Have you noticed that most 'experts' cited by global warming skeptics are meteorologists and geologists?

Question

The most recent skeptical expert I've seen cited is Bob Carter. He's a geologist who's been making false claims, like that the planet stopped warming in 1998.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmU4KeCLjjgGxqOM58WLBbDsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071120154053AA1oNnq&show=7#profile-info-SZALV1ubaa

There have been many others. John Coleman (meteorologist), Tim Ball (geographer - some background in paleoclimatology), William Gray (meteorologist), Reid Bryson (meteorologist), Tim Patterson (geologist), etc.

This strikes me as interesting. Many meteorologists do not study climate science, and geologists basically study the history of climate science (paleoclimatology). While weather and paleoclimatology are critical to climate science, they only make up a part of the information necessary to understand it. Also important is modern climate data.

What do you think about the large number antrhopogenic global warming skeptic 'experts' who are meteorologists and geologists?

punker - Tim Ball is a geographer who has lied about his credentials.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/dear_tim_ball_sue_me.php

"Ball received a PhD in Geography in the UK in 1982, on a topic in historical climatology."

Answer 1

It makes a whole lot of sense.

Meteorologists have a long history in the uncertainties of weather prediction. They have problems grasping the fact that predicting climate is far easier right now.

Geologists are used to extrapolating what happened in the past to the present. The idea that there is something fundamentally different about the changes in the last 30 years is a difficult concept for them to grasp.

Note that their flavor of skepticism matches their background. Meteorologists tend to acknowledge the basic concept of man made warming, but say we just don't know enough to predict the future path. Geologists tend to deny it's anything but a natural change. They really don't agree with each other.

Answer 2

NO I have not noticed that. What I have noticed is the growing number of scientist debunking the AGW claims.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42

I have noticed many IPCC scientist also coming out AGAINST Man made global warming, or admitting the IPCC iis overstating any possible outcome.

Dr. Jim Renwick - Top UN IPCC scientist - Admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable.

Dr. Kevin Trenberth - UN IPCC lead author - Echoed sentiments of Dr Renwick, "they (climate models) do not consider amny things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. Ther is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the liklihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess."

Dr. Vincent Gray - Climate researcher and expert reviewer on every single IPCC report dating back to 1990. “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” in an April 10, 2007 article. (LINK)

“All [UN IPCC does] is make ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates,'” Gray noted.

In addition, meteorologist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, recently compared scientists who promote computer models predicting future climate doom to unlicensed “software engineers."

And you might want to put some thought into asking why meteorologist's studies should count. Do you even know what a meteorologist does? They are scientists who study the atmosphere to see how it affects the environment and to predict the weather and climate trends. What the heck do you think this debate is about if their opinions do not count? ROFL

All these individuals you named have done actual scientific work in the field. How do you think we get boring samples of lake sediment and ice cores. That's right genius, geologist.

It is pretty obvious you were led astray by some random website. Next time, you may want to investigate instead of regurgitating their points. ROFL!!!!

Answer 3

I don't see any problem with it. Meteorologists are usually quite knowledgeable in the atmospheric sciences, and geologists usually have a firm grasp of planetary physics. So long as they're presenting solid science, I don't care who the skeptics use as sources.

Of course, while they are probably very knowledgeable about their field of study, when discussing issues related to climate science (say, climate modeling), I always take the word of climate scientists (like Michael Mann or Gavin Schmidt, for instance) above that of anyone else.

However, when their sources say silly things like Bob Carter has, I tend to just ignore them. That I know more about the issue than they do tends to dampen my esteem for their opinion.

Answer 4

Well did you know that many people who have taken part in the IPCC are politicians, who don't have a background in ANY field of science whatsoever?
Although a lot of skeptical scientists are meteorologists (who play a critical part in the science of hurricanes, drought, etc.) and geologists (who play a key part in factoring in geothermal heating to the rising temperature), there are many good climatologists who are skeptical of the theory. (Tim Ball is a geologist, not a geographer).
Please don't attack the qualifications of the skeptics, when people like Al Gore, who's science teacher who he so revered in his movie gave him D's in his college homework, are the ones backing up the alarmists' side.

(Bob: climate prediction is NOT easy to predict. Our climate is a non-linear chaotic system, which basically means that it has about a thousand different variables that control what the climate will do. Variables change all the time- hence the name. If the variables that are run through the climate model are not correct, it can dramatically change the end result of the model. The climate is EXTREMELY difficult to predict.
We don't KNOW that there is something fundamentally different about this warming trend. There is no sound evidence that has not been refuted to show this.
Lastly, it is GOOD for scientists to disagree with eachother. A good scientist tries to find flaws in another's theory so that they can collectively find solutions to those flaws, thus bettering the theory. That is the only way to perfect science: by disagreement. When dissent is not allowed, it's science gone bad, or gone political.)

Answer 5

I have noticed that a lot of intelligent people outside the field of climate science are sceptical about AGW.

I don't know about geologists and meterologists, but some people have reservations about how well the models fit the real world data.

Answer 6

Well Dana, I am leaving you to convince the "skeptics" of AGW and climate warming. I am kinda busy on the plans for an Ark. I have had enough answering to my son who asked if there is a god, I said yes and he asked why can't he see him.

Answer 7

And how many times have YOU spoken up when a GWA says "the vast majority of scientists agree that we are causing global warming" when you know good and well that the "vast majority" are something other than climatologists. Such as anthropologists, metallurgists, hematologists etc.

None that I've noticed.

Answer 8

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Henry Louis Mencken (1880- 1956 )
The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature. The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists...

Answer 9

I wonder - do you think the meteorologist on the IPCC panel are not qualified to comment on "global warming" either?

Or do you believe people are qualified as long as they believe the same things you do?

I wish you would prove us wrong.

Just tell us if it will be warmer or cooler next month, and show us how you came to that conclusion.

Why is this so hard to do? I know the computer models are dead nuts accurate to 0.01DegC.

Answer 10

Nope, sorry, I hadn't noticed.

http://www.ssmi.com/rss_research/climate_change_in_the_tropics.html

.
.