Who Are the “Experts” on Climate Change?

Guest post by John Droz, Jr.

We live in complicated times, immersed in a society of incessant, loud, conflicting voices. Nowhere is this more true than in the discussion of the impact of carbon dioxide on the planet, oceans, better known as “climate change.” When interested citizens try to get to the bottom of such a highly complex issue, the standard, and proper, rejoinder is: “Listen to the Experts.”

Although that sounds like common sense, such advice is not as simple as it’s made out to be. For millennia, it was safe to assume that mainstream scientists (as a matter of principle) faithfully adhered to high scientific standards (see below). In our lifetime that has dramatically (and disappointingly) changed.

Today there is an ever-increasing number of scientists driven by political agendas, peer pressure, job security, etc. rather than scientific mores. This change has extraordinary societal implications — and none of them are beneficial.

No one is policing this abandonment of scientific principles. Consider:

Not all priests are exemplary Christian — but when priests violate the rules of Christianity, they are defrocked… Not all lawyers are law-abiding citizen — but when lawyers violate the rules of law they are disbarred… Not all scientists follow the protocols of Science — but when scientists violate the proprieties of Science, they get hired by organizations to help promote their interests!

So who are the “Experts” that we should listen to? For starters it’s important to understand that “Experts” is not a homogeneous collection of people. You can divide Experts into just two very different subgroups: “Real Experts” and “So-Called Experts.”

So-Called Experts are like doctors on TV: actors who wear a white coat. They look and sound like the real thing — but clearly they are not. How do we tell the Real Experts from the Imitations?

Most people think that the answer is to look at what academic degree a person holds in which fields and how many papers they have had that are peer-reviewed. In climate science, though, that’s all a little more difficult. The field is so broad that training in one area gives you no particular benefit in others, and some people who reach across disciplines have made major contributions. As for peer-review, sadly, there has been a successful conspiracy to suppress the publication of work whose results do not confirm climate alarmism. But competence, in any event, is just the first part of being a Real Expert.

Real Experts on a science-related subject have six distinguishing characteristics, which are really no more than the traditional scientific standards:

1 – They have a high degree of competence in the topic at hand.

[For example, out of 1000 people, they would know more than 999.]

2 – They have a comprehensive understanding of the topic.

[They are not one of the blind people examining just a part of the elephant.]

3 – They are objective in their conclusions and recommendations.

[They are not influenced by economic incentives, or undeclared political agendas.]

4 – They are genuinely open-minded regarding their positions.

[They encourage other parties to critique their analyses and conclusions.]

5 – Their research and data are transparent.

[No pertinent information is hidden behind such claims as “work product.”]

6 – Their research and data are based on empirical evidence.

[Real world data always takes priority over computer-generated information.]

Clearly it would be difficult for citizens and their legislative representatives to assess all six of these for anybody claiming to be an Expert. One solution to this conundrum is to focus on just one or two of the characteristics — because if any are missing, then it is highly likely that you’re dealing with a So-Called Expert.

A good way to assess whether you’re dealing with a Real Expert or a So-Called Expert when it comes to climate change would be to see where they stand regarding essential element #4. Anyone who asserts that “the science is settled” is self-identifying as a So-Called Expert, because no true scientist (Real Expert) would ever say that.

There is another useful tactic to separate the Real from the Wannabes.

Let’s say that a group of experts – such as the scientists that countries’ politicians choose for the UN climate research panel – has made two major policy statements. Can we examine these and determine whether we are dealing with Real Experts or So-Called Experts? Maybe.

In this case the UN experts have made these two statements:

Statement A: the planet is facing imminent catastrophic, man-made global warming, and the eventual consequences will be even more extreme.

Statement B: one of the best solutions for avoiding these catastrophic results is to build and operate millions of industrial wind turbines, worldwide.

Statement A concerns a highly complex collection of interacting phenomena in the chaotic world of ocean, land, and atmospheric physics. It gets a score of 90 out of a 100 on the complexity scale, and we will not know the veracity of its claims for many years.

Statement B concerns a mildly technical engineering problem. It rates a score of maybe 9 out of a 100 on the complexity scale, and we know the veracity of those claims today!

In other words, to determine the actual expertise of these people, it is a LOT easier to assess the validity of Statement B, rather than of Statement A.

In the example cited, Statement B is provably false (e.g. see here). Therefore, since the same “Experts” made both statements, it would lead us to believe that Statement A is also suspect — and that we are not actually dealing with Real Experts.

So there you have it: two independent ways of separating the wheat from the chaff on complicated scientific matters. A generous dose of critical thinking goes a long way!

John Droz, jr., is a physicist and a member of the CO2 Coalition, an alliance of 50 unalarmed climate scientists and energy economists.

9-11-19

Advertisements

131 thoughts on “Who Are the “Experts” on Climate Change?

  1. The “Experts” on Climate Change are those who can predict the future climate and weather on Earth, accurately using objective science and transparent data in reproducible programmes and verified by empirical observations.
    So far they are yet to appear.

    • It’s the elusive “Mortal God”, who will explain life, the universe, and everything. The Mortal God is hypothesized to be 42, which some people believe to be a shoe size, while others claim is the circumference of his head (the “Big Giant Head”).

        • Simples . .
          due to global warming there are insufficient turtles to now reach all the way to bottom.

        • Let’s not underestimate the sophistication of alarmists. They predict all sorts of catastrophes, and a number of very expensive ways to avert them. (Never mind that the catastrophes are purely imaginary). We pay the alarmists handsomely, the catastrophes do not happen, and that proves their point. What a progressive science!

    • Absolutely.

      There is expertise as defined by the ability to reproduce a practiced performance. An airline pilot is an expert. She will get you to your destination safely, almost no matter what happens. A surgeon is similar. A classical musician … etc. etc. When an engineer predicts that her bridge design is safe, she is almost always correct.

      The second type of expert is so defined because of deep learning. When these folks predict the outcome of a complex situation (ie. almost anything to do with people … or the climate) they are no more accurate than the guesses generated by a dart throwing monkey. link They are almost never held to account for their flawed predictions and they have an arsenal of excuses to explain away their failures.

      It is imperative that people realize the difference between the two types of experts. When Dr. Ian Stirling, a man for whom I have huge respect, predicts that polar bears can not survive an ice free arctic, he’s ignoring the fact that the arctic was ice free during the summer for most of the Holocene. His education and decades of research experience still do not equip him to make certain predictions.

      When you disagree with an expert’s prediction, some idiot will say that’s the same as letting an orderly perform surgery. It isn’t. An orderly has no practiced, demonstrated expertise in reproducing a surgical performance. Sloppy thinking people and idiots don’t know the difference.

      • Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy for climate change.

        In climate change, appeal to authority (scientific) is critically wrong (fallacious) because:
        1) the scientific method is broken with claims of consensus (refusing opposing dicussion),
        2) the scientific method is broken with claims of proprietary data (data tampering or refusing data release),
        3) the appeal is often used in conjunction with appeal to emotion, ad hominem, Ad populum, straw man, moral equivalence, etc, etc.

        Now some will say that the fallacy is appeal to an “irrelevant” authority and use this to justify only listening to the “correct” authority.
        This post is a discussion on who actually are the correct authorities, more so that would support a skeptical viewpoint. However, I don’t see the validity of this approach from a logical POV as is simply turns into a infinite dog fight of the recognised legitimacy of the authorities.

        I would argue that as long as any perceived authority is making claims or statements such as I list above that they have then self-discarded any authority claim. In other words, they threw away their credentials and can be ignored as an authority.

        • It’s tricky.

          If you’re in the arctic and Dr. Stirling tells you to burn your garbage and carry a gun, you’d better believe him.

          On the other hand, his predictions of what will happen to polar bears if the arctic is ice free can easily be ignored. There’s too much evidence that the arctic has been ice free during the Holocene and yet the bears survived.

          In other words, you can’t discount everything an expert says. If they say something that’s demonstrably correct and you discount it, you are the one who loses credibility.

          • Credibility matters, that is what credibility is all about. Throw it away on topic A also means it is thrown away on topic B. You can’t be both crazy and sane and realistically expect credibility.

            If a climate expert keeps touting a ‘we are all gonna die claim’ then not only do I dis-regard that claim, but also dis-regard on any other claim which is not self-standing common sense.

          • We assume the bears are as inept as are humans in the wild! They are far better equipped than we are!

          • It’s tricky until one questions the notion “Expert”. This post implies the existence of one or more individuals who are qualified to review all aspects of Climate Science and render an Expert judgement.

            This article would have more merrit if it points out the lack of international Standards and Practices. The egregious practices of the UNFCCC which insists on rewriting AR findings and the lack of an international scientific organization devoid of political and commercial influence.

            The issue is the validity of the Research and the methodology to document and protect findings for Scientific research. It’s not about individual Scientists.

          • No, if someone made a claim that was demonstrably wrong, I would get a second opinion of ALL of his claims if the info were important. You just might find out that the smell of burning garbage attracts bears, and the right course of action is to bury it deeply in the snow.

            Would you bet your life, physical or economic, without double-checking him?

        • Frenchie77,
          A true expert will also tell you his level of confidence in his statements. Often the discussion is concluded with, “Please do not take my word on this. Go and look yourself, and this is how to do it.”

      • A very good thesis by John Droz Jr.

        I suggest that the best objective measure of scientific competence is one’s predictive track record. My predictive track record is excellent to date, whereas the IPCC and its acolytes have been consistently wrong.

        In 2002 my co-authors Dr Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian, Dr Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist, Carleton, Ottawa and I wrote:
        http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf

        Statement A:
        “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
        The CAGW hypothesis has been falsified many ways over the decades – some of those falsifications are described here:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/

        Statement B:
        “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
        Grid-connected intermittent wind and solar power have been a costly, unreliable fiasco, driving up costs and increasing winter mortality. These “green” power systems do not even significantly reduce CO2 emissions, because of the need for ~100% conventional spinning reserve to step in when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine.
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/17/if-sir-david-king-is-scared-about-global-warming-we-neednt-worry/#comment-2799048
        https://www.thegwpf.com/current-costs-of-british-renewables-subsidies-per-household/

        Regards, Allan

      • My dad was a 9th grade drop out. Wasn’t really his choice: it was 1944, his three brothers were in uniform, his sisters had moved away, and someone had to help with the family business (construction).

        He became a master carpenter and with 30 years experience in the 70s, told his boss, his bosses client, and his client’s architect that the home design chosen wouldn’t work. It was an “Cape Cod” type home, and couldn’t handle the snow and ice buildup of Northern Ontario. “It’ll leak”, he told them.

        “Stay in your lane”, he was basically told.

        Long story short: the roof leaked, my dad’s boss lost the maintenance contract, my dad got the maintenance contract, and basically had a very long, and lucrative, professional relationship with the owner.

      • “She will get you to your destination safely, almost no matter what happens.”

        If it’s wrong to use “he”, it’s just as wrong to use “she”.

        • It is not “wrong” to use either at the writer’s choice as long as the reference is to a general person.

          • In the English language the pronoun “he” can mean “he or she as the case may be.”
            Other languages have similar quirks. I yelled “Brava!” at a singer’s performance. She let me know it should have been “Bravo!” because there was one male drummer among the females.

    • And on the flip side of that the “So Called Experts” have yet to explain natural variability. When we consider that past and future ice ages have and will have even more extreme consequences to life on earth it would seem that the hand wringing over fossil fuel is more than just a bit extreme.

      One correction to Mr Droz’s well written expose. As a lapsed Catholic his statement “Not all priests are exemplary Christian — but when priests violate the rules of Christianity, they are defrocked…” does not ring true. The more i study the so called experts on Climate Change the more the whole thing emits the foul odor of organized religion where mistakes are covered up and the guilty reassigned.

      So called experts who go on about sacrificing for future generations expect you and I to sacrifice while they continue on creating vast carbon footprints for themselves and the masters they serve. Their dedication to the faith affords them such luxury. That’s their story and they are sticking to it.

      • There is a paper “The Estuarine Quality Paradox, Environmental Homeostasis and difficulty of detecting anthropogenic stress in naturally stressed areas” in Marine Pollution Bulletin (2007, 54, pp, 640-645). Homeostasis is a stretch out of physiology but the question has been around for a long time. In fact, the paper quotes one in Science from 1969.

  2. That was refreshing to read. I’d love to read more like it.
    About that conspiracy you mentioned, I’ve noticed something like that myself in the news.

  3. One sure way to identify the so-called experts occurs when they insist that “the science” says this that or the other.
    Science is a PROCESS. Science doesn’t SAY anything!

  4. Someone should ask a qualified climate scientist this question: “what is the optimal level of Carbon Dioxide our atmosphere should have?” There must be a Goldilocks level, 100 ppm would be too low and 100,000 ppm would be too high. So what’s the best level for the planet as a whole? Nobody ever talks about that. It seems like we are always too busy debating temperature anomalies….

    • Technically if you are going to do that then you need to also nominate a location or method there is wide variation.

        • Agreed Chas.

          800-1000 ppm atmospheric CO2 is OK. 2000 ppm CO2 or higher would also be net beneficial.

