AGW Alarmists should not fly first class

[GIGObuster]

@intention

Gosh, that sounds a whole lot like what I have said over and over on SDMB. Now, do you disagree with that, and if so what and why? And why is Dr. Cotton not a climate scientist? That’s crazy.

Again, Cotton does remain part of the minority report. And everybody can see that you are avoiding dealing with the fact that the Meteorological society approves of the efforts of Hansen. (I typed Jensen on the last quote by error) The cite I’m asking is the one that shows that the majority of Meteorologists is against AGW, the award and other contexts show me that it was inaccurate for you to claim that “His claims are “easily disproven” because he is ignoring recent history, which the top Meteorologists are not foolish enough to do.”

Nope, the majority of top Meteorologists do not see his claims “easily disproven” You still need to provide a cite showing what the consensus among Meteorologists is against Hansen and AGW.

@intention

Finally, what about those people identified in Lobohan’s citation as actually being climate scientists? Since you diss most people on the list because they are not identified in Lobohan’s citation as being climate scientists, should we put more weight on what the ones that are listed in his citation as “climate scientists” have to say?

Again, you avoid the issue that it remains a minority “report”; and as noticed, disjointed, all over the map, misleading, out of date, with many researchers wanting to be removed from the list. In essence there is a demonstrated lack of agreement on what is the point of the “report” is. It remains only a cherry picked survey, a hit parade of denial that has been rebuked many times before, both on the list level and even on the “science” points the researchers on the list mention.

Really, the Tennekes quote sounds even more ridiculous because he is dealing with Gore (not a scientist) and supporting the IPCC, when the minority “report” main reason to be is to refute the IPCC!

Scientific Inquiry concludes: Inhofe List “Not credible …”

One of the most infamous examples of this are the various incarnations of a “report” cobbling together statements from scientists that supposedly dissent from the scientific consensus on humanity’s role in driving accelerating global warming. This is a quite favorite ‘denier’ citation, the supposed 400 or 600 or 700 (depending on which version) number of scientists who have, supposedly, gone on record against the Theory of Global Warming. And, they like to cite this as from the “Senate Environment and Public Works Committee”, without mentioning that this is a Minority Report from global-warming denier, fossil fool James Inhofe’s staff.

Well, today the Center for Inquiry (CFI), “an organization committed to defending scientific integrity,

has today dealt a body blow to global warming skeptics by releasing findings exposing the lack of credibility of dissenting scientists challenging man-made global warming

CFI’s Office of Public Policy undertook an assessment of the 687 people listed as “dissenting scientists” in the January 2009 version of the ‘Inhofe list’. Their conclusions:

* Slightly fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists.
* Approximately 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science.
* Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.
* Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Lobohan

Why do you place your ignorant and uninformed opinion against thousands of climate scientists from across the globe? Do you think they are in a conspiracy to steal money from you?

There are many respectable scientists who dissent from that view. Not to take note of this, and to speak of global warming as an absolute certainty that no reasonable person would question is tremendously dishonest.

[Ludovic]

@LonesomePolecat

There are many respectable scientists who dissent from that view. Not to take note of this, and to speak of global warming as an absolute certainty that no reasonable person would question is tremendously dishonest.

@LonesomePolecat

There are many respectable scientists who dissent from that view. Not to take note of this, and to speak of global warming as an absolute certainty that no reasonable person would question is tremendously dishonest.

@LonesomePolecat

There are many respectable scientists who dissent from that view. Not to take note of this, and to speak of global warming as an absolute certainty that no reasonable person would question is tremendously dishonest.

@LonesomePolecat

There are many respectable scientists who dissent from that view. Not to take note of this, and to speak of global warming as an absolute certainty that no reasonable person would question is tremendously dishonest.

@LonesomePolecat

There are many respectable scientists who dissent from that view. Not to take note of this, and to speak of global warming as an absolute certainty that no reasonable person would question is tremendously dishonest.

@LonesomePolecat

There are many respectable scientists who dissent from that view. Not to take note of this, and to speak of global warming as an absolute certainty that no reasonable person would question is tremendously dishonest.

