Man Made Global Warming

[lukin]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html

This is an interesting article from National Geographic.

Edited August 30, 2008 by lukin

[peter_puck]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html

This is an interesting article from National Geographic.

The article states that this is the view of one scientist whose views are rejected by the rest of the scientific community. This is part of the "warming planets myth".

The warming planet myth is the idea that it is somehow the output of the sun that is responsible for global warming.

The "proof" of this is that other planets in the solar system are getting warmer as well.

Here are some of the reasons why this is rejected.

1. NASA has all sorts of instruments pointed directly at the sun that measure solar output. Aren't they a much better measure of solar output than a measurement of the ice caps on mars. Why don't they show fluctuations showing what the anti-AGW crowd refer to ?

2. Some planets in the solar system are getting colder.

3. The temperature measured is only for a certain part of Mars. Mars could actually be getting colder. If you take the temperature of certain parts of the earth over time, they will actually be getting colder. Its the average that counts.

4. How many planet scientists has this guy got to agree with him ? Most planet scientists unconnected to the AGW debate talk about dust storms (weather) or planet wobble as being the cause.

5. This guys view of the effect of CO2 on climate rejects most science on the subject going back to the 1800's. He rejects most of the "greenhouse effect" - the only thing preventing most of the earth turning into a giant ball of ice.

Also, lets look at how the anti-AGW crowd would look at this type of evidence. They say that are vast array of satellites and ground weather stations are not enough to measure the climate properly on earth, yet they feel that a handful of pictures of the ice caps of Mars are PROOF that the whole planet is warming. They feel that climate models run by supercomputers are totally inaccurate, but restaurant napkin calculations can prove their "warming solar system" model.

[Bryan]

Thousands of scientists disagree with the AGW hypothesis. No, they don't all agree with this particular scientist, but that's how science works. People test and falsify each others ideas to find the real answers. It's the polar opposite of how the AGW proponents work. They came up with the conclusion first, then fabricated the evidence to fit the models they came up with, then shout down anyone who actually wants to challenge their conclusions.

[Riverwind]

1. NASA has all sorts of instruments pointed directly at the sun that measure solar output. Aren't they a much better measure of solar output than a measurement of the ice caps on mars. Why don't they show fluctuations showing what the anti-AGW crowd refer to ?

You are assuming that the sun can only affect climate directly via changes in irradiance. The solar-cosmic ray link proposes that changes in the sun's magnetic field affects the climate. The sun-cosmic ray theory is accepted as a valid theory by the climate science community - they only claim that its effect has not been proven to exist. I realize the scientist quoted used the term 'irradiance' but it is a short article and I am not sure of the context.

2. Some planets in the solar system are getting colder.

If the solar effect is indirect then the magnititude of the warming will depend on how this indirect effect plays out on each planet.

3. The temperature measured is only for a certain part of Mars. Mars could actually be getting colder. If you take the temperature of certain parts of the earth over time, they will actually be getting colder. Its the average that counts.

An non-argument unless you have evidence that the rest of the planet is warming. If you don't have such evidence then you cannot claim that the poles are not representative of the planet. BTW - the entire catastrophic GW theory is depends heavily on climate sensitivity estimates dervived from polar ice core data which are assumed to be representative of the entire planet. So if you want to reject the 'mars is warming theory' because the poles are not representative then you will have to reject the catastrophic GW theory too.

4. How many planet scientists has this guy got to agree with him ? Most planet scientists unconnected to the AGW debate talk about dust storms (weather) or planet wobble as being the cause.

Science is not a democracy. Anyone who upsets the status quo will find his arguments rejected by the majority until the supporting evidence is to much to ignore. In this case, proposing that the sun is affecting the climate on other planets is not a radical concept even if it has political ramifications on this planet.

5. This guys view of the effect of CO2 on climate rejects most science on the subject going back to the 1800's. He rejects most of the "greenhouse effect" - the only thing preventing most of the earth turning into a giant ball of ice.