          280 ppm is far too low for the continued existence of terrestrial life on Earth.

          References:
          “(Plant) Food for Thought”
          by Allan MacRae, 2009 and 2014
          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/#comment-70691
          http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/plant_food_for_thought2/
          “Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?”
          by Patrick Moore, October 15, 2015
          https://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide/

          • Unfortunately, I can no longer find a UK textbook that was online. In it was a description of UK agriculture wrt CO2. I believe it was in a chapter discussing environmental requirements of plants.

            Anyway, it said that in mid-afternoon on high-growing days, wheat crops stopped growing due to low levels of atmospheric CO2. I envisioned hundreds of acres of wheat plants, all consuming CO2, and realized that the LOCAL levels of CO2 must have dropped significantly.

            I’m fairly typical in ‘connecting the dots’, so I suspect a great many people don’t realize that having CO2 levels above 180 does NOT mean there is SUFFICIENT atmospheric levels for plants to thrive. I have a strong opinion that we were approaching levels low enough to severely affect life on Earth.

          • For jtom

            The reality is that atmospheric CO2 is not too high – in fact, increased atmospheric CO2 is hugely beneficial for humanity and the environment, since it will cause major increases in plant and crop yields, reduced desertification and possibly some minor, beneficial global warming.

            Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 is dangerously low for the long-term survival of terrestrial life on Earth, which will probably cease due to CO2 starvation.

            Regards, Allan

            References:
            “(Plant) Food for Thought”
            by Allan MacRae, 2009 and 2014
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/#comment-70691
            http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/plant_food_for_thought2/
            “Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?”
            by Patrick Moore, October 15, 2015
            https://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide/

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/01/the-economist-adopts-teslas-ludicrous-mode/#comment-2693195

            CO2 is inexorably being sequestered in carbonate rocks since the dawn of life on Earth, and this is pretty much a one-way street. The very slow geologic processes that return some of that CO2 into the atmospheric via volcanic action are much slower than the processes that sequester CO2, so atmospheric CO2 will decline to below 150 ppm during one of the next ice ages, which occur every 100,000 years – the blink of an eye in geologic time.

            That will be the extinction event for ~all complex terrestrial life, which relies primarily on photosynthesis of C3 plants to survive.

            There are a few C4 and CAM (photosynthetic pathway) food plants, such as corn and sugar cane, but I doubt that terrestrial life can survive on Sugar Frosted Flakes, notwithstanding the rumour that “They’re Great!”

          • jtom

            During the last ice age I understand the atmosphere was down to 180ppm.

            Now I don’t know about you, but the fact we are only ~250ppm away from certain extinction convinces me that it’s a rather attractive proposition to encourage the planet to reach 1,000ppm – 1,200ppm, ideal for C3 plants to flourish.

            We might not know what will happen to everything else at that level but we know for certain going the other direction is fatal to mammalian life at least.

          • Allan

            I had a giggle last week debating climate change with my son over Facebook. He has bought the entire ‘catastrophic hysteria’ hook line and sinker.

            So I asked him what, specifically worried him about a warming planet and he said “All those people in India dying from heatwaves” and I immediately thought of you.

            So I did a very quick bit of digging and quickly found the Office For National Statistics which told me there were 50,000 Excess winter deaths in the UK during the winter of 2017/2018. I then found and article citing deaths caused by the 2017 heatwave in India to be 16. It was wrong though, the number was 222, I checked it with the NDMA (India’s National Disaster Management Authority).

            But he still wouldn’t accept it, then I found a paper published by both The Lancet and the British Medical Journal which said definitively that Cold kills more than Heat by a factor of 20:1.

            We covered a lot of ground on several subjects and I comprehensively educated him on all of them.

            I have you and innumerable others on WUWT to thank, not for providing me with clever answers, but for educating me in how to find the correct information required to present a credible case for sceptics.

          • Very nice that you can talk about this with relatives. My son is just the opposite: he agrees with my beliefs on CAWG (i.e. there is none, probably won’t be any, etc.).

            Other people I know…well, not so easy to dissuade, certainly not with data (I’m a statistician so I end up grinding my teeth a lot).

            Case in point: a “new” report here in Toronto “showed” that we have been having “more” rainfall “events” with over 20mm of rain.

            A quick look at the data showed me…nope. No pattern whatsoever.

            1938 6
            1939 6
            1940 11
            1941 7
            1942 12
            1943 8
            1944 7
            1945 12
            1946 7
            1947 7
            1948 9
            1949 8
            1950 10
            1951 9
            1952 6
            1953 7
            1954 11
            1955 5
            1956 9
            1957 9
            1958 2
            1959 3
            1960 7
            1961 6
            1962 9
            1963 6
            1964 7
            1965 6
            1966 9
            1967 9
            1968 10
            1969 5
            1970 6
            1971 5
            1972 7
            1973 10
            1974 9
            1975 9
            1976 12
            1977 11
            1978 4
            1979 9
            1980 7
            1981 8
            1982 6
            1983 6
            1984 4
            1985 13
            1986 8
            1987 5
            1988 4
            1989 4
            1990 9
            1991 8
            1992 12
            1993 4
            1994 5
            1995 12
            1996 7
            1997 5
            1998 8
            1999 6
            2000 7
            2001 6
            2002 3
            2003 11
            2004 5
            2005 11
            2006 10
            2007 5
            2008 11
            2009 11
            2010 10
            2011 9
            2012 7
            2013 9
            2014 6
            2015 8
            2016 4
            2017 7
            2018 11
            2019 6

            You probably won’t be surprised to know: they conveniently found a 30 year average (i.e., climate, not weather…) that was the “most”…

          • Aw come on Mod.

            You know by now I don’t post abuse or deliberately contravene posting rules. I mean, Iv’e only been haunting WUWT for some years now.

      • Supposedly pre industrial level ?? So more proof that the ‘Alarmists’ are working from the Pol Pot playbook ?

        Another way of looking at it might be that a level of 280PPM is an indicator of life being ‘Nasty, brutish, and short’ for the majority of those not inducted into the priesthood of the cult 🙂

        • A lot of greens believe that any change caused by man is by definition evil.
          The CO2 level was 280ppm before man started messing with it. Therefore 280 is the natural level, therefore 280 is the right level.

  5. You can pick the true scientists by those who don’t push a single solution. True scientists only give details of any problem and talk about possible solutions realizing there are multiple solutions to any problem. The moment any scientist starts with you must do “xyz” you know you are dealing with an activist not a scientist and that holds for any field.

    Climate Science has plenty of activist scientists but few true scientists probably because the field itself is toxic.

