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.
Robert Wood (04:51:05) : economists and various other hand-wavers.
Sir! Economists do not “hand wave”! We manually oscillate.
😉
MartinGAtkins wrote:
“I’m not trying to be pedantic but it’s important that you understand that adding more CO2 doesn’t mean more IR is absorbed.”
And that’s because?
Because CO2’s IR absorption is logarithmic and current CO2 levels are close to maxing out IR absorption. Once CO2 levels reach/pass the maximum for IR absorption, adding more CO2 will not increase IR absorption. All the IR that can be absorbed will have been absorbed.
There are several posts on WUWT that deal with CO2 levels and IR absorption. Go check the archives and be enlightened.
Interesting what the late F. Kenneth Hare observed in 1979 (Ref. below)
(at http://www.whatisclimate.com/variousIV.html):
“The World Climate Conference (Geneva 1979) is a gathering largely of non-atmosphericscientists. It has dawned upon our colleagues in WMO, and its Executive Committee, that what matters about climate is not merely the question of its predictability, which is obviously our business; it is also the question of the impact it makes upon the world’s peoples. Andthat is not obviously within our competence. There is nothing in our training that makes us experts in the art of interpreting climatic impact. And so the World Climate Conference is going to be made up of nearly 80 % non-atmospheric scientists. There: will be economists,agronomists, foresters, politicians, all broadly speaking expert…….”
Reference: F. Kenneth Hare, 1979; „The Vaulting of Intellectual Barriers: The Madison Thrust in Climatology“, Bulletin American Meteorological Society , Vol. 60, 1979, p. 1171 – 1124
Getting back to the original topic of this thread, which was the qualifications of the IPCC members, some guy actually created a list of the contributing authors from Working Group 1, along with a list of publications for each. He reports, you decide:
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/AR4wg1_authors_table.html
SUPLIMENTARY INFORMATION TO ASSIST IN MAKING DECISION
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/the-ipcc-cant-count-author-and-reviewer-numbers-are-wrong/
Katherine wrote:
“Because CO2’s IR absorption is logarithmic and current CO2 levels are close to maxing out IR absorption. Once CO2 levels reach/pass the maximum for IR absorption, adding more CO2 will not increase IR absorption. All the IR that can be absorbed will have been absorbed. ”
There’s no indication we are close to that point, which in any event is a bit of a moving target, given factors like pressure broadening.