So Who's A Climate Scientist?
n0 b o
Depends On Which Side You're On
Any old alarmist is AUTOMATICALLY a "climate scientist"!!
August 4 2009
"PROMINENT scientists with long publications records, such as Bob Carter,
are routinely described by the media as not being climate scientists and
really not reputable scientists at all if they aren't on the alarmist
bandwagon.
On the other hand, lawyers expressing alarmist views are described as
prominent scientists.
"And the scientists regularly put forward in the media as the world's
leading climate experts often turn out to be computer modelers with little
or no background in climate science.
HERE IS THE ARTICLE .
I was interested to read an item in today's Climate Wire about a new report
by "a prominent Australian scientist." Andrew Macintosh of the Australian
National University has "spent months modeling 45 different climate change
scenarios" and concluded that the target recently agreed by leaders of G8
nations to limit the global mean temperature increase to 2�C could not be
met with policies currently in place or being considered.
What caught my attention in this story was the description of Macintosh as a
prominent climate scientist.
That's how computer modelers are routinely described by the global warming
alarmists, and the mainstream communications media routinely accept this
description.
Climate modelers may have all sorts of qualifications and be absolutely
brilliant at using computer models, but those qualifications do not
necessarily include knowing much about climatology or meteorology or related
fields, such as physics, oceanography, geology, chemistry, biology, etc.
Since I'd never heard of the prominent Professor Macintosh, I decided to
look him up on the internet.
I was surprised to find that he's not a computer modeler at all!
He's a lawyer!
And his position at ANU is Associate Director of the Centre for Climate Law
and Policy. He does have a diploma in environmental studies on top of his
1998 bachelor of commerce and law degree, but he won a prize for
environmental law, so that's probably what he concentrated on while earning
his diploma in 2001.
That's what it takes to be described as a prominent climate scientist if you're
on the alarmist side.
While rummaging around on the internet, I also found the transcript of an
April 15 story broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
The story starts by interviewing two climate skeptics, Professor Bob Carter,
a geologist, and Professor Stewart Franks, an environmental engineer. They
told a parliamentary commission that the scientific evidence doesn't support
alarmism.
But then the reporter, Sabra Lane, was quick to point out that Carter and
Franks aren't climate scientists or even reputable scientists at all.
Sabra Lane:
"Climate scientist Professor David Karoly says neither Professor Carter nor
Franks is recognised as a reputable climate scientist."
David Karoly:
"Bob Carter and Stewart Franks are in fact in a minority of both scientists
and climate scientists in Australia. In fact neither of them is a climate
scientist who publishes actively in the climate science literature."
But here is the very next sentence of ABC's news story.
Sabra Lane:
"And Professor Andrew Macintosh from the ANU's Centre for Climate Law and
Policy says the Government's planned cuts to emissions of 5 to 15 per cent
by 2020 aren't enough." Having elevated Mr. Macintosh to the ranks of the
professoriate, Correspondent Lane does not go on to question his
qualifications.
I don't mean to question Mr. Macintosh's report.
I haven't read it.
It may be first rate, although I hope that he is more cautious about the
forecasting abilities of computer climate models (which are nil) than his
newspaper quotes suggest.
My point is that prominent scientists with long publications records, such
as Bob Carter, are routinely described by the media as not being climate
scientists and really not reputable scientists at all if they aren't on the
alarmist bandwagon.
On the other hand, lawyers expressing alarmist views are described as
prominent scientists.
And the scientists regularly put forward in the media as the world's leading
climate experts often turn out to be computer modelers with little or no
background in climate science, Ph. D.s who spent their entire careers in
administration, or astronomers who are experts on the atmosphere of Venus.
And of course Graeme Pearman who many in Australia assume to be a climate
scientist, actually trained as a biologist and has a PhD in carbon
budgeting.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/
INTERESTING COMMENTS AS WELL .
Andrew says:
August 3, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Tsk tsk Myron! Don't you know how "Post Normal Science" works? Of course
anyone who supports alarm is a "climate scientist" and anyone at all, no
matter how qualified by comparison who dares to stick up for normal science,
is frankly not allowed to be a scientist at all! In fact, I'm still confused
how some Republicans got in at all! (a recent survey show some 6% of
scientists identify as Republicans! And we expect them not to be biased with
regard to policy?!?!?)
Alan Grey says:
August 4, 2009 at 1:53 am
It's worse than that, Sabra reprints the lies of Professor David Karoly, who
claims Bob Carter doesn't publish in the climate science literature.
Apparently 'Science' is not reputable enough for the climate derange
professor Karoly.
CARTER, R.M.; GAMMON, P. 2004 New Zealand maritime glaciation:
millennial-scale southern climate change since 3.9 Ma. Science, 304,
1659-1662
Warmest Regards
Bon_0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Surfer
>
>Climate modelers may have all sorts of qualifications and be absolutely
>brilliant at using computer models, but those qualifications do not
>necessarily include knowing much about climatology or meteorology or related
>fields, such as physics, oceanography, geology, chemistry, biology, etc.
>
By the time a computer modeler has successfully modeled a phenomenon,
they would usually know a lot about the phenomenon.
A computer model can incorporate knowledge from dozens of experts.
If a computer model is accurate, then the modeler may have a better
idea of how everything fits together, than individual experts.
HardySpicer
Yes but the model may be only short term accurate and we know so
little about climate that I doubt it would be any more use than models
of the economy that are frequently touted.
Hardy
hempster
records to rebuff all the doomsdayers projected models. Click on the
clip on the bottom
and enjoy
This is exactly as the USAF Weather Service, the US Weather Service, and
a majority of American PHds in Climatology see it. Spend 3 minutes and
learn.
John Coleman was a Chicago based meteorologist and network weatherman
for many years. He wasn't a talking head that read the forecast.
Coleman actually made the forecast and spent the time on screen telling
you why.
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
Check it out tell me what you think !! :^)
Hempster
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by HardySpicer
<gyans...@gmail.com>:
The economy makes climate look like a one-variable process.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless