Recently, Senator James Inhofe published a list of 400 "prominent scientists" who have recently voiced significant objections mainstream climate science. In response to this list, I recently blogged that many of those listed lacked qualifications (see also here).
I'm betting that Sen. Inhofe doesn't want you to actually read the list of skeptics, but just read the headline and accept their conclusion. Here at Grist, however, we don't do what the good senator wants us to do very often. So in the spirit of non-compliance, I'm going to institute a semi-regular series where I examine the qualifications of some of the "experts" on the Inhofe 400 list.
Today's "prominent scientist": Thomas Ring
Mr. Ring's credentials include a degree from Case Western Reserve University in chemical engineering, although it is not specified what level degree it is.
The sum and total of his writings on climate change appear to be one letter he wrote to the Marin Independent Journal (full of the usual skeptic drivel, debunked here, here, and here). That's it.
I did a quick search on ISI's Web of Science and found no peer-reviewed publications by any T. Ring on anything that related to climate change. In addition, as someone who goes to meetings on climate change all the time, I've never seen this gentleman, so he very likely does not attend scientific meetings on this topic.
So the extent of his qualifications are: an engineering degree and the time and energy to write a letter to a newspaper.
Mr. Ring would never qualify as an expert on climate change in a court of law, nor would he ever be called before a Congressional Committee to give his opinion on this subject. By any metric, he is simply not an expert.
As should be obvious, there is no one single credential that qualifies someone as an expert. In general, however, I think we can all agree with the overall sentiment expressed in the American Medical Association's code of medical ethics, which says that experts should have recent and substantial experience in the area in which they testify.
Sen. Inhofe, however, eschews actual experience or knowledge in his selection of "experts." He probably views them as liberal claptrap. Under his set of rules, I estimate that just about everyone reading this blog is an "expert" on virtually every subject -- from string theory to nuclear engineering to the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow.
Overall, the existence of such transparently unqualified people on Senator Inhofe's list of so-called "prominent scientists" underscores the weakness of this list. It is beyond question that the good senator would have preferred to fill his list with credible yet skeptical climate scientists. But since there are so few of those available (just the endlessly recycled usual suspects), the good Senator was required to basically take anybody who said anything skeptical, regardless of their actual qualifications.
Let me say that I have no issue with Mr. Ring. He may well be a fantastic guy. But "prominent scientist" or "climate expert" he is not.
The new Senate global warming deniers
20 climate experts call for aggressive U.S. action
Do as Heartland says, not as it does
Comments View as Flat
GreyFlcn Posted 6:06 am
27 Dec 2007
One down
399 to go.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:26 am
27 Dec 2007
Maybe this might help
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272
Permalink
scatter Posted 7:25 am
27 Dec 2007
It might be quicker to go with who is qualified...
and deduct the remainder. Who on the list is a climate specialist? I assume at least one of them must be?
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 7:38 am
27 Dec 2007
Quicker, yes, but less fun
Scatter-
I agree it would be quicker to simply note the qualified skeptics on the list (there are probably a few dozen), but, from a rhetorical point of view, I think pointing out these immensely unqualified members of the list is more effective.
Permalink
scatter Posted 7:45 am
27 Dec 2007
Oh absolutely
It was half in jest. Please carry on!
But it would be interesting to get an indication of what proportion have done some work on the subject.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 9:05 am
27 Dec 2007
An Old Joke
There's a joke about two software developers.
The first developer (IPCC) says "My application has AJAX dynamic updates, a backend vertical database, remote method invocation and real time graphics."
The second developer (400) says "Yeah, but mine works."
Right now, the IPCC is batting zero percent for both the >90% and >66% confidence level predictions.
My Log
Permalink
angliss Posted 2:20 pm
27 Dec 2007
Conflicts of Interest too?
Are you going to dive into the supporters of the various "experts" as well? For example, if someone has a conflict of interest because they're being funded by ExxonMobil, or if he/she has a known history of association with people who are paid to distort science (like Steve Milloy of Junkscience.com and DemandDebate.com or Ken Green of the CEI)?
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 3:05 pm
27 Dec 2007
Science Cannot Be "Distorted"
This seems to be the essential mistake of most people here. You cannot "distort" science. Science is a process of discovery and knowledge.
Science progresses by its openess -- it's not made, it's found. Someone finds something interesting and presents it and then says, hey, it looks like if you do this, that will happen every time. Then he shows his data and the reasoning, so that everyone else can rip it apart.
What people here say is "Science" is more like polemic. The real papers are never presented here more or less discussed.
So, saying that a scientist is paid by Exxon is like saying that Jimi Hendrix was paid by a record company...did he distort his music because of that? Well, if he did, we still wouldn't be listening to it.
My Log
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 3:28 pm
27 Dec 2007
Remember again
The contrarians don't have the facts on their side. If they were to use the same arguements in a court of law they would be charged with perjury.
Permalink
angliss Posted 3:47 pm
27 Dec 2007
Semantics
Nice try - saying a climate scientist debunking global heating was paid by Exxon is like saying a doctor claiming Vioxx is safe was paid by Merck - it's a conflict of interest that corrupts every conclusion that the scientist (or doctor) makes. It's nearly impossible to prove that the research money didn't unduly influence the outcome, and it's professionally unethical.