This is what is called a red herring. The green house effect is not being disputed. The fact that CO2 will cause some warming is not being disputed. What is being disputed is the argument that nothing but CO2 can explain the warming over the last 40 years. In fact, the IPCC predictions of doom will come crashing down if someone can demonstrate conclusively that part of the warming since 1960 was caused by something other than CO2 (i.e. if something other than CO2 is aslo at work then the effect of CO2 on climate must be less that what has been claimed which means much less warming in the future even if we emit CO2).

Also, lets look at how the anti-AGW crowd would look at this type of evidence. They say that are vast array of satellites and ground weather stations are not enough to measure the climate properly on earth, yet they feel that a handful of pictures of the ice caps of Mars are PROOF that the whole planet is warming. They feel that climate models run by supercomputers are totally inaccurate, but restaurant napkin calculations can prove their "warming solar system" model.

There would be no debate if the magnitude of the CO2 effect could be measured in a lab. The debate exists because it can't so climate scientists have tried to estimate it from the past where we have little or no data (a.k.a. "napkin calculations") or with GCMs which have never demonstrated that they can accurates predict outcomes (hindcasts don't count).

My pet peeve with this debate is what I call "uncertainty denial". i.e. the tendency for proponents of a pet theory (alarmist or sceptical) to claim a certainty that simply does not exist given the data available. The alarmist claims cannot be proven and there is no data that conclusively supports their predictions of catastrophic future warming (the data that does exists suggests warming is proceeding at a much slower rate than would be expected if the alarmists theories were correct) yet alarmists insist that they have proven their case and that trillion-dollar government investments are required.

[bush_cheney2004]

...3. The temperature measured is only for a certain part of Mars. Mars could actually be getting colder. If you take the temperature of certain parts of the earth over time, they will actually be getting colder. Its the average that counts.

This is the worst kind of pseudo science out there.....the average is the least important thing of all, as it hides much more important derivative data such as standard deviation, mode, variance, etc.

Average is for weather forecasts, not serious thermal analysis of dynamic systems.

[eyeball]

Science is not a democracy. Anyone who upsets the status quo will find his arguments rejected by the majority until the supporting evidence is to much to ignore. In this case, proposing that the sun is affecting the climate on other planets is not a radical concept even if it has political ramifications on this planet.

Science is not a democracy? I bet you'd be singing a different tune if there were more scientists who disagree with GW theory than agree. Speaking of which is anyone actually tracking these numbers? Is there an online 'Scientist Clock' or 'Consensus Counter' that a person can refer to? Should there be?

My pet peeve with this debate is what I call "uncertainty denial".

My peeve with this debate is what I call an "uncertainty gap". A minimal amount of uncertainty in AGW theory has in fact succeeded in delaying a lot of action from being taken with regards to CO2 emmissions over the years. The huge amount of uncertainty that exists to our conventional economic theories on the other hand has done little if anything to delay implementation of sweeping new economic policies over similar time frames. Many of which have increased CO2 emmissions I might add.

I'm not a scientist or an economist but I am a voter and I can weigh my options. It seems I'm constantly being told that vast numbers agree or disagree so like I said a simple counter that adds these up might be usefull or they might be a threat. Who knows?

Edited August 31, 2008 by eyeball

[Stephen Best]

It's worth noting that there's nothing to suggest that global warming caused by the Sun and by human activity are mutually exclusive: an either/or proposition. Both could be happening.

[Riverwind]

The huge amount of uncertainty that exists to our conventional economic theories on the other hand has done little if anything to delay implementation of sweeping new economic policies over similar time frames.

This seems to be a hobby horse of yours. Various economic theories have been tried in different places at different times (i.e. 70 years of communism) so we do have real experimental results that tell us something about the worth of different economic theories. We don't have that for climate theories because we have only one planet. Edited August 31, 2008 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

According to conventional theory we only have one economy too, even the communists seem to agree.

[Riverwind]

According to conventional theory we only have one economy too, even the communists seem to agree.

