I think you might want to chill a bit. Your tone would suggest you’re maybe a wee bit too thin-skinned. I do like the publicity, though. And, it certainly would benefit a lot of people if your exchange with Marc had more attention.

C3H Editor

BTW: At CEJournal I devoted an entire post to why I believe labeling people who are skeptical about anthropogenic climate change as the equivalent of Holcaust deniers is offensive. Yet you use the “denier” label for me. What a shame that you don’t live up to some of your own rhetoric at this site.

Your analysis is great, and one I will point to often. For anyone to even attempt to continually claim the IPCC is made up of the best & brightest, when it’s really a political organ, is truly wearing the “denier” jacket.

I maintain a list of skeptic (sceptic) quotes and always adding to them, here:

http://www.c3headlines.com/quotes-from-global-warming-critics-skeptics-sceptics.html

I also maintain a list of quotes from pro-global warming activists here:

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html

Keep up the great work.

C3H Editor

Actually, that’s not what I specifically said. I said “Given that it’s fairly obvious that Dessler would have been referring to WGI on a question of “did humans cause climate change?”.”

Given that Inhofe defines the terms for the debate by stating his list disagrees with the consensus on man made climate change it is obvious that this boils down to a scientific question i.e. one of attribution of the cause. Inhofe uses his list to attack the consensus on this issue. The WGI shows via multiple lines of evidence that GHGs caused the bulk of the warming in the late 20th C. The WGI authors are well placed to write that report given their expertise. Even taking your position that Dessler meant all aspects of the IPCC, that still includes the WGI which clearly provides enough expertise to beat Inhofe.

“So you must agree that those social / non-climate scientists on the Inhofe list are, at face value, as valuable as the social/non-climate scientists listed as authors of the IPCC.”

At face value, yes, but with access to web of science I can see that Inhofe’s list aren’t publishing on topics relevant to assessing the impacts etc. of climate change. Why would I listen to them about that, which by the way they aren’t being used for, according to Inhofe’s website.

I also see these appeals to authority to be ultimately unconvincing. The real acid test is can any of these experts provide a convincing reason as to why the accumulated evidence fingering GHGs as the cause of warming is bogus. Let’s review that evidence:

1. A cooling stratosphere.

2. Nights warming faster relative to the days.

3. Winters warming faster relative to the days.

This evidence as outlined in the WGI report debunks Inhofe’s bogus list.

We posted the details of our post to Grist. Dessler had this to say -

In case you didn’t know, working group II is on “adaptation and impacts,” and therefore requires the expertise of social scientists. The examples you give above are all the appropriate use of expertise to produce a consensus document.

As I’ll detail in a future post, it is entirely appropriate for an economist to act as an expert on questions of economics, or a social scientist to act as an expert on questions of social science. The IPCC uses their experts in that way.

The “Inhofe 400″ use economists to comment on climate physics. Everyone with a grain of common sense should object to that. You’ll be seeing an example of that in a few days.

We replied:

Andrew, I agree that social scientists have a part to play. As we say on our blog:

“That is not to say that social scientists and computer programmers have nothing to offer the world, or the IPCC process. They are crucial in fact. What it is to say, however, is that, when social scientists, computer programmers and administrative assistants comprise a significant proportion of IPCC contributors, the global warmer mantra that the IPCC represents the world’s top 2500 climate scientists is just plain old-fashioned not true.” http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-heal- …

What is emerging is that (if the US/UK contributors are representative samples) climate scientists in WGII and WGIII are only a minority.

Furthermore, as well you know, there are some contributors to WGII who lack the expertise you demand of sceptics, even in the social sciences.

Lastly, you worry that “The “Inhofe 400″ use economists to comment on climate physics.” Well, do you complain when physical scientists make shrill, alarmist noises about the future that society faces? If it takes social scientists to make that kind of prediction, climate scientists are speaking outside their area of expertise.