And there are people out there who are paid to distort scientific data, if you want to get all semantic about it. And yes, I can provide you with proof if you like:
Permalink
angliss Posted 4:11 pm
27 Dec 2007
Thanks for this...
...Andrew. I was going to do something like this at one point, but if you're doing it, that means I can focus on debunking every single claim made by the combined total of all of the scientists - with data.
I'm up to 102 testable claims so far in my list.
Talk about a denier debunker's mother lode....
Permalink
trock Posted 10:23 pm
27 Dec 2007
make a list
It might be helpful to put all `inhofe 400' on a spreadsheet or table with the methods of deniererisms that they decided to use.
Something like the list of the actual arguments taken from deniers like at this website.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
I only wonder why there are only 400 names. I would think with how far they were reaching for names with those clearly unqualified as you show, they could have had a pile of names into the thousands. I suppose it was to associate with the movie of the `300' that saved civilization from the hoards.
Permalink
trock Posted 10:35 pm
27 Dec 2007
distortion
Jabailo,
You wrote.
`Science cannot be "distorted"
`Science is a process of discovery and knowledge'
Do you read your own stuff? Science can be distorted by scientists who distort the process of discovery and knowledge. Just as everything and anything can be distorted, by people who want to distort.
You can't name a single thing that can't be distorted.
Your post on the distortion of science was a distortion.
Permalink
LGT Posted 10:45 pm
27 Dec 2007
No surprise even...
Hi Andrew
Don't be discouraged, if it turned out that a few of the experts actually had some credentials because...
benp Posted 4:44 am
28 Dec 2007
The IPCC is made of the same stuff.
Andrew complains that "Mr. Ring would never qualify as an expert on climate change in a court of law".
Patricia Craig, Judith Cranage, Susan Mann, and Christopher Pfeiffer from Pennsylvania State University are all contributors to IPCC WGII AR4 "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability". Their roles are website-designer, administrative assistant (x2), and network administrator. *
Would they qualify as 'experts on climate change in a court of law'? So why are they listed as experts by the IPCC in Appendix II: "Contributors to the IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment Report"? http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2- ...
The IPCC is not as uniquely expert as Andrew claims. The reasons he makes the claim are political, not scientific. If climate scientists are lowering themselves to this extent, what does it say about their ability to critically evaluate the science - let alone themselves - in order to decide where to invest their faith.
* http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-heal- ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:54 am
28 Dec 2007
There's a diffrerence
There's a difference between a policy expert and a science expert.
They aren't science experts.
But then again we aren't really expecting them to be, since they aren't doing science. They are doing policy.
Permalink
benp Posted 5:01 am
28 Dec 2007
Grey misses the point.
Grey, they aren't doing either.
Administration assistants do things like send mail out, and organise meetings. Website designers design websites. Network administrators plug computers together.
Yet these people are listed as IPCC contributing authors.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 5:01 am
28 Dec 2007
Weak
benp-
There is an important difference here. The IPCC tags these people as support staff. No claim is made that they have any climate expertise. That's the difference with Inhofe's list. He would claim they were "climate experts" and "prominent scientists".
Note that we've gone from defending the indefensible, Inhofe's list, to attacking the IPCC. I suppose this is a tacit admission that Inhofe's list is totally bogus.
Permalink
benp Posted 5:28 am
28 Dec 2007
Andrew wants a p155ing contest.
Andrew is simply wrong to claim that that IPCC "tag these people as support staff" it simply doesn't.
Check for yourself - as Andrew should - at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2- ...
I am not interested in Andrew's claim that Inhofe's list is indefensible, it is perfectly reasonable to create an alternative list of sceptical opinion.
What is far more interesting is that on top of failing to check his own sources, Andrew moves the goalposts by changing from "there are more of us than there are of you" to "we are better qualified than you". Neither of these are science, nor are they true. It is a p155ing contest that Andrew wants. He can set the bar as high as he wants, but all he's going to get is a wet face.
He should get on with some of that climate science.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 5:47 am
28 Dec 2007
I don't want any contest
I'm simply pointing out how unqualified Thomas Ring is to comment on climate physics.
Do you dispute that? Do you admit that Inhofe's list is bogus?
If so, then we can turn to discussions of the IPCC.
Permalink
angliss Posted 5:50 am
28 Dec 2007
Contributers vs. reviewers
benp says: Andrew is simply wrong to claim that that IPCC "tag these people as support staff" it simply doesn't.
True, it tags them as "contributers". Given they helped pull together the report, they did "contribute" in a meaningful way, just not in a scientific way. Semantically, "contributer" could be anything from lead writer to reviewer to website designer to researcher.
If they'd shown up in the "Reviewers" section, you'd probably have a leg to stand on. As it is, the best you and I can do is complain about the semantics of how the IPCC used the word "contributer" and ask them to clean it up in the future. And that does nothing to advance this debate OR to disprove Andrew's critique of Mr. Ring.
Permalink
James Mayeau Posted 10:41 pm
28 Dec 2007
As I understand it
The co2 content of the atmosphere pre industrial era was roughly 300 ppm (give or take 20 ppm).
