Willis Eschenbach

February 10, 2013 in blogger

Willis Eschenbach, blogger with a certificate in massage and a B.A. in Psychology.Has worked recently as an Accounts/IT Senior Manager with South Pacific Oil. A profile can be found at desmogblog.com/willis-eschenbach. Has produced no peer-reviewed papers on climate science according to the criteria set by Skeptical Science- although see Willis Eschenbach comment [at the bottom].

[I’m a] Heretic. I am neither an anthopogenic global warming (AGW) supporter nor a skeptic, I believe the entire current climate paradigm is incorrect. from WUWT

Willis speaking at Heartland conference.

Islands float! From WUWT

Willis explains how Floating Islands work, and he should know, he spent a lot of time working on one. He also explains why CO2 isn’t an issue. He writes:

Does increased CO2 cause increased sea level rise?

Short answer, data to date says no. There has been no acceleration the rate of sea level rise. Sea level has been rising for centuries. But the rate of the rise has not changed a whole lot. Both tidal stations and satellites show no increase in the historic rate of sea level rise, in either the short or long term.

A summary of his views can be found at WUWT from 2010 although Willis is complex, he believes that there has been an increase in temperature in the last century yet sets about proving that Australia is cooling. Take any one of his views on climate change and it is easily adapted into something slightly different in his numerous blogs.

A comment on Judith Currie’ blog revealing deeper insight into Willis’ attitude to mainstream climate change science-

This comparison, of people objecting to bogus science and the kind of trickery exposed by Climategate on the one hand, to tobacco companies on the other hand, is a pile of reeking crap that has no place on a scientific website.

Judith, your guest posts were just getting ridiculous. Now they are getting downright insulting. Trying to peddle this “skeptics = tobacco companies” claim is not only anti-scientific. It is a slap in the face to honest scientists and interested researchers like myself.

This is the lowest you’ve gone, trying to disguise this shameless attack as science. This is scraping the bottom, not of the pool, but of the septic tank.

This congenital idiot truly thinks climate alarmists have standing to accuse skeptics of misusing the science? After the alarmists have indulged in turning off the air conditioning to convince Senators that it’s warming, after their cherry picking and the obstruction and packing peer-review panels and trying to intimidate editors and the publication of meaningless papers and the subversion of the IPCC process by the Jesus paper and everything else the alarmists have done, this unpleasant fool compares me and the other skeptic to the tobacco companies, and not Jones, Mann, and company?

4 Comments

Willis Eschenbach

June 30, 2013 at 1:26 am

Thank you for highlighting my work in this manner. However, there is one error of fact in your description.

I have several peer-reviewed scientific publications—a peer-reviewed “Communications Arising” in Nature, two peer-reviewed study in “Energy and Environment”, and a peer-reviewed study published in “Diversity and Distributions”.

And yes, Energy and Environment was peer-reviewed. For verification, see Tom Wigley’s comment in the Climategate emails where he says:

Furthermore, I do not think that a direct response will give the work [Soon and Baliunas} credibility. It is already ‘credible’ since it is in the peer reviewed literature (and E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed).

I assume that you will make the appropriate changes in the text.

Thanks,

w.

ED NOTE

Communications Arising in Nature are

Critical comments on recent Nature papers may, after peer review, be published online as Brief Communications Arising, usually alongside a reply from the criticized Nature authors. If the submission only serves to identify an important error in the published paper, it is published in the form of a clarification statement (corrigendum or retraction, for example) by the Nature authors (see section 7). Alternatively, readers may post comments on Nature papers at the journal’s website, under the full-text online version of the paper. Brief Communications Arising are exceptionally interesting or important scientific comments and clarifications on original research papers or other peer-reviewed material published in Nature. They are published online

The Comment reads

In their analysis of Lake Tanganyika’s ecosystem1, O’Reilly et al. claim that climate change, in the form of rising temperatures and falling winds, is causing a decline in the lake’s productivity. However, their own data show that air temperatures were either steady or dropped slightly between 1952 and 1978, rising only slightly between 1980 and 1992, and that wind speeds have increased by 35% since 1985. These climate changes therefore have no correlation with either lake temperature or productivity, so it cannot be inferred from their data that climate change is the cause of the productivity decline.

O’Reilly et al reply to the points made.

E&E Tuvalu Not Experiencing Increased Sea Level Rise

The thunderstorm thermostat hypothesis: How clouds and thunderstorms control the Earth’s temperature

Abstract

The Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis is the hypothesis that tropical clouds and thunderstorms actively regulate the temperature of the earth. This keeps the earth at an equilibrium temperature regardless of changes in the forcings. Several kinds of evidence are presented to establish and elucidate the Thermostat Hypothesis-historical temperature stability of the Earth, theoretical considerations, satellite photos, and a description of the equilibrium mechanism.

Reply
Poptech

October 18, 2013 at 2:19 am

You may find this interesting,

Who is Willis Eschenbach?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/10/who-is-willis-eschenbach.html

As of 2012 Mr. Eschenbach has been employed as a House Carpenter.

He is not a “computer modeler”, he is not an “engineer” and he is certainly not a “scientist” (despite all ridiculous claims to the contrary).

“A final question, one asked on Judith Curry’s blog a year ago by a real scientist, Willis Eschenbach…”

Reply
Peter C

September 4, 2014 at 10:23 am

I would recommend anyone to actually read some of the web entries by Willis Eschenbach . He is not only entertaining to read but also most informative.

Perhaps the wisdom of an informed, educated and pratical person!

Reply
hydro

March 5, 2016 at 8:44 am

Najlepszy artykuł jaki kiedykolwiek czytałem, dobra robota!

Reply