Actually we have many economies - the Russians trashed these with 70 years of communism. The Argentinians trashes theirs with decades of inane monetary policies. All of these small scale experiments allow us to evaluate different economic theories. You will have a point whenever someone finds another real planet that we can use to conduct real experiments that allows us to evaluate different climate theories. Edited August 31, 2008 by Riverwind

[blueblood]

In the renaissance, there was "evidence" suggesting that the Earth was the centre of the universe, some scientists called bullshit when the vast majority of the scientific community said the earth was the centre of the universe.

Let the scientists call bullshit with the global warming. They seem to be proving their case pretty well.

[Bryan]

Science is not a democracy? I bet you'd be singing a different tune if there were more scientists who disagree with GW theory than agree. Speaking of which is anyone actually tracking these numbers? Is there an online 'Scientist Clock' or 'Consensus Counter' that a person can refer to? Should there be?

The number of people who believe either side is irrelevant. The truth is still true even if nobody believes it, and bullshit is still bullshit even if everyone believes it.

[eyeball]

The number of people who believe either side is irrelevant.

Not in a democracy usually.

The truth is still true even if nobody believes it, and bullshit is still bullshit even if everyone believes it.

You certainly can't blame voters for not being able to tell the difference between truth and bullshit, not in today's political and economic environment...and now the politicians and economists are telling us not to trust our scientists. Great.

Voters are just looking for something to...put in the bank...what is anyone's guess it seems.

[Riverwind]

now the politicians and economists are telling us not to trust our scientists.

Scientists are humans like the rest of us and do make mistakes and, more importantly, subject to the effects of cognative dissonance and peer pressure when faced with conflicting information.

[peter_puck]

You are assuming that the sun can only affect climate directly via changes in irradiance. The solar-cosmic ray link proposes that changes in the sun's magnetic field affects the climate. The sun-cosmic ray theory is accepted as a valid theory by the climate science community - they only claim that its effect has not been proven to exist. I realize the scientist quoted used the term 'irradiance' but it is a short article and I am not sure of the context.

There is a huge hole in your logic here. The small minority of people who cling to this solar magnetic field idea say it changes climate because it causes changes in cloud cover. Mars does not have clouds of water vapor. IF you held to this "solar magnetic field" idea, you would be expecting Mars to stay the same, not warm!

If the solar effect is indirect then the magnititude of the warming will depend on how this indirect effect plays out on each planet.

Again, indirect means a change in the atmosphere. Mars does not have an earth like atmosphere.

An non-argument unless you have evidence that the rest of the planet is warming. If you don't have such evidence then you cannot claim that the poles are not representative of the planet.

What I am saying is that it is not a good way to measure temperature. Anti-AGW types say we cannot measure the temperature of the earth despite all are equipment. Why are a handful of photographs of the clouds a few years apart proof of anything.

BTW - the entire catastrophic GW theory is depends heavily on climate sensitivity estimates dervived from polar ice core data which are assumed to be representative of the entire planet. So if you want to reject the 'mars is warming theory' because the poles are not representative then you will have to reject the catastrophic GW theory too.

You are measuring - very indirectly - the amount of ice on mars over a short period of time. Ice core samples (and nobody calls this perfect data either, just we don't have ice core samples from Florida) are taken over a very long period of time.

Science is not a democracy. Anyone who upsets the status quo will find his arguments rejected by the majority until the supporting evidence is to much to ignore. In this case, proposing that the sun is affecting the climate on other planets is not a radical concept even if it has political ramifications on this planet.

Sigh. All these guys with Phd's are so much dumber than you are.

This is what is called a red herring. The green house effect is not being disputed.

By some anti_AGW types it is. In other forums of have tried to explain it to people and they have demanded some sort of proof.

In this case, I was pointing out that the scientist who posted this is far outside the scientific mainstream on other points.

My pet peeve with this debate is what I call "uncertainty denial". i.e. the tendency for proponents of a pet theory (alarmist or sceptical) to claim a certainty that simply does not exist given the data available. The alarmist claims cannot be proven and there is no data that conclusively supports their predictions of catastrophic future warming (the data that does exists suggests warming is proceeding at a much slower rate than would be expected if the alarmists theories were correct) yet alarmists insist that they have proven their case and that trillion-dollar government investments are required.