So all the coal natural gas and oil use by man since has added 80 ppm (give or take 20).
We all see the occasional warning about peak oil being reached already. Proven reserves will be used up in 30 or 40 years. So how likely is it that we will ever reach a doubling of co2? Not too bloody likely it seems to me.
And yet this is the tack that the IPCC panel of experts use as boogie man of global warming.
Since these people are holding up the impossible as a likely senario, this in itself negates any credibility they might be able to milk from their years of study.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:15 am
29 Dec 2007
More specifically
More specifically it was at 281ppm, it's now at 385ppm. 27% increase.
Sadly conventional oil doesn't even begin to be the worst we have to deal with.
http://greyfalcon.net/fossilenergy.png
Permalink
SammyOwl Posted 3:02 am
29 Dec 2007
IPCC lead authors also not qualified
If the Inhofe list has many without climate science publications and research resumes solely on climate science, then Dr.Dessler you also need to look into the AR4 lead authors, not staff. Again, we have biochemists, computer science, math, fluid dynamics, space physics, etc. And how about the curious Susie Solomon? How long and in how many ways has she been politically active in saving the world from one disaster or another? Like Pavlov's dogs, AGW had ones like her salivating for more money and fame to save the world once again. And they all appeared agian as IPCC lead authors with much fanfare and PR quotes, while those like Dr. Christy were attacked as heretics and somehow unclean and unscientific.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 4:12 am
29 Dec 2007
The problem is coal
Jim-
You're right about oil. We'll exhaust the cheap stuff in a few decades. As far as CO2 goes, the concern is coal. There's lots of it out there and it produces more CO2 per J of energy than either oil or gas. If we start burning coal to make up for the oil shortfall, then the CO2 is going to go through the roof.
In fact, that's probably why CO2 is rising now so much faster than we expected: the economic growth in China is fueled to a large extent by coal.
Permalink
trock Posted 4:44 am
29 Dec 2007
oil shales and tar sands.
Andrew,
not meant as a criticism you didn't include the oil shales and tar sands which will give problems the like using all the coal.
Hansen once wrote, we can live with all the natural gas and oil burned, but we add in coal and the rest, we then have the bad C02 problems.
Permalink
SammyOwl Posted 6:29 am
29 Dec 2007
Oil and gas OK?
Interesting that the AGW promoters are parsing their energy sources while still focusing exclusively on CO2 as the only threat to humanity from AGW. You might make a great political coalition of left wing enviro-AGW promoters, oil and gas companies and nuclear against coal, oil shale, and tar sands. That kind of compromise would work even today in America, but I doubt Grand Lord Hansen and his manadarins would have any part of that, and Gore would also reject it, as would the IPCC political powers from the EU and the developing countries, which have their hand permanently out for welfare. Senator Byrd (brain) would also block it.
Permalink
JLab68 Posted 7:02 am
29 Dec 2007
It doesn't take an expert
When you take an objective look past at the IPCC report, it doesnt take an expert to conclude that the book isn't yet closed on AGW, and attacking each others' experts seems even more silly. Here are some highlights from an independant summary of the IPCC report
Source: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/publication_d ...
Permalink
SammyOwl Posted 1:21 am
30 Dec 2007
Good summary
A very good summaary of the knowledge or lack thereof about AGW jLab. However, it is doomed to be rejected and ridiculed by the AGW promoters since it is "independent" and thus objective and unaffected by the IPCC bias and political influence of the UN and the partisan agenda IPCC was created to push. The IPCC does operate as a classical consensus process in one way, it is strongly unified to reject and personally attack all those who would question it. That is one characteristic of a consensus process that is the strongest once formed. Remember what the IPCC Peace Prize winner called Lomborg.
Permalink
Boris Posted 2:01 am
04 Jan 2008
Independent?
The Fraser Institute is not "independent" at all. It's reports push the libertarian point of view. Ross McKitrick is a senior fellow, for goodness sake. Independent?
They've held a conference called "Junk Science, Junk Policy? Managing Risk and Regulation," which would be bad enough if it were on climate. It was on the tobacco industry, however. So they have something in common with Singer.
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:07 am
11 Jan 2008
josullivan58 talks about facts
Josullivan58 comes back with the claim that has already been shot down on another site: "The contrarians don't have the facts on their side. If they were to use the same arguements in a court of law they would be charged with perjury."
But the point josullivan58 misses is:
In science, "facts" have to be demonstrated by scientific experimentation, which results in scientific evidence.
IPCC has not yet been able to bring scientific evidence supporting its claim that, "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
They have only been able to bring some observations of change and some computer models to try to explain this change.
Sorry, josullivan58, these are not "facts". Bring the evidence.
The alleged culprit (CO2) is "innocent until proven guilty", to use your courtroom analogy.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 12:11 pm
11 Jan 2008
Concensus and qualification
There has been a lot of back-and-forth blogging on this site on the "consensus" and the "qualifications required to have a relevant opinion" in the debate surrounding anthropogenic greenhouse warming and its impacts on climate.