    • “True” climate scientist are alarmists.
      The 97% consensus of true climate scientist is just a variation of the true Scotsman fallacy.
      All climate scientist believe in climate doom, and any who doesn’t is not a true climate scientist.

    • “You can pick the true scientists by those who don’t push a single solution.”

      Hmmm. Well, I suppose you can tell those who know their climate change by the fact that they don’t push us to do a single thing about it. Because there isn’t a single reason for a single person to lose a single night’s sleep over it.

      Is this what you meant?

      Then again, people who haven’t heard a single thing about climate change wouldn’t urge anyone to lift a single finger about it either.

      You could get in a time machine, if you could get in a time machine, and go back to 1950 and think everyone you met was a climate guru because they’d pass the same litmus test with flying colors, despite not knowing a single climate scientist.

      It’s like when I asked Michael Mann on Reddit to name the single most important thing climate science had contributed to our understanding of the world.

      “You’re asking me to choose a single discovery?” he stalled.

      “Well, I mean, it’s not easy to name a single one.”

      No, I sympathised. I can’t think of a single thing you people have done for us lately either. I’m hard pressed to think of a single reason why you shouldn’t repay every dime of the taxpayers’ money and spend the rest of your days in singles bars, b*tching and whingeing about how you used to be somebody, then going home to your apartment building for single men and your single bed with that revolver you borrowed from Phil Jones on the nightstand, with a single bullet in it.

    • Excerpt from your link:

      “This pattern in which the theory of anthropogenic climate change changes with the weather was played out again after the warming slowed since 1998 into what became known as a “warming hiatus” even as atmospheric CO2 continued its accelerated climb. Climate science struggled to explain it in many different ways with the most significant papers (Trenberth, Karl, etc) explaining the apparent anomaly with an energy balance that transferred the heat that could not be explained into the ocean in terms of ocean heat content. The ocean heat content issue is described in a related post [LINK] as an example of circular reasoning in climate science. These examples show a flexible and malleable theory that survives by simply being flexible so that no matter what the data, the data always supports a theory that climate science needs to support its activism against fossil fuels in an unusual scientific method in which the activism needs drives the science.”

  6. Totally agree, Another Scott. There must be an optimal level for carbon dioxide, balancing its plant fertilization effects with its planetary warming effects. If that number could be agreed, and it turned out to be higher than current levels – which is my guess – it would change everything.

    • 1) You are assuming that planet warming effects is by definition bad.
      2) You are assuming that CO2 can warm the planet enough to be measured.

  7. Your terminology is all wrong.
    What you are looking for is “true” climate scientists!
    Because the 97% consensus of true climate scientist is nothing more than a case of using the true Scotsman fallacy to delegitimise the views of thousands of sceptical scientist.

    Meanwhile the lack of intellectual modesty is there for all to see
    Its a shame science never chose to formalise The Mertonian norms as an ethical requirement for scientists.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertonian_norms

    • When someone skilled in statistics, M&M for instance, points out the errors in Dr. Mann’s hockey stick, the alarmists will counter that M&M aren’t ‘climate scientists’ while ignoring the fact that none of Mann’s education and experience equip him to be an expert in tree biology. It’s pure sophistry, ie. an attempt to deceive.

  8. Sadly my lawyers are somewhat careless with the truth. One common tactic is to say to the defendant “”Now if you had done X Y and Z, then you would have a viable defence to the charge.

    So of course the defendant will say “”Why yes that is what did happen””

    The Doctors and or specialist who has spent a lifetime following a particular belief, Stomach Ulcer s for example, goes along to a lecture and is told by a Australian GP that he is wrong, and that the reason is a bug which is easily killed by a anti biotic which is out of patient.

    That did happen and a number of specialists walked out. That was in the USA.. The two doctors, both GP’s got the Nobel prize for medicine.

    A Climate expert, Michael Mann is a good example, he is still employed today.

    MJE VK5ELL

  9. “It is widely believed, and wrongly, that the study of climate change is the province of meteorologists and climatologists.
    In reality, scientists who study climate change come from a very wide range of disciplines that can be grouped into three main categories.
    The first group comprises scientists who are expert in meteorology, atmospheric physics, atmospheric chemistry and computer modelling, who mostly study change over short periods of time, and are primarily concerned with weather processes ( and by extension climate processes); a second group comprises geologists and other earth scientists, who hold the key to delineating climate history and the inference of climate processes ; finally the third category comprises those persons who study enabling disciplines like mathematics, statistics and ( perhaps) engineering.
    In this context, competent scientists from all these three groups accept , first, that global climate has always changed and always will; second, that human activities ( not just carbon dioxide emissions) definitely affect local climate, and have the potential, summed to measurably affect global climate; and third that carbon dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas.
    The true scientific debate, then, is about none of these issues, but rather about the sign and magnitude of any global human effect, and its likely significance when considered in the context of natural climate change and variability”-
    “Climate: The Counter Consensus- A Paleoclimatologist Speaks.” , Professor Robert M. Carter.(2010)

    • “ and its likely significance when considered in the context of natural climate change and variability”-

      What does likely significance mean? Does that mean that CO2 is likely good for the planet?

      Other than a slight rise in temperature what else is changing ? More storms? Stronger storms? More rain? Less rain? More wind ? Less wind?

    • Good comments, Herbert. Bob Carter was a Paleontologist and Geologist at Cook University in Australia and a frequent commentator regarding the preserved geologic/stratigraphic record showing what is normal climate variability. Here’s the take from those geologists who remain unpolluted: There is no signal underway detectable against the noisy background of normal climate variability. The main basis for this type of statement is that sea level has been 50 meters higher and 150 meters lower under recent (fairly regular) cycles, and rates of change are proceeding normally.

  10. In terms of an formal ethical ethos for scientist to adhere to I suggest

    Impersonal
    Methodical
    Traceable

    Impersonal infers objectivity, and excludes subjective criteria such as expertise, authority, consensus, and god forbid ad hominem attracts. It also designed to prevent bias. For instance if you believe the world is doomed then your are by nature emotionally compromised, just as Old Spock told young Kirk.

    Methodical obviously means that you should follow scientific method based around falsification. You should be trying to disprove theories and assumptions, not prove them. Scepticism and intellectual modesty are the foundation of scientific thinking.

    Traceable doesn’t even need to be discussed!

  11. “Who Are the “Experts” on Climate Change”
    >>>

    That’s a no-brainer, Paleoclimatologists and Marine sedimentologists (like Bob Carter, and such).

    • Aargh. The piece was actually comprehensive and objective, where as this comment is not. Sorry. Paleoclimatology is definitely one piece in understanding the wicked problem as Curry calls it, but the question, who are the experts definitely is not a no-brainer.

