This is a bit disturbing, though in retrospect, not surprising. One of our local IPCC wonks at Chico State University, Jeff Price, is a biologist, but lectures me about climate all the same. – Anthony
by Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch
I had intended to return to this point when I originally posted about this debate last week, but time got away from me. Thankfully, my colleague Roy Cordato brought it up today:
During the question and answer session of last week’s William Schlesinger/John Christy global warming debate, (alarmist) Schlesinger was asked how many members of United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate scientists. It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all. Its president, for example, is an economist.
Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC – trained initially as a railway engineer
This question came after Schlesinger had cited the IPCC as an authority for his position. His answer was quite telling.
First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had “some dealing with the climate.” His complete answer was that he thought, “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” In other words, even IPCC worshiper Schlesinger now acknowledges that 80 percent of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.
This shatters so much of the alarmists’ claim, as they almost always appeal to the IPCC as their ultimate authority.
Hansen is an astrophysicist, not a meteorologist or climatologist. Not having credentials in the field of study doesn’t stand in the way of one’s work as long as they are on the “correct” side of the issue.
Doesn’t surprise me one bit. To get a bit biblical “By their works ye shall know them”. Judged by what they do and say I would not expect much expertise – would you?
But all are probably socialists, and that is what we are really dealing with.
And the photo caption?
Should read ‘Mandrake gestures hypnotically…”
It is a political organization, not a scientific one.
Yet the mainstream media refuses to entertain the concept that it may be biased for that very reason….. It’s kinda Socialist, Alice in wonderland stuff really.
Very bizarre.
Do we know which iteration of the IPCC he was referring to because I seem to recall reading a review of the drafting of the original IPCC report that indicated that less than a hundred of the 2000+ panel members were actually scientists with pertainent training.
crosspatch:
No, it doesn’t stand in his way because astrophysics provides an excellent background for studying climate science and because he has shown his expertise in climate science by publishing many widely-cited peer-reviewed papers in the field in prestigious journals. Scientists don’t care what the original field of study is of their fellow scientists … It is what you are publishing that counts.
As for the general issue of this post, i.e., the fraction of the IPCC folks who are climate scientists: You do realize that the IPCC has three working groups for its assessment reports because their mission is not just to review the climate science, but also its affects and how we can adapt to it and mitigate it? This necessarily involves such diverse fields as biology, economics, engineering, etc. After all, would you want only climate scientists talking about the effects of climate change on animal and plant species, or only climate scientists estimating the costs of mitigating climate change, or what sort of engineering solutions are possible?!?
Does that mean we are being railroaded? Hmmm…
Get a shave and a haircut buddy.
Seriously, get a personal grooming session.
Ok, really seriously, what I’d like to know is what experiments “prove” that AWG is happening?
By the way, if you want to see the list of the contributors to the WG1 part of the report, they are listed here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-annexes.pdf So, you can investigate their credentials to your heart’s content. (You can also see the list of reviewers…The reviewers are distinct from the contributors and I believe are chosen both by governments and by NGOs, so basically anyone who wants to be a reviewer and can get some organization to support them can become one…For example, both Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick are listed as reviewers.)
It will be the EPA reaching to control the climate tht we have to fight against, and it will have to be, hopefully, via the ballot box.
It is bizarre……..
Mainstream media seems to dwell on negative news stories and the GW story has some sort of Mythological energy that must be fed almost daily. It is almost as if they are feeding anxiety about consumption and our standard of living to increase circulation.
It is going to be very hard for the media to turn this story around although there is now a slight trickle of letters and articles questioning the GW premise in the Australian Press.
Louis,
I’m not sure I agree with your assessment that economists, psychologists, sociologists, and other social scientists are at all qualified to comment on the validity of a theory as dangerous as anthropogenic global warming.
There are influential people within the UN who are Gaia believers. I wonder how many IPCC members are also Gaia believers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis#The_Revenge_of_Gaia
http://www.green-agenda.com/
Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC – trained initially as a railway engineer
By “railway engineer”, are we talking slide rule, pencils in pocket protector mechanical engineer, or toot the whistle locomotive engineer?
http://i42.tinypic.com/2d9z4vq.jpg
I sometimes wonder … exactly what is climate science? Clearly it involves meteorology, geology, biology, oceanography, cosmology, math, physics, chemistry, paleo-this and paleo-that, etc., etc., etc.
Can anyone really be an expert in climate? I doubt it. So, I don’t really cast aspersions on people in the field based on their background. However, I do think it brings forward the point that climate science is still in it’s infancy. It’s extremely complex and so little is really known about key elements.