The elitist premise by Andrew Dessler in his lead article that only a small group of highly specialized scientists are qualified to have or express an opinion is arrogant and has no place in a democratic society, when issues affecting everyone are discussed.
The analogy of the "child with cancer" is ridiculous - who says the child is (maybe) going to develop cancer in the next 100 years based on a virtual, computer-generated diagnosis, pre-programmed to predict disaster - the same guy selling the expensive "snake oil" to (maybe) prevent this (maybe) cancer from happening?
But back to the central question of qualification and consensus.
On the site listed below as well as the two others cited on this site by the author, he takes issue with Andrew's "cancer/doctor analogy in the in-whom-do-we-trust war" and covers in some detail the level of qualification of the IPCC's WGI, WGII and WGIII, concluding that somewhere over 50% of those sampled meet Andrew Dessler's qualifications, if one gives the benefit of the doubt to those employees at Hadley Centre and NOAA whose qualifications are not shown.
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-heal- ...
He concludes that most of these are in WGI, as could be expected, since this group is charged with assessing "the scientific impacts of climate change", while WGII and WGIII are charged with assessing the less scientific and more socio-political aspects of "impacts" and "mitigation" of climate change, respectively.
A review of the list on the Inhofe report to the US Senate comes up with about the same percentage, although Andrew might be more critical of the qualifications of these individuals than the author has been of the IPCC WG members, when he accepted those without listed qualifications mentioned above.
But how about the very top of the IPCC?
Here we have as Chair: Rajendra K. Pachauri, PhD in Industrial Engineering and Economics.
We also have 3 Vice-Chairs:
Richard Odingo (Kenya), graduate degree in Geography
Mohan Munasinghe (Sri Lanka), Engineering, PhD in Physics, Economics
Yuri A.Izrael (Russia), PhD in Physics, Climate Science
So it appears that of the top 4 people in IPCC we also have a 50% ratio of those (the latter two) that would meet Andrew Dessler's qualifications to have a relevant opinion on the science and the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse warming.
Now, of this 50% we have one-half that clearly does not support the IPCC claim that: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." Nor does he support IPCC predictions of potentially alarming negative impacts of global warming.
In dissenting with the[IPCC] scientific opinion on climate change, Izrael has stated, "climate change is obvious, but science has not yet been able to identify the causes of it," and, "there is no proven link between human activity and global warming." "I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate," and, "There is no need to dramatize the anthropogenic impact, because the climate has always been subject to change under Nature's influence, even when humanity did not even exist." "Additionally, he does not believe the 0.6 C rise in temperature observed in the last 100 years is a threat, stating, "there is no scientifically sound evidence of the negative processes that allegedly begin to take place at such temperatures." (Quotes from Wikipedia).
So we have one-half of the individuals at the top of IPCC that meet Andrew's requirements in order to be qualified to have an opinion on the science or impact of climate change, and, of this half, we have half that does not agree with (a) the science behind the IPCC claims linking human activity to current warming or (b) the potentially serious negative impact of global warming.
So much for "scientific consensus".
Max
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 3:35 pm
11 Jan 2008
To summarize
Manacker-
Let me see if I can summarize your post in fewer words: "The authors of the IPCC's working group I report, the one that connects warming with human activities, are all legitimate and expert climate scientists."
Thanks! That's exactly my point!
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:05 pm
11 Jan 2008
Message to Andrew Dessler
Sorry, Andrew, you got it wrong. Not all of WGI are "legitimate and expert climate scientists" as you claim, but there is a higher than 50% average that are.
In WGII and WGIII the percentage is lower, so that overall, the percentage is slightly over 50%.
This is about the same percentage as in Inhofe's list.
Among the IPCC "top 4" there are also only 50% "expert climate scientists", of which half do not support the IPCC claim of "connecting warming with human activities", as you put it, nor with the IPCC claim that this is potentially disastrous.
That's exactly my point, Andrew. No consensus among the "scientific community" (even within IPCC).
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 5:21 am
12 Jan 2008
Name please?
Max-
Can you list one or two dozen authors of the IPCC working group I report that are not legitimate climate scientists? I'm really interested to see this list.
Thanks!
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 5:42 am
12 Jan 2008
Who Is On the IPCC?
Here (I think) is the IPCC site.
http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm
This is the page on its organization:
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/how-the-ipcc-is-organized.htm
I don't see where any specific names are mentioned. The general hierarchy is displayed, but other than the Chairman (whose background is in building diesel locomotives) I don't see any names.
So...where are they?
My Log
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 5:44 am
12 Jan 2008
What Is A Climate Scientist?
The point is moot.
I've already argued there is not such thing as a "Climate Scientist". There is no major called Climatology. There is Atmospheric Science, and they can certainly learn about climate, but climate could also be a subtopic for an Abstract Mathematician, or a Chemist, or a Long Now expert. It's not really a science, but an interdisiplinary study and as such, everyone has a say on it.
My Log
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 6:00 am
12 Jan 2008
You graduated from Princeton?
Have you ever looked at the IPCC reports? No, I guess you haven't, which explains your views. The names are listed in the Appendix to the report.
Expertise in science is demonstrated by publishing in the peer reviewed literature. As such, there is a clear metric of expertise, and the authors of the IPCC WGI have it and Inhofe's list don't.Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 6:09 am
12 Jan 2008
Dessler: You're A Gas!