      For example, Michael Mann does not rate very high on questions 3, 4, and 5, but it is difficult to assess these objectively. Many people would think Mann rates high there.

      • The topic is Earth’s climate. Geology from the Latin roots means “The study of Earth”. The people who discovered Earth had a variable climate and uncovered and described this in detail, was a sub-discipline of geology called Paleoclimatology.

        Everyone else is talking through their butts about Earth’s ‘Climate’, and the “climate science”, and “climate debate”, and “climate experts”, are the undeniable proof of that being so.

        You can have your opinion Hugs, but Paleoclimatology is the actual science sub-discipline that studies earth’s climate whether you like it or not.

      • 1 – They have a high degree of competence in the topic at hand.
        [For example, out of 1000 people, they would know more than 999.]

        2 – They have a comprehensive understanding of the topic.
        [They are not one of the blind people examining just a part of the elephant.]

        3 – They are objective in their conclusions and recommendations.
        [They are not influenced by economic incentives, or undeclared political agendas.]

        4 – They are genuinely open-minded regarding their positions.
        [They encourage other parties to critique their analyses and conclusions.]

        5 – Their research and data are transparent.
        [No pertinent information is hidden behind such claims as “work product.”]

        6 – Their research and data are based on empirical evidence.
        [Real world data always takes priority over computer-generated information.]
        >>>

        btw, having studied paleaoclimatology as a former student of Bob Carter’s who was a marine sedimentologist with the resulting extensive knowledge of Earth’s paleaoclimatology, I’d say he objectively gets a tick in all 6 of those areas listed.

        My reply was actually scientifically objective.

        And yes, it is in fact a no-brainer as to who is an ‘expert’ on earth’s climate and who is not. I pay attention to the actual ‘experts’, the ones with reproducible evidence of the paleo record, and who can physically show you what global climate change is, what it looks like and what it does.

        All the rest is fluff not science.

  12. In case you were hoping, reader, that once you identify the scientific experts you can then believe what they tell you, let me stop you. Not gonna work. No expert will ever know more than what the evidence has to tell us about future climate change (which is to say, in the words of the Climategate emailer, “f*ck all”)—and if she thinks she does, then what she “knows” is by definition make-believe.

    Scientists are not, in fact, expected to know anything (except how to do science). Pointedly, it’s not their job to understand their field. Naturally they’ll know more about it than muggles, but that’s not saying much, is it?

    That may sound flippant, but it bespeaks a profound difference between scientific and other modes of inquiry.

    The function of a scientist is to be the first derivative of human knowledge over time.

    The post is well-written but not particularly useful, because if we figure out who the experts are, all it’s going to tell us is who to believe in the ignorance of. It would be easier to just assume everyone is an expert (and therefore ignorant).

    • I agree whole-heartedly with your comments re “Scientists are not, in fact, expected to know anything (except how to do science).”. Once as the Chief Geologist of a mining exploration company in Argentina I commented that all of us have accumulated some beliefs that are not correct, so we need to be on guard about vetting existing ideas when constructing a complex interpretation. I then asked the assembled geologists, mostly Argentineans, what it meant when I was wrong about something (I expected them to say it was obviously a complicated theme), and, after a pause, they volunteered that the Chief was never wrong. This is a problem inside all of this University-sponsored Global Warming nonsense, and the brave ones will be outcasts (get a lawyer!).

  13. An expert answers questions by explaining the factors involved, the data and its uncertainties, and the logic behind any conclusions s/he may draw.

    An activist answers questions be explaining that s/he is an expert.

  14. Expert. Break it down.

    X from algebra, an unknown.
    Spurt, drop of water under pressure.

    Expert: unknown drip under pressure.

  15. “Listen to the Experts.”

    Great idea. So anyways I went to Britain’s Royal Society and listened to them, because they’re supposed to be the experts’ experts. And you know what these supposed experts claimed?

    “Nullius in Verba.”

    Which is absurd, because everybody knows you should trust experts. So that’s the last time I take anyone associated with the Royal Society seriously.

    • According to surveys, about 86% of Christian clergy believe in God. The rest are agnostics or atheists. Kinda makes claims of 97% consensus on climate seem silly.

      In my experience, objectivity is critical to science and engineering no matter what the subject. A “real scientist” will virtually always mention “uncertainty” when discussing their findings and be quite happy to go into considerable detail regarding why he/she could be wrong. Einstein, for example, spent considerable time and effort thinking up experiments and observations that could prove him wrong.

      • Einstein? The Swiss patent attorney? Hardly an expert, but understandably enough seems to be a poster-child for ‘skeptics,’ alongside perennial favorite Richard Feynman.

        Naomi Oreskes—a real scientist—has demolished Einstein’s ‘credibility’ in a withering article that goes to show you should get heart surgery from a heart surgery, not your dog’s astrologer’s plumber.

  16. An expert will spot a flaw much faster than you can.

    [Everybody has a bad day but many ridiculous mistakes that are ignored makes a so-called expert]

    If you need to know who to parrot, you will be conned. Don’t harass those can think for themselves.

  17. It is very easy to be able to identify an expert. The BBC do it for us. They will tell us that so-and-so is an expert in a particuar field. How do they know? Well, that’s very easy, too. The BBC can tell an expert by their opinions. If they are the same as those of the BBC then the person is an expert. Pure dead simple.

  18. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has attacked local journalists for quoting what an Australian climate expert said at a talk.
    “…as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought.”

    “…there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid.“

    Activists in the $1B+ government funded broadcaster went rabid pointing out that Pittman admits that he should have said no direct link. There are indirect links but just what they actually are, in a falsifiable way, was apparently not needed to claim a drought was due to climate change.

    So tonights ABC news has experts claiming that climate change will make floods more common. Its like they know it all BS but the expert label allows you to assert anything.

    • and did they have flimflam on?
      his last stunt was a ripper
      never rain ground too dry to soak in panic panic!!! desal plants costing many mil and
      it rained and rained
      and soaked in

  19. “Real from the Wannabes.”

    “Real from the Poseurs.” Better reflects what is going on with folks like Overpeck, Dessler, Hayhoe, Santer. All their dismissals of huge uncertainties in ECS and its effects, disregarding alternative explanations (natural varibility > anthro CO2, UHI on the surface records), obvious cherry pickings, failed predictions, failure to call out obvious bad actors in their ranks (Mann), and rentseeking behavior makes them Climate poseurs.

    • Oh, very good, Joel. It is fairly easy to tell who the experts aren’t.

      Here on WUWT, we get treated to articles by scientific method practitioners of all stripes (citizen scientists, etc.) that reveal valid evidence of factors involved in the Climate Change Puzzle. We get to see some narrowly focused expertise that adds to our knowledge of climate with no claims beyond the evidence presented.