Nope, still don’t believe it.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Ludovic

Nope, still don’t believe it.

Ah, I see. For you, it’s a question of religious faith, not science.

[Ludovic]

I dunno, maybe repeat it a few thousand more times and I moght drink your kool aid.

[Lobohan]

@LonesomePolecat

Ah, I see. For you, it’s a question of religious faith, not science.

If you care that there are many reputable scientists that don’t hold the view that AGW is real, why don’t you care that thousands of times as many of reputable scientists hold the view that AGW is real?

Why do you side with the marginal fringe? Because you want to, and reality is subordinate to your ideological underpinnings?

Your argument is an argument against your stance. If the fact that there are some number (and there aren’t actually many, only a pathetic handful) who stand against AGW, while thousands upon thousands of actual scientists in the field find the evidence compelling means you should believe the majority view.

At what ratio of credible scientists who find AGW to be likely to credible scientists who find AGW to be rubbish will you believe? Ten thousand to one?

[Lobohan]

@intention

Oh, I see. So if I quote the work of a scientist who thinks that there is a God with a white beard looking over us, that means that I’m a religious man?

Please learn to distinguish between “the work of” and “the beliefs of”. Agreeing with one doesn’t mean you agree with the other. It’s subtle, I know, but with practice it will come to you.

No, Inhofe’s thesis is that climate change is a hoax, he is willing to lie to stop it. He has compiled a list of 700 people who he says that are scientists who find AGW to be a lie.

Got it so far?

He has taken clippings from interviews, omitted sections and put people who believe in AGW and presented them as against AGW. He has also accepted high school science teachers, engineers, and random unrelated disciplines onto his list. He has accepted T.V. weathermen and scientists who’ve retired decades ago (and presumably aren’t up to date on the current science).

Got it so far?

You are providing this list from a liar, that uses dishonest quoting, and irrelevant experts as evidence for 700 scientists against climate change. You want us to believe that all seven hundred are:

1. Quoted correctly.
2. Qualified to comment.

It has not been shown what amount of the 700 are actually quoted correctly and qualified to comment. Since Inhofe is a liar, it is up to you, the person offering this list compiled by a liar, to tell us how many of the 700 are actually climate scientists who disbelieve AGW.

Got it so far?

I checked the first fifteen pages of the list and found 3 of the 37 that appeared qualified, although two worked for carbon producing energy companies (which, you must admit makes them a little suspicious) and the third produced an anti-global warming slideshow that to me, looked like a stupid child had constructed it. This doesn’t mean he actually is sloppy and inattentive to details, but it made me pause.

But even then 3 of 37. If you claim that there are others, it is up to you to show it to me. And prove that they are:

1. Quoted correctly.
2. Qualified to comment.

None of this would be necessary if you weren’t using as evidence a document compiled by a liar. But you are. And if you’re presenting rubbish by someone willing to fake evidence, you need to authenticate it before people will accept it.

Got it?

[LonesomePolecat]

@Lobohan

If you care that there are many reputable scientists that don’t hold the view that AGW is real, why don’t you care that thousands of times as many of reputable scientists hold the view that AGW is real?

Why do you side with the marginal fringe? Because you want to, and reality is subordinate to your ideological underpinnings?

Your argument is an argument against your stance. If the fact that there are some number (and there aren’t actually many, only a pathetic handful) who stand against AGW, while thousands upon thousands of actual scientists in the field find the evidence compelling means you should believe the majority view.

At what ratio of credible scientists who find AGW to be likely to credible scientists who find AGW to be rubbish will you believe? Ten thousand to one?

Well, here is a petition signed by 31,000 scientists in relevant fields who believe the evidence presented for global warming is inadequate. Below is a description quoted from that site concerning the qualifications of the signers. This doesn’t look like a “marginal fringe” to me.

