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.