      Unless I slept through it, I have missed the evidence of the Great Reveal of the Grand Unified Theory of Climate Change which provides overwhelming evidence that it’s CO2 and nothing else wot dunnit.

      If you don’t read the papers, you are uninformed. If you do read the papers, you are misinformed (~Twain). So far, all I’m seeing in the papers is that it’s CO2 wot dunnit with no evidence of such.

  20. Feynman says we learn from science that you must doubt the experts:

    “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it”

    (The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, p.187).

  21. Do you consider lukewarmers “Real Experts” or “So-Called Experts”?

    This is one of the problems. Some of the Real Experts you think are wholly against climate change alarmism also have one foot in the alarmist camp ready to acknowledge that CO2 has some part to play in determining surface warming. It just depends how high they want to turn that CO2 dial.

    So-Called Experts: Atmospheric CO2 either contributes a little or a lot to surface warming.

    Real Experts: Atmospheric CO2 either contributes to surface warming or it doesn’t.

    The former is opinionated; the latter is empirical.

      • That’s because you are a lukewarmer who is too shy to confront the failed AGW hypothesis.

        I say again, atmospheric CO2 either contributes to surface warming or it doesn’t. It can’t do both.

        • So all those scientists who disagree with you are wrong?
          Only those people who agree with the position that you so desperately want to be true can be considered experts.

          It really is amazing how petty some people get when their religious beliefs are challenged.

          • It’s not about what scientists say or think or who they disagree with in order to protect their government funding.

            It’s about evidence and there is no evidence that back radiation from atmospheric CO2 raises the the temperature of the object (the planet) that “heated” the CO2 in the first place. If there were evidence I’m sure you would have provided it. No?

            Try the Guardian, pal. They’d love you.

          • How typical of the religious mind set. Anyone who disagrees with me must be in league with the enemy.
            Laboratory experiments have demonstrated the existence of back radiation.
            It doesn’t matter what the temperature of the two objects is.

            That the temperature rise from CO2 is still less than the background noise is not evidence that there is no such increase.

          • “Laboratory experiments have demonstrated the existence of back radiation. It doesn’t matter what the temperature of the two objects is.”

            OMG, you do not know the difference between radiation and heat transfer. That explains it all.

            All objects radiate no matter what their temperatures. Two objects at different temperatures may radiate towards each other. Only one of them transfers thermal heat, the hotter one.

            I hope this has been of help to you.

            It’s not religion, it’s science. The Guardian awaits you. Try rockyrex.

      • The mechanism by which CO2 transfers radiative energy to the atmosphere is basic physics and well understood. Just because you don’t want it to be true, won’t make that go away.

        • MARK W,

          Please provide the study which empirically proved the mechanism by which CO2 transfers radiative energy to the atmosphere and that it is the fraction of one CO2 molecule added by Man to the 4 molecules in 10000 that warms the Earth and is going to burn her up. Thanks.

        • In simple terms, on receiving a photon from, say, the earth’s surface, a CO2 molecule collides hundreds of millions of times with other atmospheric molecules and transfers or receives energy by conduction before it even has a chance of releasing another photon.

          It is the translational, vibrational and rotational properties of a molecule that determines how this is performed.

          Convection constantly moves around the molecules that make up the atmosphere which enables us to calculate the lapse rate.

          CO2 is transparent to 92% the earth’s emission spectrum; CO2 can only absorb IR in the 15 micron band. CO2 is not a big player in how the climate might change.

          Tell me, how does the atmosphere cool to space? It cannot be by conduction or convection because space is a vacuum. It can only do so by non-condensing ghgs such as CO2 releasing energy to space.

          This is science not religion. If you want religion, sign on at the Guardian.

          Are you Loydo’s dad?

    • A perfect example of a religious/political statement, not a scientific one.
      The belief that there are only two camps, and one MUST declare themselves wholly in one camp or the other.

      Anyone who disagrees with my camp is wrong. Period.

  22. “………..A good way to assess whether you’re dealing with a Real Expert or a So-Called Expert when it comes to climate change would be to see where they stand regarding essential element #4. Anyone who asserts that “the science is settled” is self-identifying as a So-Called Expert, because no true scientist (Real Expert) would ever say that…………..”

    Not exactly. Find an undoubted expert on energy and dynamics. Tell him your plan for a Perpetual Motion machine. 10-1 he will say “Stop wasting my time – the science on that is settled!”

    It really is VERY difficult to distinguish between Experts and ‘So-Called Experts’. They will both do similar things. Though one good way would be to use the Popperian approach – ask “What would it take for you to change your mind on this?”

    A real Expert will know WHY they believe something, and will rapidly be able to say that, if some particular variable were found to be different, that would change their beliefs.

    A So-Called Expert will see this as a trick question, and will either deny that there could be anything to change their mind, or will take some time to think of a thing that could not possibly change. Either way, there will be a difference you should notice…..

  23. “………Not all priests are exemplary Christian — but when priests violate the rules of Christianity, they are defrocked… ……….”

    Not all priests are exemplary Christian — but when priests violate the rules of Christianity, they are defended by the Church…

    There. Fixed that for you…

      • Change “blacks” to males, MarkW, and you have the actual 2018 NAS report on sexual harassment in STEM departments.

  24. I am a veterinary surgeon: if I make false declarations in a professional context I get struck off.
    Michael Mann is a climate scientist………

  25. It is extremely UNSCIENTIFIC to say that if someone got one thing wrong, then everything they say can be discounted.

    That being the case, Mr Watts’ website only prints drivel because in October 2019, it printed ludicrous rubbish about Russia and Europe on gas provision, trying to spin lies to justify sale of very expensive US LNG to Europe. No sentient European considered the article to be anything but typical US gangsterism….

    There can be no question that any of the following have any credentials to discuss anything climate-related if they say that what was said in that scurrilous puff piece had any truth whatever: Allan MacRae, Eric Worrall, Anthony Watts, Monckton of Brenchley, Leif Svalgaard, David Middleton, Willis Eschenbach, Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, just to mention nine….

    Discussion will shut down very quickly and no investigations will in future occur, because transiently incorrect viewpoints will lead to permanent disbarment from future discussions.

    80%+ of scientific hypotheses are wrong and many which are transiently perceived to be correct turn out to be wrong too…

    Be careful before you exclude yourselves from discussion….

    • Wow, the Russophiles really do get their panties in a wad anytime you expose the activities of their patrons.

      BTW, do you still believe that the US is uber capitalist?

    • Rhys Jaggar, “ typical US gangsterism

      What European leftists, embittered yearners for lost glory, and continental snobs call the actions the US took to oppose the most vile mass-murdering ideology ever to see the light of day.