This also makes me wonder how these scientists, who know so little of the overall picture, can claim such confidence in their predictions.
joel shore
“You do realize that the IPCC has three working groups for its assessment reports because their mission is not just to review the climate science, but also its affects and how we can adapt to it and mitigate it? This necessarily involves such diverse fields as biology, economics, engineering, etc.”
And you think this helps the case for AGW? How? All this is is scientists in other fields assessing what would happen IF and what to do IF the climate models are correct. IOW, their research does nothing to scientifically bolster the case for alarmism except to alarm.
Some here may be repeating history by objecting to AGW and the IPCC as the authority that must make us all conform. In the near future these people may be forced to recant as Galileo was.
See the words of that document here:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/recantation.html
What the propagandists fail to see (deliberately ?) is not the issue of “formal qualification” but of “scientific integrity,” moral integrity, simple honesty, humility (ability to recognize one’s own limits and prejudices – and work to exceed those limits) and character.
I do not need my years differential calculus classes, particle physics classes and Bessel function equations to recognize – on a graph of temperature vs time – whether the plot is increasing, sinusoidal, or decreasing.
I DO need to know that the man (or woman) who PRODUCED the chart is honest and presenting honest research, done with the available equipment and best interpretation of past (legacy) data as he can.
Or is a propagandist HIDING behind his degrees and his cronies to present a lie.
“something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.”
What is the definition of having some dealing with climate ?
I would expect this includes climate scientists, meteorologists, geologists and others with a science degree. Then 80% are politicians, economists, lawyers, untrained indviduals et cetera
Joel Shore,
Are you forgetting that the UN/IPCC is composed of political appointees? And that the science must conform to UN political goals? And that no dissent is allowed within the IPCC?
But there is dissent, and lots of it. All of these [and many more – provided to you on request] strongly question, or outright falsify the IPCC’s ‘findings.’:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
click8
click9
click10
And please, no more typical ad-homs. Respond to the science.
It is rediculous to appeal to the IPCC in support of your argument.
The majority of the IPCC output is on what will happen given certain climatic changes – which is why you have so many economists and other non-climate scientists on the panel.
A small minority of members are the ones who actually do the “climate” work and produce the estimates and models of climatic changes for the economists to work on.
To say that the IPCC consists of over 2000 climate scientists is plainly wrong, to say that all 2000 agree that the climate is changing is impossible to tell (they may do, but most are simply modelling output based on what the climate scientists are saying – they would be doing the same if those climate scientists said it would cool; or it would stay the same with no more seasons; or we would have thermal armageddon).
The IPCC therefore is a group of modellers who base their work on a small group of climate scientists say the climate will be like. It is no more and no less than that.
IPCC – [snip]
What do you need them as an authority for when you can use Al Gore instead.
Both have the same level of scientific content.
Joel Shore (19:09:59) :
No, it doesn’t stand in his way … because he has shown his expertise in climate science by publishing many widely-cited peer-reviewed papers in the field in prestigious journals. Scientists don’t care what the original field of study is of their fellow scientists … It is what you are publishing that counts.
……
Does the ACCURACY of what you are publishing count in way?
Hanson has been WRONG in every one of his predictions, has become such a strident extremist that – in a recent EDITORIAL (not peer-reviewed by the way) in a UK paper – every sentence of his extremist retoric contained at least one lie or exaggeration.
Yet you claim he is credible because he publishes papers equally wrong?
Mann has been proven dead wrong in several papers. Fraudulent in others. Is he credible in your mind? Is he even criticized in your mind? Did you even know he has been proven wrong – but his cronies in the editors or so-called “peer-reviewed” papers have NEVER called on him to revoke his printed works. How can I recall his “credentials” – they clearly are worthless?
Keith Minto (19:24:29) :
It is bizarre……..
Mainstream media seems to dwell on negative news stories and the GW story has some sort of Mythological energy that must be fed almost daily. It is almost as if they are feeding anxiety about consumption and our standard of living to increase circulation.
It is going to be very hard for the media to turn this story around although there is now a slight trickle of letters and articles questioning the GW premise in the Australian Press.
Why would the MSM want to turn this story around?
The MSM is a machine designed to return value to the shareholders – not tell the truth – it needs to attract and retain the attention of the audience long enough to sell advertising space or it goes out of business.
Scare stories sell…
And we also have other “political organizations” who are joining the party to publicize dire future predictions. Here we have the World Bank warning about climate change in South America.
http://news.aol.com/article/world-bank-warns-of-climate-change-in/348019
Larry