Eric Keyser - Prolific Incompetent Disinformer or Inadvertent Misinformer about AGW?

Let's start by defining important terms.  The diagram below is adapted from Treen (2020).

Eric's posts about climate change are so blatantly misleading, and he so frequently ignores the many responders indicating deficiencies in his logic and scientific-sounding arguments, that it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that he is deliberately a super-spreader of misinformation intended to be a seed for AGW dismissives and deniers to feed on.  That would make him a disinformer.

Challenging disinformation activities is important, on occasion, because disinformation in public channels delays actions to tackle AGW (such as Global Net Zero).  Disinformation makes it far more likely that the global temperature anomaly will get worse than it would otherwise be, that the damages from AGW will be worse than they would otherwise be, and that the chances of crossing tipping point thresholds will be increased.

The weight of scientific evidence for AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is so overwhelming that the IPCC says, in AR6 WG1 (2021):

"It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred."

Despite that, or perhaps because of it, Eric Keyser (Retired Geophysicist who worked for 50 years, mainly in the fossil fuel industry, from Calgary, Alberta, Canada) has been a prolific poster on LinkedIn since January 2025.  Most days there is at least one, sometimes more than one, post of his making some spurious claims that temperature data from a single monitoring site in some way disproves AGW and shows the scientific consensus about AGW to be wrong.

Rather than pen a response to each individual post he makes, it seems that it will save me (and perhaps others) a lot of time if I post a general response to his views here, which can be referenced when responding to his future posts of a similar nature.

Eric accuses the IPCC of having a "narrative".  However, it seems, from the evidence of his own posts, that Eric is the one presenting a narrative.  He uses pseudoscience arguments.  

From oxfordreference.com:
"Pseudoscience - Theories, ideas, or explanations that are represented as scientific but that are not derived from science or the scientific method. Pseudoscience often springs from claims or folk wisdom or selective reading without independent data collection or validation."

His main approach seems to be to cite temperature data from individual land-based monitoring sites and "JaQing", making oblique or direct claims about what the data from that one site implies about AGW, human drivers and natural variability at a global level.

From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Asking_Questions#:~:text=%22Just%20Asking%20Questions%22%20(JAQ,by%20framing%20them%20as%20questions.

""Just Asking Questions" (JAQing); ... is a pseudoskeptical tactic often used by conspiracy theorists to present false or distorted claims by framing them as questions. If criticized, the proponent of such a claim may then defend themselves by asserting they were merely asking questions which may upset the mainstream consensus.[2][3][4] The name of the tactic is therefore derived from the typical response of "I'm not saying it was necessarily a conspiracy; I'm just asking questions."

​He doesn't indicate what his criteria are for selecting each individual monitoring site he uses as the core for each new post.  This leaves me thinking that it's very likely that he has cherry-picked a particular site each time in order to make a point or inference about AGW or about the temperature "Hockey Stick" of global average temperatures.

One such example of the Hockey Stick is the following, from IPCC AR6 WG1 (2021).

This diagram from the IPCC shows, on the left, the sharp uptick in global average temperatures since industrialisation (the "Hockey Stick").  It also shows, on the right, the human driver 'signal' strongly emerging from the natural variability 'noise'.  

It has been well demonstrated that, from the early days of the movement to address AGW and decarbonise the global economy, AGW deniers and dismissives have often attacked both the IPCC and the Hockey Stick.  They seem to think that if they can discredit the Hockey Stick, or the climate scientists who present it, that the whole of AGW theory and evidence will somehow crack and fall aside, leaving their beloved fossil fuel industry to continue polluting the world.  They don't seem to be concerned about the impacts their actions (and those of the fossil fuel industry they are defending) are having on the legacy we are collectively leaving to following generations.

Eric says things like "Challenging the Michael Mann Hypothesis".
That's clearly an attempt to make the argument personal.  Eric seems to ignore the fact that it is not 'Mann's hypothesis', and that the work Mann did has been independently recreated and verified by many other climate scientists.  Also, it sits alongside many other lines of evidence supporting the IPCC's conclusions about AGW.  

Eric talks about:
"The Dalton Minimum (1790–1830) ... fewer sunspots and lower solar irradiance,... the Maunder Minimum. Understanding these natural cycles is crucial for interpreting long-term climate trends"
  
​That's an example of misinformation.  He makes a true statement, but the context in which he makes such comments is clearly meant to imply that, for example, solar variations are driving recent global warming, rather than human activities being the primary driver.  

Eric says:
"Historical data shows that climate variations before 1850 closely resemble those after 1850. This contradicts Michael Mann’s claim"

​However, the data he refers to in such a statement is single monitoring site data.  He does not present any statistically significant data or analysis about average global temperatures.  He seems to be deliberately conflating the local with the global, which is a major flaw in his argument.  This has been pointed out to him by many responders.  He has not addressed the deficiency they have highlighted.

Eric says:
"... the IPCC's Northern Hemisphere model does a poor job at representing Prague’s climate trends."

That is another example of Eric conflating the local and the global, without presenting any analysis that could legitimately make the connection between the two. 