Get it...atmospheric science...gas...heh...well, anyway...
Which IPCC report should I read first so that you don't come back with "Oh, that old report...blah blah"?
So, here, I think, are the reports:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm
Which report PDF should I read (download) to see which scientists, by name, actually support and contribute to the current findings and recommendations of the IPCC?
My Log
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 6:29 am
12 Jan 2008
Paydirt!
Ok, here are the authors (Annex II) and reviewers (Annex III):
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1- ...
I'll be doing some research reading this...
My Log
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:21 am
12 Jan 2008
Reply to Andrew
Hi Andrew,
I have already given you the breakdown for the IPCC "top 4".
I have also shown you that there is no consensus among the qualified individuals at the top.
Check the following site for a breakdown of WGI, WGII and WGIII.
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/01/people-in-green ...
Can you provide me a breakdown of those in the US Senate report?
Thanks
Max
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 9:51 am
12 Jan 2008
Dancing!
Max-
Wow! You really tap dance fast! Too bad everyone can see it.
You've clearly conceded by your lack of response that the authors of the IPCC working group I report are expert climate scientists.
And I've shown in my blog posts that the Inhofe 400 are non-credible non-expert non-scientists.
Thank you. Game over.
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 9:57 am
12 Jan 2008
Climate-resistance agrees with me
I see that this web page also looked at the IPCC WGI author list and concluded that they were all legitimate climate scientists. More verification of my basic point.
BTW, "consensus" does not equal "unanimous". There are, in fact, known skeptics working on the IPCC reports, such as John Christy. The fact that the IPCC embraces skeptics demonstrates its intellectual honesty and diversity and its goal of considering a all views.
That the IPCC makes such a strong conclusion, even with the involvement of skeptics, demonstrates these conclusions' intellectual strength.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:16 pm
12 Jan 2008
Heh
Got a little frustrated on a different forum, and slapped this together.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2u4zNGtnY8
(Note: This is just a clip which I mooched from another Youtube video)
Permalink
manacker Posted 1:11 pm
12 Jan 2008
Sorry Andrew, you're wrong
Hi Andrew,
Apparently you misread the link I gave you. I suggest you read it carefully.
They did not "look at the IPCC WGI author list and conclude that they were all legitimate climate scientists" thereby giving you "more verification of your basic point".
What they reported is written below:
We promised to provide a breakdown of the IPCC's WGI as we did for WGII and III. So here goes:
As before, we've limited ourselves to those contributors based in the US or USA. That gives us 303 authors to work with out of a total of 618. That's nearly half the total - strange, for an institution which claims to represent scientists from all over the world.
It was very difficult to establish the discipline, background and level of expertise of scientists who work at the UK's Hadley Centre and Meteorological Office, and NOAA and NASA in the USA, as they tend not to have personal web pages. 31 of the UK contributors work at the Hadley Centre, 43 of the US contributors work at the NOAA. Where we have been unable to locate these people properly (nearly always), we've given them the benefit of the doubt, and included them in the same category as scientists in climatology, meteorology, and oceanography. There were 215 scientists in this category. So there is certainly a higher proportion of people who could reasonably be called climate scientists in WGI compared with II and III. But it's worth pointing out that this figure is also boosted by a whole bunch of people who work in climatology but who are modellers by training. That's not to knock modelling - well, maybe a bit - but it does raise questions about what a climate scientist actually is, when you get to call yourself one even if you've spent most of your career modelling traffic flows or whatever. We'll try to come up with some numbers for that at some point.
As for the other 88, 24 are atmospheric physicists, 27 are geophysicists or geologists. Arguably, these could also be lumped in with the so-called climate scientists. Ach, what the hell, let's call it 266 climate scientists out of 303. Of the rest, we have four statisticians, eight mathematicians/physicists, eight engineers, two biologists/ecologists, and one each from history of science, computer science, and a lonely economist. There were also solos from an NGO, an agronomist, and a lawyer (who curiously seemed to double up as an oceanographer). Which leaves another eight whose expertise we can't establish.
Hope this clears it up for you. Not all WGI are "legitimate climate scientists" (as you claim), according to the survey made.
As to your lofty words about IPCC accepting dissenting opinions and not insisting on consensus, i.e. IPCC "demonstrates its intellectual honesty and diversity and its goal of considering all views".
You might wish to read the IPCC Principles, where it says, among other things:
"Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental [i.e. a ,,political"] body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments."
"In taking decisions and approving, adopting and accepting reports, the Panel and its Working Groups shall use all best endeavors to reach concensus. If concensus is judged by the relevant body not possible: (a) for decisions on procedural issues, these shall be decided according to the General Regulations of the WMO; (b) for approval, adoption and acceptance of reports, differing views shall be explained and, upon request, recorded. Differing views on matters of a scientific, technical or socio-economic nature shall, as appropriate in the context, be represented in the scientific, technical or socio-economic document concerned. Differences of views on matters of policy or procedure shall, as appropriate in the context, be recorded in the Report of the Session."
So "consensus" is the clearly stated goal.