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,714 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,804 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,821 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,103 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers’ educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,804)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)
2. Earth (2,239)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,683)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)
3. Environment (986)

I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)
Computers & Math (935)

1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)

I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)
Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

1. Physics (5,225)

I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)
2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,821)

1. Chemistry (3,128)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)
2. Biology (1,438)

I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)
3. Agriculture (783)

I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)
Medicine (3,046)

1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering & General Science (10,103)

1. General Engineering (9,834)

I) Engineering (7,281)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)
2. General Science (269)

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@LonesomePolecat

Well, here is a petition signed by 31,000 scientists in relevant fields who believe the evidence presented for global warming is inadequate. Below is a description quoted from that site concerning the qualifications of the signers. This doesn’t look like a “marginal fringe” to me.

Just for grins, I thought I’d go grab one unique sounding name from your list and google it. Haphazardly, I chose Roger C. Burggraf. Googling that, I found this description of Roger C. Burggraf:

"A 30-year veteran of the environmental and mine safety industry, Roger C. Burggraf directs Silverado’s external relations with state agencies, ensuring the company meets all environmental and safety standards.

Mr. Burggraf is responsible for obtaining permits, managing claim maintenance, and implementing safety operations for Silverado’s Alaska operations.

He holds a B.S. in Wildlife Management and Conservation with a minor in Geology from Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, located in Ithaca, NY.

Mr. Burggraf is a member of the Alaska Miners Association and was formerly appointed by the Governor of Alaska to the Alaska Minerals Commission."

Is it his BS minor in Geology that makes his opinion more qualified on the topic than my 8 year old son.?

In my googling, I found this on another message board:

Victor Hugo Auerbach, PhD-member, American Chemical Society
Louis A. Auerbach-psychotherapist
Keith H. Aufderheide-PhD in chemistry
William R. Aufricht-either an agribusiness marketing manager or a college graduate in 1948
Dale A. Augenstein-lobbyist
Owen H. Auger-Australian engineer
Dustin M. Aughenbaugh-90 yo vet WWII or guitarist
Joe Augspurger, PhD-Chemical engineer
Mike August-no PhD found
James K. August-President of Metal Recycling Corp
Brian Augustine, PhD in Chemistry
W. David Augustine-Engineering consultant
Frederick N. Aukeman-employed by Lone Star Industries, formerly United Cement
J. Todd Aukerman- employee of Bayer Corporation
C. Mark. Aulick-employee Skywire Software

I got this far and then found the Daily Kos was doing the same thing

Ronald G. Alderfer: published a scientific paper in 1971. Nothing since.
Donald F. Amend: a fisheries scientist.
David Anderson: a Bush political appointee Asst Secretary for Indian Affairs.
Donald N. Anderson: nothing found
Roger Baer: mineralogist
Alex Baskous: medical doctor
Don Bassler: petroleum engineer
Don Beitia: executive at Unocal and president of the oil industry’s response cooperative.
William M. Bohon: nothing found
James Boltz: Petro Star, Inc, running a refinery in Alaska
John K. Bowman: author of “The Use of Woodwaste for Road Construction in SE Alaska”
Mike Briscoe: Director of GTP Technologies, BP America (British Petroleum)
Carrel Bryant: nothing found
William Burgess: geotechnical and environmental consultant/lobbyist
Roger C. Burggraf: Nothing found
Bonnie Carrington: BA in Architecture, works with computers
Glen D. Chambers: BS Mechanical Engineering, retired businessman
Lowell Crane: BP Exploration, Alaska
Michael Croft: Nothing found
Thomas Delahunt: Nothing found
Edward M. Dokoozian PhD: Nothing found

Didn’t the debunking of previous lists give you even a moment’s pause before believing the claims that your list of over 30,000 names would stand up to the merest scintilla of scrutiny? Or was your intention merely to start a snipe hunt?

[Lobohan]

@LonesomePolecat

Well, here is a petition signed by 31,000 scientists in relevant fields who believe the evidence presented for global warming is inadequate. Below is a description quoted from that site concerning the qualifications of the signers. This doesn’t look like a “marginal fringe” to me.

LonesomePolecat, I do not mean this as a dig. I don’t agree with you politically, but I don’t think you’re a stupid or evil person. But you really have to question things before you believe them.