Thats what the cancer stick companies said for years. That is what the absestos industry said. Thats what they said about PCB's. Its right in the play book.

[eyeball]

Scientists are humans like the rest of us and do make mistakes and, more importantly, subject to the effects of cognative dissonance and peer pressure when faced with conflicting information.

Okay, so how many of them are feeling these effects? If humans can be studied that means scientists can be studied too so my question should be quantifiable. If I had an accurate number I would at least have something I can use to weigh my choice. Perhaps the rate at which previously agreeable scientists are changing their minds would help.

[peter_puck]

Thousands of scientists disagree with the AGW hypothesis. No, they don't all agree with this particular scientist, but that's how science works. People test and falsify each others ideas to find the real answers. It's the polar opposite of how the AGW proponents work. They came up with the conclusion first, then fabricated the evidence to fit the models they came up with, then shout down anyone who actually wants to challenge their conclusions.

Can you name them ? The US senate published a list of 400 "prominent" scientists who disputed global warming. That list turned out to be garbage.

Could you even give me 50 people who:

Have a Phd in a relavant science (chemistry, physics, mathematics etc)

AND

Have done relevant research (Science is a very specialized. A guy may have spent his entire life trying to figure out how electrons orbit a hydrogen atom - this does not make you a global warming expert)

AND

Have not committed some form of academic fraud.

AND

are published in peer reviewed scientific publications (by a peer reviewed publication I mean one which is recognized in the scientific community. A bare minimum would require someone with a science degree as editor )

[Riverwind]

Could you even give me 50 people who:

You would have a hard time providing 50 people that would your meet the criteria and support AGW because (as you say) climate science is a very narrow field. The overwhelming number of scientists expressing their opinion of AGW do not have the expertise that would allow them to determine whether the models are useless or not, yet this does not stop them from insisting the models must be correct and using them to justify all kinds of claims. OTOH, many scientists who have experience with numerical models in unrelated fields are very skeptical of model reliability.

Have not committed some form of academic fraud.

This criteria woud eliminate a number of pro-AGW scientists such as Mann and his collaborators. Here is an excellent summary of the tale of the hockey stick: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/200...esus-paper.html

The fact that many pro-AGW scientists refuse to concede that something very wrong happened with the process surrounding the IPCC and the hockey stick is one of the main reasons why I think that pro-AGW scientists no longer deserve unquestioning trust.

Edited August 31, 2008 by Riverwind

[peter_puck]

You would have a hard time providing 50 people that would your meet the criteria and support AGW because (as you say) climate science is a very narrow field. The overwhelming number of scientists expressing their opinion of AGW do not have the expertise that would allow them to determine whether the models are useless or not, yet this does not stop them from insisting the models must be correct and using them to justify all kinds of claims. OTOH, many scientists who have experience with numerical models in unrelated fields are very skeptical of model reliability.

This criteria woud eliminate a number of pro-AGW scientists such as Mann and his collaborators. Here is an excellent summary of the tale of the hockey stick: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/200...esus-paper.html

Due to time constraints, I have decided not to argue pseudo scientific bullshit with you anymore.

Just let me point out:

There is not a single unbiased group of scientists anywhere in the world that agree with you.

There is not one major scientific society that doubts global warming (The petroleum engineers just gave up)

There are numerous scientific organizations that support it.

There is not a single country that opposes the concept of global warming.

There are many that support it.

If you want to argue one of the above points- go ahead. If you want to argue that every one of these groups are controlled by AL Gore go ahead.

Since I am not a climate scientist, I will defer to the scientific community when deciding what to do.

[Riverwind]

Due to time constraints, I have decided not to argue pseudo scientific bullshit with you anymore.

Because you can't debate the facts so you make endless appeals to authority and expect people to take your POV seriously. The issue with the IPCC and the hockey stick is well documented and IMO, only the willfully blind insist that no mistakes were made on the part of the IPCC. You don't have to be a climate scientist to understand - but you do have to stop insisting that scientists are these non-political infallibale gods. They are human like the rest of us and make mistakes and have agendas.

There is not a single unbiased group of scientists anywhere in the world that agree with you.