Differing views shall be represented in the document concerned, "as appropriate in the context", with IPCC deciding what is "appropriate in the context". And the review process involves not only "peer review by experts", but also "review by governments [i.e. politicians]".
The IPCC was specifically set up by the UN (arguably the ,,mother of all political organizations") to investigate the potential adverse impacts of human-induced climate change [primarily those changes caused by greenhouse emissions, principally CO2] and to identify options for mitigation of these changes. It is clear that its ,,raison d'etre" is to identify potential adverse impacts of human-induced climate change. To do so is in its self-interest. Conversely, to find no potentially adverse impacts of human induced climate change is not in its self-interest, nor in the interest of the politicians that created it.
Had the IPCC been set up to develop an understanding , and to explore all of all the factors that influence climate changes, both natural and human, as a purely scientific body, with no review by or reporting lines to a political organization with a political agenda, and no charter to concentrate on anthropogenic greenhouse warming, it would have been a totally different organization than it is today.
The truth is that the IPCC is not and never has been an organization that examines all aspects of climate change in a neutral and impartial manner. Its internal procedures reinforce the bias toward anthropogenic causes for these changes. It is very selective about the material included or considered in its reports.
Its fundamental claim that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" lacks scientific evidence.
Some of the individuals on the US Senate list, the December 13 letter to the UN SG and the latter last year to the Canadian PM have gone on record that their scientific views and input were rejected because they did not reinforce the desired political message. At least two true experts in their field (Chris Landsea and Paul Reiter) have resigned as a result and asked that their names be removed from the contributor list.
Then there are reports, such as the Wingham report, which showed a net growth in the Antarctic Ice Sheet over the period 1993-2003, which was ignored by the IPCC when it made its claim of a net loss in Antarctic ice mass over the same time period.
There are other cases where IPCC ignored (or "rejected" or "refused to accept as correct") scientific reports that did not support its claims, which I will be very glad to cite, if you are interested, Andrew.
Unfortunately, the "lofty ideals" one finds in charters and "principle" statements do not always reflect the cold, hard facts when "push comes to shove" in this political world, Andrew.
The truth is that not everyone is, in fact, an idealist, as I believe you probably may be.
That is why rational skeptics are needed to "keep them honest".
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 1:25 pm
12 Jan 2008
Meta comment for Manacker - html tags
Manacker,
You can use the blockquote formatting-tag for quoting things.
Tags go inside less-than/greater-than signs. To close a tag, use slash-tag, as in: /blockquote. Other tags:
i italics /i
u underline /u
b bold /b
s
strikethrough/sa href="putwebsiteurlhere" url tag /a
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 2:01 pm
12 Jan 2008
Provide names
Max-
I read that website, and it says they are all legitimate climate experts. If you disagree, please provide me with a name or two of someone who's an author but not an expert in some aspect of climate science.
Otherwise, I win.
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:44 pm
12 Jan 2008
ALL legitimate "climate experts"?
No, Andrew, you do not "win", just because you claim you did.
The website does NOT say, as you claim, that "these are all legitimate climate experts". In fact, if you read what it says, it says that somewhat over 50% of them are so.
I can accept the 50+% figure. But the 100% (= ALL) figure is just not true. Sorry.
Do not ignore the facts, just to try to prove a point.
For shame, Andrew, you are not being honest. I really thought better of you.
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 3:49 pm
12 Jan 2008
A tip to Andrew
Andrew, when you are in the hole, stop digging.
You have lost this debate.
Now show me that the individuals on the US Senate list are "not qualified", as you claimed, OK?
Otherwise, shut up on this topic.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:47 pm
12 Jan 2008
n
Manacker,
Please provide some names, as Andrew requested.
Permalink
manacker Posted 4:06 am
13 Jan 2008
Reply to nucbuddy
Hi nucbuddy,
To your question:
Below is list of Working Group I members
WGI Co-Chairs
Dahe Qin (China), graduate degree in Geography
Susan Solomon (USA), PhD in Chemistry
WGI Vice-Chairs
Kansri Boonpragob (Thailand), PhD in Biology
Filipo Giorgi (Italy), PhD in Physics, Geophysical Sciences
Bubu P. Jallow (Gambia), degree in Civil Engineering
Jean Jouzel (France), PhD in Chemistry
Maria T. Martelo (Venezuela), degree in Hydrology and Meteorology
David Wratt (New Zealand), degree in Physics, PhD in Atmospheric Science
Maybe these are all "climate scientists" according to Andrew's definition.
I would certainly agree that more than 50% probably are.
For the numbers of the whole list of WGI contributors check the website I already cited:
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/01/people-in-green ...
But Andrew should provide us a similar breakdown for the Inhofe list.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:25 am
13 Jan 2008
Manacker,
Thank you.
Fair enough.
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 4:53 am
13 Jan 2008
make the effort
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/12/makin-list-checkin-it- ...
A nice list...
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 5:48 am
13 Jan 2008
Definition of "climate scientist"
To the scientific community, expertise is demonstrated when someone publishes in the peer-reviewed literature on climate change issues. Going to meetings, being involved in scientific experiments, etc., are also ways --- but publication in the peer-reviewed literature is probably the most important standard.
