Climate Resistance

Back at Gristmill, Andrew Dessler stands by his cancer/doctor analogy in the in-whom-do-we-trust war, after some comments on his blog: The complexity of climate change does not suddenly make a sociologist, economist, computer programmer, etc. a credible skeptic. In fact, the weakness of Inhofe’s list is readily apparent by the very fact that he had to include such people on his list.

This is the nail in the coffin to all critiques of the Senate report! Prof. Andrew Dessler (who claimed there were only two dozen skeptics of AGW) has embarrassed himself beyond what even I thought possible!

Andrew claims that only expertise in climate science qualifies legitimate opinion on the future the world faces. He also appears to be promising to reveal the expertise (or lack of it) of the 400. But if he is so intent on defending the reputation of the IPCC, might I suggest he starts by checking his own facts, by auditing the expertise at the IPCC?

Looking at the 51 contributors to WGII AR4 from the UK, there were 5 economists, 3 epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management / insurance. 7 had specialisms in geography. And just 10 have specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology. But there were 15who could only be described as social scientists. If we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20 social scientists.

Of the 70 US contributors, there were 7 economists, 13 social scientists, 3 epidemiologists, 10 biologists/ecologists, 5 engineers, 2 modellers/statisticians, 1 full-time activist (and 1 part time), 5 were in public health and policy, and 4 were unknowns. 17 worked in earth/atmospheric sciences.

The IPCC contributors are simply neither the experts Andrew claims, nor are they mostly climate scientists - but in fact are made up of specialisms that he would exclude as not being qualified. Andrew is an activist, who urges us to beleive that the IPCC is made up of climate experts, yet investigation reveals that this is not the case. But Andrew is also a climate scientist, who either has not investigated the IPCC, in which he invests so much faith (and if we can’t trust climate scientists to check the IPCC, who can we trust?) or he is deliberately misleading the public. Andrew is living proof of the confusion of politics and science, and yet asks us to believe him that the earth is “sick”.

Physician, heal thyself!

Read more here. Read the analysis of IPCC WGIII here. Read Morano’s response to Dessler’s and other attacks here. Critical Blogger Steve Bloom is on the Executive Committee of the Sierra Club of San Francisco (was Executive Director).

By Cardinal George Pell

The Bali summit on the Kyoto Protocol and climate change was a public relations triumph, although I’m hopeful the new government will not impose major costs on the people for dubious versions of climate goals. We need rigorous cost-benefit analysis of every proposal and healthy scepticism of all semi-religious rhetoric about the climate and, especially, about computer models for the future. It is difficult to predict what the weather will be like next week, let alone in 10, 20 or 100 years. We hope the drought is coming to an end in country areas, but Australia will always be susceptible to recurrent droughts until the arrival of the next ice age.

George Pell is an Australian Catholic Cardinal

By Rami Zurayk

“Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

It got me thinking: I’m an environmental scientist, but I’ve never had time to review the “evidence” for the anthropic causes of global warming. I operate on the principle that global warming is a reality and that it is human-made, because a lot of reliable sources told me that, and because I read it in learned journals. When I said, in my opening speech for the launch of UNEP’s Global Environment Outlook-4 in Beirut: “There is now irrevocable evidence that climate change is taking place...” I was reading from a statement prepared by UNEP. Faith-based science it may be, but who has time to review all the evidence? I’ll continue to act on the basis of anthropic climate change, but I really need to put some more time into this. Read more here.