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

Notwithstanding this rebuke, the Oregon Petition managed to garner 15,000 signatures within a month’s time. S. Fred Singer called the petition “the latest and largest effort by rank-and-file scientists to express their opposition to schemes that subvert science for the sake of a political agenda.”

Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel called it an “extraordinary response” and cited it as his basis for continuing to oppose a global warming treaty. “Nearly all of these 15,000 scientists have technical training suitable for evaluating climate research data,” Hagel said. Columns citing the Seitz petition and the Robinson paper as credible sources of scientific expertise on the global warming issue have appeared in publications ranging from Newsday’, the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post to the Austin-American Statesman, Denver Post, and Wyoming Tribune-Eagle.

In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM’s website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the “National Anxiety Center.” Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the “biggest hoax of the decade,” a “genocidal” campaign by environmentalists who believe that “humanity must be destroyed to ‘Save the Earth.’ . . . There is no global warming, but there is a global political agenda, comparable to the failed Soviet Union experiment with Communism, being orchestrated by the United Nations, supported by its many Green NGOs, to impose international treaties of every description that would turn the institution into a global government, superceding the sovereignty of every nation in the world.”

When questioned in 1998, OISM’s Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, “and of those the greatest number are physicists.” This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM’s website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show MAS*H), an individual by the name of “Dr. Red Wine,” and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell’s field of scientific specialization was listed as “biology.” Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names. The current web page of the petition itself states “31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs.”[15]

The petition is run by these guys: http://oism.org/

They are a group run out of the backwoods of Oregon and the so-called petition accepted names over the internet and had no attempt to verify the credentials of the people who were submitted to it. For instance, I could sign the name Al Gore, Ph.D and they would add it to the list. You are believing in a publicity stunt run by a liar. But the right-wing side of the internet is abuzz with this and no one questions it. It’s very frustrating.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Lobohan

LonesomePolecat, I do not mean this as a dig. I don’t agree with you politically, but I don’t think you’re a stupid or evil person. But you really have to question things before you believe them.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch
The petition is run by these guys: http://oism.org/

They are a group run out of the backwoods of Oregon and the so-called petition accepted names over the internet and had no attempt to verify the credentials of the people who were submitted to it. For instance, I could sign the name Al Gore, Ph.D and they would add it to the list.

From the petition site:

This petition is primarily circulated by U. S. Postal Service mailing to scientists. Included in this mailing are the petition card, the letter from Frederick Seitz, the review article, and a return envelope. If a scientist wishes to sign, he fills out the petition and mails it to the project by first class mail.

Additionally, many petition signers obtain petition cards from their colleagues, who request these cards from the project.

A scientist can also obtain a copy of the petition from this Internet website, sign, and mail it. Fewer than 5% of the current signatories obtained their petition in this way.

Petition project volunteers evaluate each signers’s credentials, verify signer identities, and, if appropriate, add the signer’s name to the petition list.

Do you have any facts to show that this isn’t true?

After browsing a bit at Sourcewatch, I’d say it’s a website dedicated to doing hatchet jobs on right wingers and others guilty of political incorrectness, and whitewashing left wingers.

@Lobohan

You are believing in a publicity stunt run by a liar. But the right-wing side of the internet is abuzz with this and no one questions it. It’s very frustrating.

It’s just as frustrating to see leftwingers unquestioningly accept the findings of the IPCC, even though they’ve been caught cooking their data and refusing to disclose the data they used for their findings. What’s more, they’re sponsored by the UN, an organization rife with political corruption )e.g the Oil for Food scandal) that would just love to have power over international commerce and energy use.

I don’t know why I bothered, Lobohan. All I see here are the usual unsubstantiated attacks on character that seem to be so typical of AGWers. No matter how good my sources were, you would still have refused to accept them.

The really aggravating thing is, lefties tell you to question authority and think for yourself. But if you do exactly that, and you come to a conclusion they don’t like, they call you an ignorant yahoo.

[Lobohan]

@LonesomePolecat

From the petition site:

Do you have any facts to show that this isn’t true?

Well I have the form they used a couple years ago that you could download from their website:
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/1747/galtlolkx3.jpg

I saved it when your list made the rounds and was discredited years ago.