A rediculous peice of circular logic. You can't say every group of scientists because you know it is not true so you add the caveat "unbaised" where you define the term "unbiased" to mean "agrees with AGW".

There is not one major scientific society that doubts global warming (The petroleum engineers just gave up)

Neither do I or any skeptics. What people doubt is whether we are likely headed torwards a catastrophe caused by CO2 emissions. Many scientists doubt that.

There are numerous scientific organizations that support it.

So? Scientific bodies are political organizations. Even then they are not united. A significant number of geologists are skeptical much to the consternation of the climate modellers.

There is not a single country that opposes the concept of global warming.

Really? Have you looked at India's recent report? Here is what it says on p. 15:

“No firm link between the documented changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established”

The changes listed include: surface temperature, rainfall, extreme weather events, rise in sea level and impacts on Himalayan glaciers.

link: http://pmindia.nic.in/Pg01-52.pdf

They may not "oppose" but they certainly aren't supporting it in the way you would like to claim.

Since I am not a climate scientist, I will defer to the scientific community when deciding what to do.

So what will you say if it turns out that the skeptics are right after we have wasted trillions on a hopeless cause? Edited September 1, 2008 by Riverwind

[Keepitsimple]

I'm sure this article has shown up in many posts but I'll post it again. It's an open letter to the United Nations on behalf of many, many renowned scientists:

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/s....html?id=164002

Signatories include:

The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,' Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

[peter_puck]

Because you can't debate the facts so you make endless appeals to authority and expect people to take your POV seriously. The issue with the IPCC and the hockey stick is well documented and IMO, only the willfully blind insist that no mistakes were made on the part of the IPCC. You don't have to be a climate scientist to understand - but you do have to stop insisting that scientists are these non-political infallibale gods. They are human like the rest of us and make mistakes and have agendas.

I have spend a silly amount of time showing the errors in your logic of you and your confederates. I have spent hours reading and picking apart the latest "proof" that AGW is false. I researched the list of "400 prominent scientists who disagree with AGW". I have read many of the abstracts of the "1500 peer reviewed articles against global warming". I looked into many of the "peer reviewed scientific journals" they were included in.

I responded point for point for the article that started this thread. I have dusted off old textbooks from school.

I have researched the absorption spectrum of C02. I have analyzed photos of the arctic showing what appeared on the surface to be a dramatic increase in ice cover since the 80's. I looked into the equipment NASA has pointed at the sun. I read articles describing the distribution of the antarctic ice sheet.

I know more than I care to know about temperature and planets, the cycle of solar flares, the ties between Exxon and the anti-AGW community, Dr Bells resume, historic temperature changes, I have looked at pictures of poorly placed weather stations. I have watched the "Great Global Warming Hoax"

I have simply don't have the time to research every time someone puts some bit of crap on the internet.

A rediculous peice of circular logic. You can't say every group of scientists because you know it is not true so you add the caveat "unbaised" where you define the term "unbiased" to mean "agrees with AGW".

I know its not true ? Then name the group I know about!. Unbiased means something I could recognize. Something that was not created for the sole purpose of being a group of anti-AGW scientists. A national organization, a professional organization, a UN committee set up to investigate the topic SOMETHING.

To give an example, the world is full of peer-reviewed scientific journals. Submissions to these journals are reviewed by experts in the field and publish what is deemed to be good studies. Most hard core anti-AGW stuff never got into these publications because they were crap. In response somebody set up a "peer-reviewed" journal that published only anti-AGW stuff. Instead of a committee of experts, the scientific papers were reviewed by a lady who had not taken a single science course since high school. Even though the journal is not recognized by scientists in the field, papers written in this are constantly called peer reviewed research by right wing politicians. That is the sort of thing I would call biased.

So? Scientific bodies are political organizations. Even then they are not united. A significant number of geologists are skeptical much to the consternation of the climate modellers.

Okay. Here we can agree to disagree. You think the large number of organizations that have supported global warming have only done so because they are run by groups of people who want to deceive you. The Association of Petroleum Engineers have eliminated there anti-AGW statements simply because they are run by liberal tree huggers. George Bush has signed up because he is a closet liberal, same with Newt Gingrich and John McCain.

