David Roberts, a blogger for the environmental activist website Grist.org, has inadvertently delivered a hammer blow against the scientific expertise at the very top of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC).
In an interview on KUOW radio in Seattleyesterday, Roberts attempted to minimize the scientific expertise of scientists who have spoken at the Heartland Institute‘sInternational Conference on Climate Changeby saying there are “only a few scattered scientists, but mostly meteorologists or engineers or political figures.”
We’ll come back to the qualifications of those who have actually spoken at the climate change conferences in a moment. Now, however, let’s analyze Roberts’ assertion that meteorologists and engineers do not qualify as scientific experts regardingglobal warming.
Roberts does not believe engineers are scientists qualified to weigh in on global warming? I am glad you feel that way, David. David Roberts, meet Raj Pachauri.
You know Raj Pachauri, the railroad engineer who is chairman of the IPCC.
David, I am glad to see that you have thrown your hat into the ring with those who believe Pachauri does not have sufficient climate science expertise to make the IPCC a credible source on climate science.
Roberts does not believe meteorologists are scientists qualified to weigh in on global warming? I am glad you feel that way, David. David Roberts, meet the dozens of meteorologists who are IPCC Lead Authors and Coordinating Lead Authors that determine the final content of IPCC reports.
I hope the media are taking note of this. Here we have a prominent global warming alarmist telling us the most important and influential people at the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change do not qualify as climate experts. So much for the mythical yet oft-repeated assertion that IPCC embodies the overwhelming consensus of the world’s most qualified global warming scientists.
I really don’t mean to personally pick on David Roberts. After all, he is not alone in attempting to diminish the scientific expertise of global warming “skeptics” while ignoring the similar or inferior scientific expertise of global warming “alarmists” at the forefront of the global warming movement.
We can see such propaganda evidenced in how alarmists treat meteorologists. Meteorologists are atmospheric scientists who study and report on real-world weather and climate developments. Unlike prominent global warming alarmists, who are conveniently relieved from the burden of accountability by making predictions that cannot be verified any time in the near future and, even then, are Nostradamus-like in their malleability, meteorologists have to answer in the here-and-now any time their forecasts and reports are contradicted by real-world observations.
And what do meteorologists tell us about global warming? According to a recent survey of American Meteorological Society meteorologists, only 38 percent say global warming will be very harmful during the next 100 years, only 33 percent believe the global warming debate is over, and only 30 percent are very worried about global warming.
What meteorologists report is very inconvenient for global warming alarmists, especially since the alarmists focus so heavily on thoroughly debunked assertions that global warming is causing an increase in extreme weather events like hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts and floods. Nobody is better qualified than meteorologists to report on such extreme weather events in the real world, but alarmists would have you ignore meteorologists because they report truths that alarmists don’t want us to hear.
Even forgetting that professors and scientific researchers at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Penn, Columbia, MIT, NASA, NOAA, etc., have spoken at the Heartland Institute’s annual International Conference on Climate Change, we are quite happy to have meteorologists like Joe Bastardi and Anthony Wattsspeak at our conference. And if David Roberts thinks such meteorologists are unqualified to hold their own in the scientific debate, I encourage him to present a better qualified scientist to sit on the same panel and debate these scientists one-on-one.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for Roberts to present such a scientist.