After browsing a bit at Sourcewatch, I’d say it’s a website dedicated to doing hatchet jobs on right wingers and others guilty of political incorrectness, and whitewashing left wingers.

It has a good rep, and I haven’t seen any whitewashing of left-wingers. Do you think that maybe, just maybe the side that promotes “death panels”, “killing grandma”, “tyranny”, “birthers” and so forth, just might be the side with more outright lies being proffered?

It’s just as frustrating to see leftwingers unquestioningly accept the findings of the IPCC, even though they’ve been caught cooking their data and refusing to disclose the data they used for their findings. What’s more, they’re sponsored by the UN, an organization rife with political corruption )e.g the Oil for Food scandal) that would just love to have power over international commerce and energy use.

The IPCC was signed onto by thousands of experts in climate science from around the world. They ran a political gamut of countries and you believe with no evidence that they are trying to trick you?

I don’t know why I bothered, Lobohan. All I see here are the usual unsubstantiated attacks on character that seem to be so typical of AGWers. No matter how good my sources were, you would still have refused to accept them.

Not true at all. On a complex issue I would side with the vast majority of experts. Global warming isn’t a political issue. The right is trying to make it one by shifting public opinion, not science.

The really aggravating thing is, lefties tell you to question authority and think for yourself. But if you do exactly that, and you come to a conclusion they don’t like, they call you an ignorant yahoo.

I’m just saying that you’re trusting bad sources. The Oregon Institute is a group of hatchet job “scientists” that took random names over the internet of people without credentials to pad their numbers. Even Inhofe’s list isn’t so moronic to claim that a random petition of internet trolls is anything like evidence.

[elucidator]

…they don’t like, they call you an ignorant yahoo.

Just an innocent lamb, are you, gamboling and frolicking amongst the daffodils? Clearly, somebody needs a hug! Volunteers?

[GIGObuster]

@LonesomePolecat

I don’t know why I bothered, Lobohan. All I see here are the usual unsubstantiated attacks on character that seem to be so typical of AGWers. No matter how good my sources were, you would still have refused to accept them.

The really aggravating thing is, lefties tell you to question authority and think for yourself. But if you do exactly that, and you come to a conclusion they don’t like, they call you an ignorant yahoo.

Oh really? Dr Seitz never saw any problems on whoring himself to the Tobacco industry and then to the denial racket. However, even Phillip Morris had to call him irrational and senile and recommended not using his help back on 1989.

But because he was a former member of the academy he got jobs in denial think thanks. In 1996 the Dr. made a letter that accused the climate research of corruption, but it was condemned by virtually all researchers.

That letter got the attention of the Oregon Institute, and they with the help of Dr. Seitz then set up the fraudulent scheme. (The mailing looked just like mailings from the National Academy.)

Oregon Petition

After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in a 1998 news release that “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.”[15] It also said “The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.” The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that “even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises.”[16]

Video:

- YouTube

32,000 of the leading researchers?

Really!? Really!?

Well, not really.

This sordid little episode in the history of climate denial points up once again the fundamental dishonesty of the climate denial industry. Those that repeat the claims about the supposed 32,000 scientists are either ignorant or participant in the scam.

The Youtube video is required watching to understand how dishonest the survey makers are.

[intention]

Lobohan, you have claimed several times that the “700 list” has been discredited. You said:

@Lobohan

No, it’s your argument that is bullshit. Inhofe’s list has been soundly discredited and you’re only looking a fool by trying to shore it up. A physicist who isn’t working in climate science isn’t qualified to assess the state of the art in climate science.

I suggest you take a look here: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uplo...eb_viewing.pdf [<– PDF warning] so you can stop blindly parroting the 700 list.

So I decided I’d take a look, and count the people on the 700 list that your citation said were climate scientists. I went through the list one by one, and I got a big surprise. I was quoted on 700 list … go figure. I was unaware of that, and I was taken totally unawares.

