Tuesday, I received an email from Marc Marano, staffer for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.). Usually, these are vectored straight into my junk folder, but apparently my computer’s spam filter has a sense of humor, because this email made it into my inbox. And what I saw astounded me.
Marc’s email contained a link to a recent post by Roy Spencer. In it, Spencer claims:
Obviously, the thermostat (feedback) issue is the most critical one that determines whether manmade global warming will be catastrophic or benign. In this context, it is critical for the public and politicians to understand that the vast majority of climate researchers do not work on feedbacks.
In popular political parlance, most climate researchers do not appreciate the nuanced details of how one estimates feedbacks in nature, and therefore they are not qualified to pass judgment on this issue. Therefore, any claims about how many thousands of scientists agree with the IPCC’s official position on global warming are meaningless.
Did I read that right? The only people qualified to make judgments on the science of climate change are experts in climate feedbacks?
I’ll ignore the questionable and obviously self-serving nature of this claim for now. The surprising point here is that Roy has clearly disqualified virtually every member of Inhofe’s list of 650 “experts” who dismiss the IPCC’s view of climate science. Not only are the Inhofe 650 members not experts on climate feedbacks, but also most of them are not experts on any aspect of the climate. (Note, however, that I’m still an expert because I actually do work on climate feedbacks.)
And since Marc Moreno sent out a link to this post, he obviously agrees that Inhofe’s list is a pile of rubbish.
Finally, something Marc and I can agree on.
What to make of the new climate poll
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
Black Wallaby Posted 9:31 am
16 Jan 2009
Still at it I see; misrepresenting what certain rational scientists and others that you disdain are ACTUALLY meaning in what they say. (per context etc)
May I recommend to any passers-by, that they read the linked article above by Roy Spencer in full.
BTW; Can anyone see the logic in Andrew's following statement?
"And since Marc Moreno sent out a link to this post, he obviously agrees that Inhofe's list is a pile of rubbish."
Permalink
Ian Forrester Posted 4:02 am
17 Jan 2009
Spencer (one line later): "Comments are closed".
What a joke.
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 6:43 am
17 Jan 2009
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 6:58 am
17 Jan 2009
E-mail:
Roy@
DrRoySpencer.com
If you or others were to take-up THIS INVITATION with the sort of quality you have above, with absolutely no scientific value, then it becomes appropriate for him to leave you in his spam folder
Permalink
manacker Posted 6:59 am
17 Jan 2009
Aw c'mon, Ian.
You're just angry at Roy Spencer for publishing his groundbreaking findings, based on physical observations, rather than just climate model assumptions and hype, which showed that cloud feedbacks are on average strongly negative, rather than strongly positive, as assumed by all he IPCC climate models (admittedly conceding that cloud feedbacks remain the greatest source of uncertainty).
This is annoying to you, because it demonstrates that the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is closer to 0.7C than to 3.2C as assumed by the IPCC climate models.
BTW the conclusions of the study by Spencer et al. have also been validated by a completely independent study by Norris, also confirming a strongly negative feedback from clouds.
Rejoice, Ian!
Contrary to the hysterical hype of Hansen or the alarming predictions of IPCC, we are not doomed to die from global warming after all!
Isn't that great news?
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:05 am
17 Jan 2009
You wrote, "No surprise that an intellectually and morally bankrupt fossil fuel industry flack would trap himself in his own spin."
Whazzat supposed to mean? Can you translate into normal English and identify the individual involved, please?
Thanks in advance for clearing it up.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:23 am
17 Jan 2009
You apparently took issue with Morano when you (mis?)quoted him in saying:
"Marc Morano agrees that only experts in climate feedbacks can make judgments on climate".
Quoting Yogi Berra, I sort of got a "déjà vu all over again" feeling when I read these words with your name attached.
As I recall, you used exactly this rather elitist argument around a year ago when you tried to discredit "Inhofe's 400" list.
I agree that it is a silly argument that only "climatologists" can have a credible opinion on the various aspects within the ongoing scientific, economic and political debate surrounding the AGW hypothesis and its potential impact (or lack thereof) on humanity and our planet.
Apparently you feel this way now, as well.
Congratulations!
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Burn the Witch Posted 4:53 pm
17 Jan 2009
As a recent lurker "unlurked" and as someone who is looking for intellectually honest discussion on this subject to refine my opinion, you two have my thanks. I will continue to look for your comments in particular and hope that your opposition rises to your level of discussion.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:22 pm
17 Jan 2009
grist.org
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:59 am
18 Jan 2009
David, I don't understand why you should be proud of Andrew Desslers incorrect statements in the lead article..... A surprising admission and also OFF TOPIC!
You also spoke in the plural. Joseph Romm is one I know of that is also first class at spin and misrepresentation, but who, and how many do you have in mind?
Permalink
Burn the Witch Posted 7:59 am
18 Jan 2009
You only serve to weaken an already precarious position by resorting to name-calling. But if you're going to name-call, it's far more effective when you get it correct. Someone who disagrees with you, or at least feels you're not making sound arguments or rebuttals is not a troll...wish as hard as you may.
You could try actually addressing criticism in an honest fashion. As a passive observer in this and many other discussions here, I eagerly await your response to Wallaby.
BtW
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 3:46 pm
18 Jan 2009
What a load of absolute SPIN!
Spam filters do NOT have a sense of humour, period, full-stop, and end of debate!
If the great doctor does not want to read Marc Marano, but Marc (maybe ?) tried a change to his `from-Email address`, it should nevertheless take Doctor Dressler, whom is reputedly a clever scientist, but a moment to recognise the sender, and kill it, if that was his true desire.
