion automatically makes you a jerk…..to climate alarmists.

  16. LLAP says:

    @David: Here is another guy being a jerk:

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-dangers-of-boneheaded-beliefs-20110602-1fijg.html#ixzz1OS7VgaQC

    Here is how he started the article:

    “Surely it’s time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.

    Not necessarily on the forehead; I’m a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, ”Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?”

    On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy. So how about they are forced to buy property on low-lying islands, the sort of property that will become worthless with a few more centimetres of ocean rise, so they are bankrupted by their own bloody-mindedness? Or what about their signed agreement to stand, in the year 2040, lashed to a pole at a certain point in the shallows off Manly? If they are right and the world is cooling – ”climate change stopped in the year 1998” is one of their more boneheaded beliefs – their mouths will be above water. If not …”

    Should he be fired?

  17. David Appell has a tactic which he thinks is clever, which is to assert a claim or position, then demand “evidence” to disprove whatever he’s thought up. It appears, however, he feels no need to provide evidence himself, to support any position he holds. Didn’t we go through a similar exercise when David claimed there was no evidence for a global cooling consensus? When it was pointed out that by his criteria there is no evidence for a global warming consensus either, there was no reply.

    • David Appell says:

      I have already said, based only on what I have read that is public, that I would not have kept Drapela as an employee, were it my decision.

      • Would you keep Mann or Jones as an employee?

      • David Appell says:

        Would you keep Mann or Jones as an employee?

        Based on what I know, or what anyone has proven that I’m aware of, yes, certainly. They are excellent scientists with long track records of high quality work. (Drapela has no such track record in science), widely respected in their field, and valuable members of the scientific enterprise. People like you say all kinds of things about the dastardly things they supposedly did, but I haven’t seen convincing proof that they were anything but human beings living imperfectly (as we all do) under the pressure of great personal attacks.

      • David Appell says:

        Einstein had no track record, lousy grades and he didn’t publish for many years.

        But he was Einstein. Drapela is not.

        And BTW – the hockey stick is complete crap.

        I doubt it, but in any case you’re fundamentally incapable of a convincing proof of that.

      • The “Yamal Hockey Stick” is a good example of where the debate has moved on… nobody now seems to be disputing the fact that most of the shape of the hockey stick for that reconstruction came from *one tree*. The argument is now over whether the authors of that paper were merely grossly incompetent or intentionally deceptive. (The Real Science web site continues to argue that there was no intentional deception, which I suppose implies that they were just very stupid.)

        But in David’s world none of these controversies have even happened…

      • “Fundamentally incapable?” ROFL

      • That should have been “Real Climate” website, not “Real Science”. Sorry.

    • philjourdan says:

      Will – you have just described the cult of Warmistas.

  18. kirkmyers says:

    Mr. Appell, there’s no need to “disprove” the theory of man-made global warming. It has already been refuted seven ways from Sunday. There’s no veriable scientific evidence proving that human CO2 emissions, which constitute 0.117 perent of the so-called greenhouse effect, are having the slightest impact on the planet’s temperature. The small increase in warming we’ve seen over the last century is easily explained by natural climate changes driven primarily by the sun, ocean oscillations, and volcanism. This is obvious to any scientist not blinded by his own ego or frightened by the prospect of losing his job.

    The notion that mankind can change the earth’s climate is silly nonsense, a fantasy invented by greedy, dishonest scientists who’ve abandon all ethical principals in their relentless pursuit of that “next research grant.” It’s hardly surprising that government-funded scientists manipulate data to give politicians exactly the conclusions they need to justifiy carbon taxes, the shutdown of coal-burning power plants, and huge subsidies for “alternative” energy companies that happen to be big campaign contributors.

    OSU’s treatment of Nicholast Drapela is a disgrace, but hardly surprising. College universities have become the new Citadels of Censorship. Those who violate the campus code of political correctness, are blackballed or fired. I suppose we should be comforted by the fact that OSU professors who dare to speak openly are not yet being arrested and carted off to the nearest internment camp for re-education.

    Do OSU’s president and trustees realize that their university is now viewed by many as little more than a Stalinesque indoctrination center that suppresses dissenting opinions, especially those that dare to reveal the truth about a CO2 bogeyman manufactured by corrupt pseudo-scientists like Hansen, Jones, Mann and Trenberth?

  19. samitee says:

    One too many apples, imo.

  20. Sundance says:

    The caveat before consuming Appell sauce:

  21. There is not a dime’s worth of scientific competence in the wider public climate debate, particularly on the academics’ side (which is Appell’s side), otherwise the comparison of temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth, which simply disproves the “greenhouse effect” underlying the alarmist “consensus”, would be front-page news worldwide by now, and all the defenders of that consensus, including David Appell, would be revealed for the science incompetents and academic cover-ups they are.

