400 prominent scientists? Not so much….

 I see Sen. Inhofe (R-Exxon) put out some trash for the media on the day when he figured all the real scientists went home for Christmas. I guess he hoped this gobbledygook would sit around unanswered for a couple of weeks.  The surprising thing is that the NY Times gave this thing any kind of respect.

Climate Progress: 

“Padded” would be an extremely generous description of this list of “prominent scientists.” Some would use the word “laughable” (though not the N.Y. Times‘ Andy Revkin, see below). For instance, since when have economists, who are pervasive on this list, become scientists, and why should we care what they think about climate science?

I’m not certain a dozen on the list would qualify as “prominent scientists,” and many of those, like Freeman Dyson — a theoretical physicist — have no expertise in climate science whatsoever. I have previously debunked his spurious and uninformed claims, although I’m not sure why one has to debunk someone who seriously pushed the idea of creating a rocket ship powered by detonating nuclear bombs! Seriously.

Even Ray Kurzweil, not a scientist but a brilliant inventor, is on the list. Why? Because he apparently told CNN and the Washington Post:

These slides that Gore puts up are ludicrous, they don’t account for anything like the technological progress we’re going to experience…. None of the global warming discussions mention the word ‘nanotechnology. Yet nanotechnology will eliminate the need for fossil fuels within 20 years…. I think global warming is real but it has been modest thus far – 1 degree f. in 100 years. It would be concern if that continued or accelerated for a long period of time, but that’s not going to happen.

And people say I’m a techno-optimist. So Kurzweil actually believes in climate science — rather than the reverse, as Inhofe claims — but thinks catastrophic global warming won’t happen because of a techno-fix that stops emissions. If wishes were horses … everyone would get trampled to death. In the real world, energy breakthroughs are very rare, as we’ve seen, and it’s even rarer when they make a difference in under several decades.

Then we have the likes of this from Inhofe’s list:

CBS Chicago affiliate Chief Meteorologist Steve Baskerville expressed skepticism that there is a “consensus” about mankind’s role in global warming.

Wow, a TV weatherman expressed skepticism. If only the IPCC had been told of this in time, they could have scrapped their entire report. Seriously, Wikipedia says “Baskerville is an alumnus of Temple University and holds a Certificate in Broadcast Meteorology from Mississippi State University.” I guess Inhofe has a pretty low bar for “prominent scientists” — but then again he once had science fiction writer Michael Crichton testify at a hearing on climate science.

I don’t mean to single out Baskerville. Inhofe has a lot of meteorologists on his list, including Weather Channel Founder John Coleman. I have previously explained why Coleman doesn’t know what he is talking about on climate, and why meteorologists in general have no inherent credibility on climatology. In any case, they obviously are NOT prominent scientists.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Al Gore, Bush blunders worldwide, George W. Bush: is he really THAT bad?, global warming/environment, James Inhofe: headed for the hot place, science: not a very Republican thing to do

2 responses to “400 prominent scientists? Not so much….

  1. Thanks for making clear the emptiness of Inhofe’s list. I’ve also noted it’s being touted as a “Senate report” when in fact it’s clearly a solo effort by Inhofe, who’s using his position as minority leader of the environment & public works commitee to spread his propaganda.

  2. What’s your test for a prominent scientist?

    Here’s a quick video of what appear to be prominent scientists, do they fit the definition?

    One of the things I know about gaining acceptance of any concept or idea is that there is an open discussion where disagreements are worked out. While some say there is a consensus among scientist, it seems that disagreement is heirachy. As Al Gore said, the debate is over. Since most of us weren’t there for the debate, you can’t expect most of us to get on board without a high degree of reluctance.

    Today what you’re getting is a lot of talk with very little action. Once you try to take action especially by force you’ll see resistance go way up. But it’s not likely to be in the form of direct resistance but more likely passive/agressive behavior. Everyone will nod their heads in agreement and then do nothing. That’s the reality of trying to make changes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s