All of the IPCC scientists you listed up above pass the criteria of expertise in climate issues.
You have yet to provide a name of a WGI author who's not a climate expert. In that sense, you're in total agreement with climate-resistance, who also failed to find a non-expert among the WGI authors.
Permalink
eriqa Posted 6:02 am
13 Jan 2008
My self-esteem is OK with the concept of experts
"The elitist premise by Andrew Dessler in his lead article that only a small group of highly specialized scientists are qualified to have or express an opinion is arrogant and has no place in a democratic society."
This is Bushthink in a nutshell - outrage that any such thing as an expert exists, that certain fields of knowledge take years of study to master, and that anyone could be considered more qualified than anyone else. It's this same attitude of contempt for expert opinion and warnings that got us into the Iraq mess.
If I, having studied biology in college but knowing nothing about engineering, started haranguing the Maryland Department of Transportation on why the design of its bridges is wrong - and qualified highway engineers glanced at my suggestions and saw they were unworkable and uninformed - the DOT should not waste any more taxpayer dollars making detailed analyses of my crackpot suggestions. And they would be perfectly justified in laughing me out of the room.
Citizens should be consulted when it comes to policy choices, normative decisions. How much money should Maryland spend on bridges and how much on public transit? Should the bridge be two lanes or four? These are questions about values that can be democratically decided. But questions of fact, such as whether a particular type of concrete is sufficiently resistant to the stress of freezing for a particular project, can only be decided by people who know something about the subject.
Of course, free speech means that I have the right to express my opinions about whatever I want, as much as I like. It does not mean that anyone else has an obligation to take them seriously.
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:15 am
13 Jan 2008
MarkUk List
Hi MarkUK,
Good job getting that list together.
Looks like out of the approximately 400 individuals listed, there are 97 climate related scientists that would meet Andrew's qualifications, plus 48 meteorologists (which benp also included among the "qualified" in his listing of IPCC contributors, i.e. all listed employees of Hadley Centre and NOAA). So Inhofe's list has around 36% "qualified" individuals.
The other site checked only US and UK contributors and found:
270 out of 311 members/contributors to WGI met Andrew's qualifications
27 out of 120 in WGII
29 out of 66 in WGIII
For a sub-total (excl. those outside USA/UK) of 326 out of 497 or 65% "qualified" individuals.
This does not prove very much except:
(a) There are more "qualified" individuals (as defined by Andrew) who contributed to IPCC (as a part of their normal research jobs for which they received pay) than there are "qualified" individuals who went out of their way to contribute to the US Senate report (for which they were presumably not paid).
(b) There is a significant "majority" supporting the IPCC view (assuming ALL the IPCC contributors agree with the IPCC party line).
(c)There is no "concensus" on the IPCC party line.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:19 am
13 Jan 2008
It's the politicians, eriqa
It is not "contempt of expert opinion" that got the USA into Iraq, as eriqa has written. It was politicians.
The Bush-led politicians used fear (of WMD in the hands of a tin-horn dictator as supported by the faulty "expert opinion" of the intelligence community) as expressed in the imminent "mushroom cloud smoking gun" to gain support for their political agenda (to justify a war in Iraq costing hundred of billions of dollars and many thousand lives).
Another set of politicians is now again using fear (this time of a global climate catastrophe as supported by the model-predicted "expert opinion" of anthropogenic greenhouse warming) as expressed in "6-meter waves swallowing New York City almost overnight within the next 10 to 100 years" to gain support for their political agenda (carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc. costing hundreds of billions of dollars being shuffled around by politicians and bureaucrats).
Beware of politicians using "expert opinion" to sell their political agendas.
Max
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 8:57 am
13 Jan 2008
Andrew,
I think you need not feel obliged to continue to reply to such as Manacker who is not paying even enough attention to spell "consensus" consistently in his posts. He clearly has nothing more useful to do with his time, and I am sure you do. Let the poor bugger have the last word, or three.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
manacker Posted 9:52 am
13 Jan 2008
Message to spaceshaper
Hi spaceshaper,
A unanimous "consensus", no matter how you (mis-)spell it, does not exist.
A significant majority "consensus" does (whether this is 75% or 95% of the "scientific community" is irrelevant).
And there is a "qualified" opinion that does not agree with the "consensus".
And many of the "qualified" dissidents signed the US Senate list.
Now, I like your ideas on rail transportation. I live in Switzerland, where we have a good system that is being expanded. It is a publicly owned system that works.
I have visited the SF Bay area, which also has a good system (BART), with the tracks inside the freeway lanes. Problem with the system there is that it does not cover the entire region, since many communities "opted out" when it was built.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 6:06 am
14 Jan 2008
it's difficult
Max,
I suppose you could say the difference is that the IPCC report was put together by experts reviewing many scientific studies and taking a lot of time to see where the common ground is on climate science.
The US senate report (if you would bother to research this) is nothing more than a list of people some of whom happen to be scientists. A list on which there are people who do not want anything to do with it. Because it is not the result of any research effort. It's just a PR effort by some senator.
Anybody unable to make that distinction is not intelligent enough to even bother with global warming and should be baking cookies...