What a load of absolute crap from Dressler!
And that is before we even start to dissect his allegedly more "scientific" allegations!
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 6:29 pm
18 Jan 2009
Neither do trolls, from what I've obswerved....
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:35 am
19 Jan 2009
And you commented thereon in part with:
Did I read that right? The only people qualified to make judgments on the science of climate change are experts in climate feedbacks?
No Andrew, that is clearly wrong, and I've added bold emphasis to help you understand Spencer's unambiguous English. Of course you have to understand what he means by this issue, and that is unambiguously given in the context of his preceding text.
To elaborate for you what I think he means. He is in effect saying, that out of the very many important topics covered by the IPCC, the most critical is that of ESTIMATED feedbacks, amongst which the IPCC admits in AR4, to having low levels of understanding. Why feedbacks are critical is that various estimates are used in computer modelling, and these models are the only tools available to attempt to quantify what AGW might be doing in the future. (or even if AGW actually exists) Furthermore, without significant net positive feedbacks, increasing atmospheric CO2 alone does not seem to be a problem.
Andrew, I hope I've been able to explain to you what Spencer was talking about.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW: I seem to recall that the IPCC estimated in AR4, that climate sensitivity is in the range 2.5 - 4.0, yet there is work around suggesting that cloud feedbacks previously estimated are far too high. I see in your recent work with Zhang and Yang that you conclude a feedback of ~2 watts/m^2 from water vapour alone, which seems more pessimistic than your earlier work with Minschwaner. I have not read your latest, but in your own commentary you seem to ignore the recent improved understanding about clouds.
Also, don't worry about Inhofe's 650, what about the IPCC's 2,500? How many of those are feedback specialists like yourself?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 1:38 pm
20 Jan 2009
One posting [ By Andrew Dessler ] deserves repeating here.
Meteorologist George Waldenberger is on the list. In response, George sent an email to Inhofe's staffers that began:
Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I've never made any claims that debunk the "Consensus".
You quoted a newspaper article that's main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific ... yet I'm guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility.
You also didn't ask for my permission to use these statements. That's not a very respectable way of doing "research".
Yet, as Dessler notes, "he's still on the list."
And he is still on the "new" 2008 list [PDF] from Inhofe's office!
I enquired of Joe on Gristmill, with the following:
Well why not give the whole story, and try to understand why Waldenberger was not removed from the 2007 list, and has been included again on the 2008 list. Here follows the summary entry. The emphasised note is important and the link leads to the correspondence and the full entry in the 2007 report:
Iowa Meteorologists George Waldenberger and Gary Shore expressed skepticism about whether mankind was driving climate change in 2007. "Well, I went to school at UCLA, a big climate school. And it isn't really an issue as to if the global climate has been warming," Waldenberger said on April 11, 2007. "It has over the past 40 years. The question is what type of role do we take in that warming. Is it all natural fluctuations or are the increased concentrations of carbon dioxide part of this? And that's a subject that's up in the air," Waldenberger explained.
[ Note: There have been questions raised regarding whether Waldenberger belongs in this report. For clarification, please see this January
13, 2008 letter to Waldenberger. (LINK) ]
Do I need to add that Joseph Romm, (and Dessler et al), have again been found to make misleading statements? The widely blogged "Email from Waldenberger" appears to be an allegation only!
Andrew, can you offer any rational explanation as to why Waldenberger is again on the updated 650 list, and do you hold-by your previous unsubstantuated/unresearched assertions about Waldenberger?
Permalink
birdbrainscan Posted 4:23 am
12 Feb 2009
I've been building a website listing researchers working on climate science and related fields.
List of climate scientists
(No, I don't have a list just for "experts on feedbacks" though I do have a few notes on some topics each person has addressed.) I've included all 619 contributing authors to IPCC AR4 working group 1 (the scientific basis) as well as many others I've found. I've linked to their academic or research lab homepage (I found 580 of 619 wg1 authors; some sites such as the Hadley Centre don't allow personal homepages.)
I've used Google Scholar to note the number of cites to each author's top four most cited works. I sort the list on the number of cites of their #4 article.
I also note which authors have signed public declarations either for prompt action on cutting GHG emissions, or one of several 'skeptic' declarations and open letters.
I have also gone through the list on names in the Inhofe/Morano list of 'skeptics' for comparison. On the whole, Morano appears to have relied heavily on the lists of signatories of large skeptic statements like the 2008 Manhattan Declaration. Since some people have complained of being included on Morano's lists against their will and in conflict with their actual views on climate, I set off that listing separate from the documents that were evidently signed voluntarily.
Have a look at my summary and links at the top for some commentary on where signers of 'activist' statements and of skeptics statements fall on the ordering by most cited works.
Jim Prall
Toronto, Canada
http://birdbrainscan.blogspot.com/
Permalink
PeterMartin Posted 9:05 am
22 Feb 2009
Besides the finest collection of trolls, I think you might have at least one, not so fine, sockpuppet in "Burn The Witch" too.
"I would like to thank Max and Black Wallaby for providing a rational .... etc etc "
Come on Max (or maybe it's Black Wallaby?), you'll have to do better than that!
Permalink
BobFJ Posted 9:00 pm
22 Feb 2009
BTW, I have only come across the use of "sockpuppet" from one other person known as Josullivan here at Gristmill, frequently. She also monotonously accused Max and me of being the same person even though it was a silly and contradictory assumption.
Consequently, given the similar level of stupidity and irrelevance involved, I wonder if ...... no, I won't say it!
Listen to good news
Permalink