And so who are you – as a climate scientist – to be passing comment on how policymakers use science? On your own terms, Andrew, you should be keeping your mouth shut.

Of course, it’s better that you don’t, because there is a debate to be had. It’s just that you seem keener to shut the debate down by making statements about the 400 than actually have it by answering their criticisms. Shame on you.

Prof. Dessler, who wants to help the world understand climate change, didn’t feel able to continue the discussion.

[The inhoffe list] should be compared to the IPCC, which includes exclusively people with recent, relevant expertise on the problem. And You don’t take either your child or a planet to a sociologist or economist.

Can you explain why then you didn’t modify your criticism of Dessler in the post above in light of your findings that qualified scientists really did write the WGI report? Given that it’s fairly obvious that Dessler would have been referring to WGI on a question of “did humans cause climate change?”

There is nothing to explain, and there is no reason to modify anything – Dessler’s comment was not about WGI, and nor is it obvious that Dessler’s comment’s were about WGI – and are you really happy to rest your specious argument on a mater of interpretation of what ‘might have been’? He said that sociologists, computer scientists, and economists are not qualified to talk about climate change. We pointed out that there are a large number of them involved in producing the IPCC reports. It’s up to Dessler to refine his argument. We point out in the above post that, in fact, sociologists, computer scientists, and economists are valuable to the debate. Go and have a look.

Curiously, you then argue, contrary to Dessler, that sociologists, computer scientists, and economists are important:

Physical scientists with an expertise in climate are not as well placed to look a the effects of changing climate the bulk of the WGII bods on humans and ecology. Nor are they as well placed to formulate mitigation strategies as the WGIII folks. At least that would appear to be the case looking at their expertise.

So you must agree that those social / non-climate scientists on the Inhofe list are, at face value, as valuable as the social/non-climate scientists listed as authors of the IPCC.

The point we make above and in the related posts – we suggest you read them more carefully – is about making arguments in terms of weight of numbers, consensus, and lists of people with qualifications, rather than engaging with actual arguments – i.e. appeals to authority, etc – being made by people. Dessler effectively says, “my list is bigger than your list”, and then that “the people on my list are more qualified than the people on your list”. But neither of these claims resolves anything, and all he does is demonstrate a misunderstanding of the way the IPCC actually operates, and what is made of. That’s a big problem for someone with his profile.

We can’t help what you can’t comprehend – which does seem to be the reason for your comments here. What we suggest is that you just try reading a little bit more closely. Try and understand the argument before you criticise it.

Can you explain why then you didn’t modify your criticism of Dessler in the post above in light of your findings that qualified scientists really did write the WGI report? Given that it’s fairly obvious that Dessler would have been referring to WGI on a question of “did humans cause climate change?”. You’re also still attacking Dessler in your most recent post regarding his citation of the IPCC versus the Inhofe list. If Dessler’s guilty of anything it’s of not being specific enough i.e given that Inhofe’s list attacks the scientific consensus you’d want to look at the WGI report to compare experts. But isn’t it obvious that you’d want to look at the WGI report given that Inhofe talks very specifically about the science of man made climate change. I therefore still don’t understand how you initially ignored that part of the report and why you continue to bash Dessler with this. It’s a thoroughly unconvincing point. I simply don’t buy your point in response to CBH above. Physical scientists with an expertise in climate are not as well placed to look a the effects of changing climate the bulk of the WGII bods on humans and ecology. Nor are they as well placed to formulate mitigation strategies as the WGIII folks. At least that would appear to be the case looking at their expertise.

Just a note on your WGI analysis. One of you is currently at a UK university, correct? You can use ISI/Web of Science (in the library) to look at the publication records of these folks.

“Why then, do you have to selectively pick the WGII report as an example of expertise standing behind the consensus of science on man made global warming knowing full well…”

This is a test:

Can you read?

If yes, scroll to the top of the page, to the first paragraph of the post, and read what you missed the first time.

If no, carry on, as you are.