Good enough.

There is always a minority skeptical of everything. There are doctors who think High Blood Pressure is not really a cause of heart disease. Some think drinking your own urine is good for you. Some think vaccines cause autism. Some people insist that flouride (can't believe I forgot how to spell that) causes cancer.

Really? Have you looked at India's recent report? Here is what it says on p. 15:

link: http://pmindia.nic.in/Pg01-52.pdf

Link is dead.

So what will you say if it turns out that the skeptics are right after we have wasted trillions on a hopeless cause?

Well, until we solve the oil crisis, the money will not be wasted. Global Warming is nothing compared to the threat of peak oil (bitch with peak oil is that the skeptics will be wrong some day). If the AGW mafia doesn't force us to become better consumers of energy, the markets will.

I don't know how bad Global Warming will be. From an economic perspective it will probably even benefit Canada . I do know, long term, we cannot use fossil fuel like we do.

[Bryan]

Well, until we solve the oil crisis, the money will not be wasted. Global Warming is nothing compared to the threat of peak oil (bitch with peak oil is that the skeptics will be wrong some day). If the AGW mafia doesn't force us to become better consumers of energy, the markets will.

I don't know how bad Global Warming will be. From an economic perspective it will probably even benefit Canada . I do know, long term, we cannot use fossil fuel like we do.

It'll be pretty tough to keep burning fossil fuels if we really do run out. Won't the problem have taken care of itself then?

[marksman]

There's so much misinformation out there some on both sides of the debate. Someone here said that if it could be shown something other than co2 was responsible for global warming then the IPCC predictions must fail. But the IPCC predictions did include factors other than co2. Observed temperatures over the last 150 years were compared with natural effects. They didn't match. The same observed temperatures were compared with human caused effects. They didn't match. But when both natural and human caused effects were added together the resulting model matched fairly closely with observed temperatures. Not exactly of course but pretty close. So the IPCC has taken into account these factors in their analysis. And over the last 50 years natural effects would've lowered temperatures but the observed temperatures went up because of human caused effects.

Others here have tried to compare the "data" used to justify the theory that Earth was the centre of the universe with climate change data today. That's a bit ridiculous. Our standards have improved. The argument is a strawman. You could say with equal certainty that no scientific theory should be relied on because the theory that Earth was the centre of the universe was wrong. And where does that leave us? Nowhere helpful.

The hockey stick graph is an interesting debate. But it's not as one sided as the link posted suggested. A 2006 US National Research council committee looked into the graph and found it was generally accurate. McIntyre himself noted that the report didn't reject any of his criticisms of the graph. This didn't change the overall trend found in the graph. The methods maybe imperfect but that didn't make the graph invalid according to the report.

[peter_puck]

I'm sure this article has shown up in many posts but I'll post it again. It's an open letter to the United Nations on behalf of many, many renowned scientists:

Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/s....html?id=164002

Signatories include:

The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,' Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

There are a handful of valid names on there...no where close to 50. I don't have time to google everbody, but

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist (social scientist?)

David Nowell, M.Sc. No Phd

Timothy F. Ball Nuff said.

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc. No Phd

William Kininmonth M.Sc No Phd

Rob Scagel, M.Sc. No Phd

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Not a scientist

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist;

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy Not a scientist

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, A

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director

Louis Hissink MS

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist (string theory ??)

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics Molecular Genetics ????

Bryan Leyland, An expert on hydro power (I had to google him)

Gary D. Sharp <- A fish guy

I suppose if I didn't have to go to sleep, I would google all those people to show that most are not climate experts, but I am getting tired of this.

You could probably find that many Phd's taking taxi rides around Toronto.

What I am looking for is people who have a relevant education who do relevant research.

An engineer and a scientist are two different things.

A Biologist is not a climate expert.

Emeritus Professor means retired (or in Dr Ball's case it means you have made another accidental addition to your rsme)

Some guy who spent his life researching protein folding has no expertise in climate modeling, even if he has a Phd in chemistry.