It also illustrates another deficiency in Eric's argument.  Climate models (of which there are many, not just one) belong to scientists.  The IPCC does not operate any climate models.  It merely reports and concludes on the climate models operated by many independent climate scientists around the world.  This is an example of Eric attempting to demonise and discredit the IPCC.  

Another example.  Eric says:
"Medicine Hat, Alberta... Located in the middle of the prairies and away from major urban centers, Medicine Hat is less influenced by the urban heat island effect."

'It's not us, it's the Urban Heat Island effect that is causing the measured temperature anomaly" is a frequently seen anti-AGW trope.  It is debunked here, at skepticalscience.com:

Does Urban Heat Island effect exaggerate global warming trends? https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
from which:

"The Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI) is a phenomenon whereby the concentration of structures and waste heat from human activity (most notably air conditioners and internal combustion engines) results in a slightly warmer envelope of air over urbanised areas when compared to surrounding rural areas. It has been suggested that UHI has significantly influenced temperature records over the 20th century with rapid growth of urban environments.  Scientists have been very careful to ensure that UHI is not influencing the temperature trends."


Eric says:

"I fully agree that a single station cannot be used to make global projections."

That statement is somewhat bizarre, given that Eric frequently attempts to claim, or infer, something about global warming from individual temperature monitoring sites.

He goes on:

 "However, I can highlight differences between the IPCC’s global projections and data from key long-term stations. Since 2013, I have compiled a database of nearly 50,000 stations and am now focusing on analyzing those with records predating 1850. My goal is to conduct straightforward statistical analyses and share my findings—you are welcome to examine the data."

He introduces the term "key long-term stations" without explaining what he means by that.  It is likely that he is using that term as a means to exclude data from many other monitoring sites.  This is an important point, from the perspective of statistical analysis.  If his criteria for excluding other monitoring sites is not transparent and justifiable, it will be possible for him to generate any desired result from his statistical analysis.  This illustrates why scientific peer review is important - to challenge and debunk false statistical methods and the claims that might come from them.  

An example of what Eric claims from looking at a single site:

"My standard data reduction process includes plotting raw data, generating histograms of monthly average temperatures, and computing yearly minimum (winter), maximum (summer), average, and median temperatures. These methods help capture long-term trends and natural variability"

The main flaws in his stated standard process are that:

1) he is obviously assuming (or implying) that the data movements he is tracking are 'natural variability' - he does not set out to track human drivers of changes.  This is perhaps inevitable in his approach, because a single site cannot say anything about AGW, which is a global phenomenon, because of the very nature of the global mixing of greenhouse gases, whatever the location of their emission from human activities 

2) natural variability in individual sites cannot say anything about natural variability at a global level - he is essentially confusing weather and climate, and confusing local and global.

That second point is clearly illustrated by Eric's comments in the very same post:

"At Prague-Klementinum, a clear trend emerges: winters are warming at 1.21°C per century, while summers are warming at only 0.148°C per century. This pattern suggests the climate is becoming less extreme, shifting toward a more temperate state—where, eventually, the ice caps may disappear."

Here, he is clearly making an unsubstantiated leap from data at a local temperature monitoring station and claiming it says something about global climate trends ("climate is becoming less extreme"). Such an inference is false.  He tries to bluff his way from the local to the global, using a recourse to 'data' and 'analysis' - his argument is  a form of 'pseudoscience'. 

Another example from one of Eric's other posts:

"The WIEN_HOHE_WARTE station in Vienna, Austria, has been recording temperature data since 1774, offering crucial insights into pre-industrial climate trends and long-term climate variability. As Martin F. Hock observed, "This nicely reflects the Dalton Minimum of sunspots... " ... Additionally, historical records indicate year-to-year temperature fluctuations of up to 2°C (marked by blue dots), emphasizing the significant role of natural climate variability in temperature changes."

Note the use of the phrase "climate variability" and reference to "Dalton Minimum of sunspots".
He also uses the expression "temperature changes" in an ambiguous way in this text.  He might be deliberately using such phrasing to conflate temperature fluctuations due to natural variability and the global average temperature anomaly (the change since industrialisation).

In some of his posts, Eric infers lack of correlation between global atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global average temperatures.  That inference is debunked here:

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

In another post, Eric says:

"This is the best comment I have seen to date:
"I am fully convinced that climate change is real. I am also fully convinced that it has always existed and has always been actively changing. However, I am convinced that the idea of human-caused change as presented by Al Gore is, in fact, a hoax—designed to generate fear and, in turn, generate profits."  (David Harvey - Los Alamos National Laboratory)"

I think that post says a lot about Eric's views about AGW.

​I could go on, citing and debunking the many claims or obvious inferences in many more of Eric's other posts.

Instead, I'll just summarise.   

Eric appears to be promoting a narrative around:

- Being dismissive of the scientific evidence supporting AGW, and climate scientists
- Attacking the IPCC
- Using a pseudoscience approach
- Focussing on data from individual temperature monitoring sites and making unsubstantiated claims or inferences about AGW from them
- using "JaQing"
- Failing to respond to many respondents who point out the obvious flaws in his claims and inferences
- Using well-worn anti-AGW tropes, sprinkling them liberally through his posts
- Encouraging respondents who express anti-AGW opinions

It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that Eric is an anti-AGW disinformation propagandist.