    Any physical scientist, certainly any supposed “expert”, having seen from my comparison that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is a constant that is precisely–precisely–explained by the ratio of the two planets’ distances from the Sun, and nothing else, and knowing the great differences between Venus and Earth (in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, cloud cover/albedo, and planetary surface) should quickly agree that the physical reason for that fact must be that both atmospheres are warmed by direct absorption of the same physical fraction of the incident solar radiation.

    It has nothing to do with considering any part of a planet-plus-atmosphere system a blackbody (so don’t even go there, Appell). It has to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann formula properly applied to ANY body in thermal equilibrium, and subject only to radiational warming (P, in Watts/m^2 ABSORBED RADIATION, properly averaged over the surface of the body–OR over some portion of the body that quickly attains local thermal equilibrium due to that warming, as is known for the airless Moon, for example):

    P = σ (T)^4

    I emphasize, P is the absorbed radiational power intensity, not the incident. (It should go without saying that, for a blackbody, the absorbed power is equal to the incident power, whereas for a non-blackbody, it is not.)

    Thus, any two planetary atmospheres, which are warmed by direct absorption of the same physical fraction of the incident solar radiation, will have a temperature ratio governed only by the ratio of their distances from the Sun (I show the explicit equations for the two atmospheres, and their temperature ratio, at the above link). I claim this is the only reasonable physical interpretation of the Venus/Earth comparison, and that it should have been made 20 years ago, when the Venus data was taken by the Magellan spacecraft, and the “greenhouse” quickly dropped from the canon of “established science” then. It is a continuing embarrassment for all of physical science that it was not, and a scientific fraud that my findings have been, and continue to be, dismissed by the likes of David Appell, all the defenders of the climate “consensus”, and even skeptics like Monckton, Lindzen, Spencer, and anyone else who insists there IS a carbon dioxide greenhouse effect contributing to global warming. THERE IS NO SUCH EFFECT.

    My Venus/Earth comparison confirms the Standard Atmosphere model as the equilibrium state of Earth’s troposphere, and the mean tropospheric temperature in that model is 259.3K. With the mean incident solar power 1367 W/m^2, at Earth’s orbital radius, that temperature implies 18.75%, or approximately 19%, of the Sun’s incident radiation quickly warms the troposphere directly beneath its rays (I would suggest, for the “expert’s” consideration, perhaps over the entire daylit side of the planet) to the Standard Atmosphere equilibrium, vertical temperature lapse rate–and the Earth’s surface, separately heated by the Sun during the day, and prevented by the atmospheric lapse rate from further heating the atmosphere beyond transient/local effects (i.e., just those effects we call “weather”, and “climate”), acts to cool the near-surface atmosphere during the night (so that many locations see a local temperature inversion near dawn). I note, without further discussion, that the infamous Kiehl-Trenberth earth energy budget, shown here, shows some 19.5% of the incident solar radiation being directly absorbed by the atmosphere (though that would include not just the troposphere, as I am focusing upon here, but the stratosphere as well–so I suspect that energy budget is not necessarily accurate, or the albedo may be 0.23, rather than the widely touted 0.30–and this needs to be looked into by atmospheric physicists).

    My Venus/Earth comparison (rather than any proposed “complete” theory of weather/”climate”) is the definitive evidence needed for the fundamenatal correction of climate science. Academia needs to embrace it, and because it has already been published, and academia has dismissed it without proper, and public, consideration, they should not wait for it to be published in their favorite peer-reviewed (i.e., academic) journals (which are behind the times in this revolutionary time). Too much wrong has been done in the name of bad climate science, and everyone needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming if necessary, into the science shower, to come clean.

    I am making this a separate post on my blog, The Earth and Man: Setting the Stage.

  22. philjourdan says:

    David Appell says:
    June 12, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    Can we look forward to you calling for the dismissal of the hockey team too?

    No — I see nothing there even vaguely close to Drapela’s level of crude, unprofessional, unintelligent commentary.
    That is because you do not want to find it. Shunning knowledge is not an indication of intelligence.

  23. philjourdan says:

    David Appell says:
    June 12, 2012 at 10:22 pm

    If FOI laws were actually being invoked properly, it wouldn’t have needed to be “leaked”.

    I disagree — everyone needs the ability to communicate informally — but in any case Santer had every expectation that his email was private. Drapela’s writings, however, were explicitedly public

    That is what private email addresses are for. If you use your employers assets, then all property is the employers and subject to the laws therein.

    Keep spinning. The laundry is not yet dry.

  24. philjourdan says:

    David Appell says:
    June 13, 2012 at 12:18 am

    But he was Einstein. Drapela is not.

    Before he was “Einstein” he was a skeptic. He ADDED to the body of knowledge by turning commonly accepted ideas on their heads. You and the Warmistas would have drummed him out of the science corp for his heresy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s