So I went through your citation to see which people were climate scientists. Here’s the complete list of those that your citation says are actual, no-bullshit climate scientists:

Donald Baker
Tim Ball
David Bromwych
Gerd Burger
Christopher Castro
John Christy
Rose Compagnucci
Robert Davis
David Douglas
Oliver Frauenfeld
Chris de Freitas
Jim Goodridge
Detlef Herbert
Doug Hoyt
Ole Humlum
Craig Idso
Sherwood Idso
Sergei Kravtsov
David Legates
Marcel Leroux
Richard Lindzen
Anthony Lupo
Bjorn Malmgren
John Maunder
Patrick Michaels
Michaele Monce
Dick Morgan
Garth Paltridge
Roy Spencer
Roger Pielke Sr.
Hans von Storch
Lowell Stott
Geoge Taylor
Chris Walcek
George Waldenberger
Gosta Walin
Charles Wax
Richard Wilson
Duncan Wingham

oh … and me. Willis Eschenbach. I’m officially listed by your great authoritative “soundly debunking” citation as a climate scientist. Look it up …

So. Either your citation is golden, and I’m a climate scientist, or your list is not making valid judgements on who is a climate scientist, and is thus worthless.

Your call …

In any case, there’s 40 climate scientists for you to dispute things with … pick one, give us what they are quoted as saying, and tell us why they are wrong. Forget about your hatred of Inhofe, and come back to the real world and tell us why you disagree with them.

[intention]

Lobohan, you asked me to check the list for climate scientists. I’ll take your list for a start. Here’s one (emphasis mine):

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, former UN IPCC lead author and reviewer and an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, called fears of man-made global warming “silly” in January 31, 2007 CNN interview. “I think it’s mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves,” Lindzen said. “Nobody’s arguing that man has zero impact on the climate. But the question is can you distinguish it from all the other stuff going on? And I think the answer is still no,” Lindzen told the Weather Channel on January 14, 2007. “Controlling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life,” he also told the Weather Channel on March 31, 2007. Lindzen dismisses “solutions” to global warming like changing light bulbs to fluorescent or participating in the Kyoto Protocol. “If you had a decision to make which actually would matter, then, of course it would be a very difficult
situation,” Lindzen said in an April 28, 2007 CBS Chicago TV special “The Truth About Global Warming.” “One of the things the scientific community is pretty agreed on is those things will have virtually no impact on climate no matter what the models say. So the question is do you spend trillions of dollars to have no impact? And that seems like a no- brainer,” he said. Lindzen also explained the UN’s IPCC Summary for Policymakers involves only a dozen or so scientists. "It’s not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else…but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit," Lindzen said. “At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn’t been uniform-warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy,” Lindzen wrote in the April 16, 2007 issue of Newsweek.

OK, there’s the first one. He says, and he’s been involved intimately in the process, that the summary (the part of the IPCC report that is always quoted) is not written by scientists. He says that scientists can’t even explain the warming and cooling which has occurred in the 20th century. He says actions to reduce CO2 are futile, just as I said here.

Debunk away. Show us where he is wrong.

[GIGObuster]

@intention

In any case, there’s 40 climate scientists for you to dispute things with … pick one, give us what they are quoted as saying, and tell us why they are wrong. Forget about your hatred of Inhofe, and come back to the real world and tell us why you disagree with them.

That is easy, they are officially still the minority report.

Not a consensus. And as it was mentioned before, it is the job of the deniers to present points that were not debunked, discredited or ignored before.

[intention]

Here’s another climate scientist officially approved by your list. Emphasis mine:

Climatologist Dr. David R. Legates, the Delaware State Climatologist and the Director, Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, has authored or coauthored 45 peer-reviewed scientific studies. Legates also expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “Scientific debate continues regarding the extent to which human activities contribute to global warming and what the potential impact on the environment might be. Importantly, much of the scientific evidence contradicts assertions that substantial global warming is likely to occur soon and that the predicted warming will harm the Earth’s biosphere,” Legates wrote in a May 15, 2007 study entitled “Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts.” “Sea levels have been rising - in fact, they have been rising since the end of the last ice age 20,000 years ago - but there is no evidence of an
accelerating trend. The complexity of the climate and the limitations of data and computer models mean projections of future climate change are unreliable at best. In sum, the science does not support claims of drastic increases in global temperatures over the 21st century, nor does it support claims of human influence on weather events and other secondary effects of climate change,” Legates concluded. Legates has also served as Coordinator of the National Geographic sponsored Delaware Geographic Alliance and served as the Associate Director for the NASA sponsored Delaware Space Grant Consortium. (LINK) Legates has also clashed with the Governor of Delaware in 2007 because of the Governor disagreed with his skeptical views on global warming. (LINK)