      An ideology from the soil of that same Europe.

      • Of course Russia has never ever done anything that others might criticize. It’s only the US that does bad stuff.

        • Well, there are thousands of dead Polish officers in Katyn who might disagree, but I can read your sarcasm…

  26. With climate change, there are essentially two sides to the story: side A claims that man’s CO2 is a problem, and will be even more of one in the future, and side B says no, there is no real-world evidence that that is the case, and that whatever warming it has caused is beneficial, as is the increased CO2, which plants love. Side A’s claim is both extraordinary and alarmist in nature, and requires extraordinary proof. But look how they act when asked for such proof. I go with side A, and then find which experts to listen to. That was basically what I did back in 2007, when I believed the Alarmist side, mostly because that was mostly all I heard and was even aware of.

  27. Most people I know do not understand science. There is math they cannot grasp. In fact, they have been taught that truth comes from teachers — from authority not to be questioned. Scientific facts are to be memorized. Verification — testing — of teachers’ claims is simply not allowed.

  28. “Not all priests are exemplary Christian — but when priests violate the rules of Christianity, they are defrocked… Not all lawyers are law-abiding citizen — but when lawyers violate the rules of law they are disbarred… ”

    The author makes this laughable assertion that mocks the truth – the clergy and the legal profession of full of priests who violate Christian scripture and lawyers who violate legal standards, and these people are given accolades. Check out the Pope and most members of Congress.

  29. The large majority of those who call themselves climate scientists are suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect: they grossly overestimate their own competence. Dilletants really. I have had interactions with climate modelers and it was crystal clear to me that they are ignorant of some basic knowledge of relevant and fundamental physics to the point that some even were clueless about what I was talking about. Climatology is imho just a jumped up pretend science.

    • It’s never justified to psychologically diagnose from a distance, Ed.

      But I’ve had the same experience as you. It’s clear to me the problem is that most climate modelers are completely untrained in any physical science.

      They’re mostly mathematicians, living in a Platonic ideal, with no concept of physical reasoning and no knowledge that the physical universe is messy and does not admit of closed-form solutions.

      Estimates and approximations are foreign, and perhaps anathema, to them.

      When one looks at climate modeling papers, they’re all just statistics. Virtually no physics and no science. All closed form pdfs of this or that.

      They’ve made a warm statistical pond for themselves, touting climate models as some sort of otherworldly essence restricted to priestly attention, and closed off from the cold critically ruthless waters of science.

      Well, science has just broken in.

  30. From the article: “[Real world data always takes priority over computer-generated information.]”

    NASA Climate, and NOAA modify real world surface temperature data into computer-generated science fiction in their efforts to promote the human-caused climate change narrative.

    NASA Climate and NOAA should stick with real world data and quit lying to the world about the temperature record using their fraudulent Hockey Stick temperature chart.

    Real world data would show that the weather was just as warm in the 1930’s as it is today, which shows there is no unprecedented warming going on today, which means there is little or no human-caused global warming/climate change. Real World Data shows Mother Nature is the mover of the Earth’s climate.

  31. Climate Science, would by necessity have to involve many different scientific disciplines, and would certainly be so complex that mastery would be beyond the capacity of a single human mind ?

    So what passes as ‘Climate Science’ today is nothing more than a Mob style shakedown of pretty much most of scientific endeavour, with the so called climate scientists being nothing more than racketeers who have acquired the power to condemn to penury any who gainsay their pronouncements.

  32. It’s like the final scene on ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ where Indiana Jones asks the gov “officials” what experts where working on the Ark (because Jones knew who all the experts were), and the condescending official repeated, “Top experts”. Of course the official was lying out of his teeth.

  33. High scientific standards haven’t been around for millennia (they are actually quite new), and adhering to them has never been the norm.

  34. I simply loved the way Dr. Droz signed his essay: “John Droz, jr., is a physicist and a member of the CO2 Coalition, an alliance of 50 unalarmed climate scientists and energy economists”. Priceless…

    • I am giving serious consideration to use the phrase “the unalarmed” in place of “skeptics”, going forward.
      It contrasts very well with those whom I consider to guided by considerations other than what is in evidence.

          • Once again with the absolutes.
            Anyone who doesn’t agree with me 100% is totally evil and must be in league with the devil.

            As to appealing to authority, you should look into your own posts before smearing others.

        • I see you never address the comment but go straight for the poster.

          It leads me to assume you don’t actually know anything about basic physics.

          Don’t you ever get tired of repeating the same B$?

          Produce the evidence that back radiation from ghgs in the atmosphere is somehow radiated back to the earth’s surface and raises its temperature.

          Remember, the back radiation that ghgs absorb was originally emitted by the warmer planet surface. The earth cooled off and then the ghgs warmed it up again. LOL!

          The Guardian has a place in heaven for you.

    • The whole point is for everyone to think for themselves. To not fully trust what you hear but to not distrust either.
      With that said,
      If we [snip] the levels of carbon and try to take it out of the stratosphere/atmosphere…whatever…
      our food will quit growing, the birds will stop flying,
      Let nature worry about its creations and let’s start worrying abkut ours,like the economy for starters.
      How are we gonna switch from fossil fuels with minimal disruption to our lives?

  35. 5 – Their research and data are transparent.
    [No pertinent information is hidden behind such claims as “work product.”]

    I would add the caveat that;
    “Except where pertinent information is hidden for commercial reasons in which case the meaningfulness of that pertinent information is proven by commercial viability.”

  36. “Not all priests are exemplary Christian — but when priests violate the rules of Christianity, they are defrocked”

    Not quite true, they are simply moved around, to violate again.

  37. Today there is an ever-increasing number of scientists driven by political agendas, peer pressure, job security, etc. rather than scientific mores.

    Most of them are driven by one or another form of government baksheesh in the form of research grants. Which are very rarely obtainable if the research is feared by anyone to lead to conclusions contradictory to the current University/Media/Democrat herd mentality about the imminence of disaster in the form of global warming. The peer pressure and job security are just corollaries of the overall political agenda, which calls for the ultimate end of free enterprise and the imposition of government control over the economy.

  38. For my own two cents, there are ‘experts’, then there are those that memorize all the reading, which is skewed by the fact that it seems that most people that get into the field are there because they want to be the activists that the public school system have taught them to be.

    Hence, you have true-believers walking into the field with a pre-determined bias.

    I often hear, ‘all the people that study it, believe in it’ – well, that’s why – at least in part.

    I ask these same people – who are almost exclusively science-based ideologues – ‘does the fact that most people who study God for a living believe in Him, PROVE His existence?’