Permalink
manacker Posted 8:25 am
14 Jan 2008
Message to MarkUK
Hi MarkUK,
The debate has nothing to do with "baking cookies".
Sure, Inhofe is a politician, as are Al Gore and Ban Ki Moon. They are just selling different messages. Do they all use PR to sell their messages? You bet.
Does IPCC Chair Dr. Pachauri use PR to sell his message? And how!.
But that is all beside the point.
The claim was made that the individuals on the US Senate list are not qualified to have an opinion, and that claim is what I decided to check.
I have "researched" the report and I have checked the list of names from Eli Rabett, which you provided.
My check showed that there were many on the list who are, indeed, qualified to have an opinion.
And that is what we are talking about.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 4:59 pm
14 Jan 2008
Apron anyone?
Max,
You wrote:
"This does not prove very much except:
(a) There are more "qualified" individuals (as defined by Andrew) who contributed to IPCC (as a part of their normal research jobs for which they received pay) than there are "qualified" individuals who went out of their way to contribute to the US Senate report (for which they were presumably not paid)."
Qualified individuals who went out of their way to contribute the US senate report? Really? What you are doing there is placing the IPCC report and the US senate report on a level playing field. If you can't see how dishonest that is you really do need to get an apron.
I would also like to see your analysis of Inhofe's claims on the science of global warming. Looks like he is a bit on the nutty side of the equation... But hey, if you like his company, go for it.
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 8:49 pm
14 Jan 2008
Reading the entrails
FYI, Max, nobody "signed the US Senate list" or contributed to it (other than Morano himself). He just picked the names up off the web. A few other observations (perhaps a little duplicative since I haven't re-read the whole thread):
-- It's a strain to call this a "U.S. Senate report" when it's just something Inhofe posted on his blog. No other Senator signed off on it.
-- Many of the "qualified" people on the list are in fact qualified, but their quotes either don't show them as being in disagreement with the consensus or are taken out of context.
-- As Andrew noted at the outset, the actual qualified people who are accurately quoted and consider themselves not part of the consensus boil down to pretty much the usual suspects. Of those, hardly any are "prominent scientists." In fact, I think Richard Lindzen may be the only one left standing. He'd like that.
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:37 am
15 Jan 2008
Apron strings for MarkUK
In your "Apron" message to me you wrote: "Qualified individuals who went out of their way to contribute the US senate report? Really? What you are doing there is placing the IPCC report and the US senate report on a level playing field. If you can't see how dishonest that is you really do need to get an apron."
No, MarkUk, I am not putting the IPCC report and Inhofe's US Senate report on a level playing field. You made that part up all by yourself.
The IPCC report is obviously a work of many people over many years with a lot of scientific backup and computer-based projections and a partly scientific and partly political message. I am sure that the cost of producing this very slick and very professional report with all its backup studies goes into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Inhofe's report was put together by his staff (I presume) to show that there are some scientists who do not agree with one thing or another in the IPCC report. It is obviously a political message containing a few statements by a few scientists. I do not think that Inhofe paid very much to produce this report, so there is no comparison with either the content nor the effort required to produce it.
So relax, there is no "level playing field".
To your other statement: "I would also like to see your analysis of Inhofe's claims on the science of global warming".
I have no notion what Inhofe claims about the science, so I cannot agree or disagree with him.
But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing his claim that not all scientists agree with everything in the IPCC report, for which he provided evidence.
One or the other scientist quoted or listed has since been "shot down" on this site and others as "not qualified" to have a relevant opinion. When I went through Eli Rabett's list which you provided, I could see about 100 names of scientists that would be considered to be qualified plus another 50 meteorologists, that probably also have a valid opinion on climate.
So if the AGW machine is going to discredit the others one by one, they have about 250 individuals to trash. This will be a long process.
Don't be angry with me, MarkUK. And don't say I am "dishonest" because I do not share your viewpoint on the alarming AGW scare. I do not consider you dishonest for your viewpoint.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
manacker Posted 7:50 am
15 Jan 2008
Message to Steve Bloom
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your message.
As I recall the report was presented to a committee of the U.S. Senate.
You wrote: "As Andrew noted at the outset, the actual qualified people who are accurately quoted and consider themselves not part of the consensus boil down to pretty much the usual suspects. Of those, hardly any are "prominent scientists." In fact, I think Richard Lindzen may be the only one left standing. He'd like that."
Well, there do appear to be about 100 qualified scientists and another 50 meteorologists on the list, leaving the other 250 as not "qualified".
Sure, it's a smaller number than the "2,500" that are quoted by IPCC, but Richard Lindzen is definitely not standing alone.
He even has an IPCC Vice-Chair that agrees with his view that there is no evidence that current warming is caused by CO2 and there is no reason to believe that this warming will be harmful.
Regards,
Max
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:50 pm
08 Mar 2008
To all believers of the IPCC in the USA
Do you also watch that "Dumbing-Down" FOX NEWS on TV?
BTW, Richard Murdoch is NOT AUSTRALIAN, he changed his citizenship to that of the USA, apparently for commercial reasons
IMHO, he is an evil man, and I'm relieved that he is NOT AUSTRALIAN
Permalink