Debunk away …

[Lobohan]

@intention

So I decided I’d take a look, and count the people on the 700 list that your citation said were climate scientists. I went through the list one by one, and I got a big surprise. I was quoted on 700 list … go figure. I was unaware of that, and I was taken totally unawares.

So I went through your citation to see which people were climate scientists. Here’s the complete list of those that your citation says are actual, no-bullshit climate scientists:

Donald Baker
Tim Ball
David Bromwych
Gerd Burger
Christopher Castro
John Christy
Rose Compagnucci
Robert Davis
David Douglas
Oliver Frauenfeld
Chris de Freitas
Jim Goodridge
Detlef Herbert
Doug Hoyt
Ole Humlum
Craig Idso
Sherwood Idso
Sergei Kravtsov
David Legates
Marcel Leroux
Richard Lindzen
Anthony Lupo
Bjorn Malmgren
John Maunder
Patrick Michaels
Michaele Monce
Dick Morgan
Garth Paltridge
Roy Spencer
Roger Pielke Sr.
Hans von Storch
Lowell Stott
Geoge Taylor
Chris Walcek
George Waldenberger
Gosta Walin
Charles Wax
Richard Wilson
Duncan Wingham

oh … and me. Willis Eschenbach. I’m officially listed by your great authoritative “soundly debunking” citation as a climate scientist. Look it up …

So. Either your citation is golden, and I’m a climate scientist, or your list is not making valid judgements on who is a climate scientist, and is thus worthless.

Not at all. You don’t know what an ad hominem is and you evidentally don’t know what a false dichotomy is either. The Inhofe list is demonstrably full of lies, misquotes, and unskilled people. The PDF link, which isn’t mine by the way, Kimstu posted it earlier in the thread and I was pointing it out to you because you were ignoring it. That PDF isn’t a sound debunking, it’s someone’s attempt to list the qualifications of Inhofe’s 700. That person could easily have assumed that you had some credentials and perhaps was erring on the side of caution. If that’s the case then the 40 remaining (39 really) might be as unqualified as yourself. Hardly a vote of confidence for the Inhofe 700.

Your call …

In any case, there’s 40 climate scientists for you to dispute things with … pick one, give us what they are quoted as saying, and tell us why they are wrong. Forget about your hatred of Inhofe, and come back to the real world and tell us why you disagree with them.

Again, the list has 40 people who’s credentials are listed as climate scientists. I personally have no idea if those people:

1.Were mis-quoted and lied about. Since Inhofe has done that before that we know of.

2. Are actually qualified to judge the veracity of AGW.

I mean it listed you as a climate scientist. So the bar isn’t exactly super-duper high is it?

And finally, you’re taking potentially 40 names out of 700 as a win? What about the many thousands of professional climate scientists working in the field who think AGW is real? Why do you believe this maybe 40 (and given Inhofe’s predilection to lie on his list, likely much fewer) against 40 who have produced no peer-reviewed science to suggest that AGW isn’t happening?

The 700 is a flawed source, that is willfully fraudulent. Why are you so irrational to crow that 40 of the 700 names might be real?

[intention]

Lobohan, these are examples of why attacking Inhofe is a simplistic red herring to distract people. Either what Lindzen and Legates say is true, or it isn’t. Science is science, whether or not you can prove that Inhofe is the devil incarnate.

Once again, in the spirit of friendly rivalry, I say again that your continuous attacks on me merely provide me with an opportunity to publicise the science that supports AGW skepticism … for which I sincerely thank you.