  39. An expert is simply one who is wrong less often in his field than one who is not an expert in that field. I don’t think in the history of Man there has been an expert who was not wrong in his field of expertise at some time.

    I have been around a long time, and the one thing I have learned is that the “known science” is never settled, often incomplete and fails under specific conditions, and is sometimes flat-out wrong. I have seen ‘a consensus of experts’ wrong many times, and the more they insist they are right, the more likely they are wrong.

  40. Here are some of my views as an operational meteorologist of 37 years that trades commodities for a living using the affects of weather on energy and globally, on crops…………while trying to enlighten people about the current climate optimum on this greening planet.

    Climate Reality discussions
    https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27864/

    Am I an expert?
    I don’t know too many other people that spends every day, all day observing and analyzing weather models, studying climate, current and past………researching data and applying them using objective, critical thinking.

    In the universe of today’s climate crisis, you can be wrong for 30 years and keep resetting the goal posts………..and people, who had their brains captured by your propaganda 30 years ago, 20 years ago and 10 years ago……….keep going along for the their next scary but convincing sounding anti science fake climate crisis fix.

    https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

    In my universe of trading based entirely on the influence of weather in the real world, when you are wrong, your money goes away. Wrong too many times and it all goes away.
    In the universe of today’s hijacked climate science, the climate scare does just the opposite. It generates money.
    The climate scare/crisis/emergency is worth MUCH less money……..by a wide margin than the current windfalls of the climate crisis.

    No thanks. I’ll make my money applying authentic science/meteorology!

  41. Here are some of my views as an operational meteorologist of 37 years that trades commodities for a living using the affects of weather on energy and globally, on crops…………while trying to enlighten people about the current climate optimum on this greening planet.

    Climate Reality discussions
    https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27864/

    Am I an expert?
    I don’t know too many other people that spends every day, all day observing and analyzing weather models, studying climate, current and past………researching data and applying them using objective, critical thinking.

    In the universe of today’s climate crisis, you can be wrong for 30 years and keep resetting the goal posts………..and people, who had their brains captured by your propaganda 30 years ago, 20 years ago and 10 years ago……….keep going along for the their next scary but convincing sounding anti science fake climate crisis fix.

    https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

    In my universe of trading based entirely on the influence of weather in the real world, when you are wrong, your money goes away. Wrong too many times and it all goes away.
    In the universe of today’s hijacked climate science, the climate scare does just the opposite. It generates money.
    The climate scare/crisis/emergency is worth MUCH more money……..by a wide margin than not having a climate crisis.

    No thanks. I’ll make my money applying authentic science/meteorology!

  42. “The climate scare/crisis/emergency is worth MUCH less money……..by a wide margin than the current windfalls of the climate crisis. ”

    Sorry about that.
    It should say: “The climate scare/crisis/emergency is worth MUCH MORE money……..by a wide margin than not having a climate crisis. “

  43. I’ve thought of approximately six different angles to take, for a comment.
    I’m flummoxed, which make no mistake, is the intent of certain parties.
    When they are sending a barrage of unsupported claims at ya, where to start the refutation ?

  44. Defining “expert” in terms of knowledge is tricky.
    999 people know the names of five local birds. I know the names of six. There are about fifty different birds in the locality.
    So although I know more than anyone else, I still don’t know very much. It seems a bit silly to call me an expert.

    The important question about climate experts isn’t “Do they know more than we do?” but “Do they know enough to make useful predictions?”

  45. X is the unknown quantity and a spurt is a drip under pressure.
    I would never wish to be known as an expert, maybe recognised by my peers as very competent would be plenty good enough.

  46. Just because you are an ‘expert’ in one area doesn’t mean you have a clue in other areas. When I arrived on campus in atmospheric science, I was quickly shocked at how horrible my professors were at weather forecasting. All but one was completely clueless. Most never tried. Experts at academic sciences often have zero intuition for real world problems and solutions.

    Forecasting requires real-world smarts which are very different than academic smarts.

    Ultimately, climate change is a forecasting problem. Academics, with no training or skill at forecasting are claiming that a climate crisis is looming. I’m not an expert at complex atmospheric physics or ocean heat transfer or polar ice dynamics, but I am an “expert” at forecasting.

    With my expertise, I can tell you that very few climatologists have a clue about how to forecast. They have no demonstrable skill at climate forecasting. Climate models go to gobbledegoop very quickly and all that is left are the starting assumptions. The forecast sample size is so small that the statistical adjustments which are so important in weather forecasting, are useless with climate models. Uncertainties are huge and wildly underestimated.

    Bottom line…the so-called ‘experts’ have no expertise at all in what matters… forecasting the future.

    • “Just because you are an ‘expert’ in one area doesn’t mean you have a clue in other areas.”

      Yep.

      Just last night on my local FB group I learned that:

      1) there is such a thing as Reiki for animals
      2) that there is a market for people who will pay for Reiki for animals
      3) that the same “experts” who tell me to believe the science of climate change can also be found in point #2.

      A book I read once about pseudo-science that a great introductory chapter, where the author told of reading a pseudo-science book (out of his expertise), and being drawn into the belief system…until it came to HIS area of expertise. THEN the whole argument fell apart for him.

      I.e., everyone is conservative about what they know best.

  47. Surely the problem with climate science is that it requires expertise in a number of different disciplines.

    I have only rudimentary knowledge of electricity and no knowledge at all of engineering but I am always amazed at how often those who are expert in those subjects manage to find fault in the feedback assumptions used by climate scientists in their GCMs.

    I have even less knowledge of meteorology and chemistry but many experts in those disciplines are known to question some of the assumptions made by climatologists. Similarly many expert physicists are dubious about the physics assumed in the models.

    I have a little knowledge of statistics but enough to know that when experts, such as Nic Lewis, can tear to pieces certain statistical assumptions and conclusions in peer-reviewed climate science papers, one must doubt that climate scientists really do have sufficient understanding of the subject, let alone be sufficiently expert in it, to justify their use of the data.

    As someone who has practiced as an expert in more than four hundred court cases, in several different jurisdictions, I am aware that even in my own discipline there were always other experts whose knowledge in narrower part of that discipline was greater than my own and whose opinions I therefore respected.

    The trouble with climate scientists is that they cannot be experts in all the fields that affect the earth’s climate but they do not appear to respect the opinions of those whose expertise in a particular area is far greater than theirs unless, of course, it tallies with their own assumptions. Thus, they fail to correct their models, perhaps for fear that any such corrections would interfere with their preconceived conclusions or, more likely, because they do really lack the expertise to understand the criticisms.

    • 100% this.

      Which is why I can’t understand why counting tree rings is considered such a valid part of “climate science”…

Comments are closed.