"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:49:49 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**Because a 1000+ dissenting scientists is a MINISCULE proportion of
all those who hold degrees in science. Utterly insignificant, in
fact. Think MILLIONS.

Not quite millions.
31,487 Scientists who have their doubts.
http://www.petitionproject.org

**Strawman noted. However, let's take a random name from that list.
Something slightly unusual:

Henry W. Apfelbach, MD

Dr Apfelback (deceased) was an orthopaedic surgeon. He graduated Harvard
in 1946.

http://www.avvo.com/doctors/henry-ap...h-2237598.html

http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/mar11/youraaos9.asp

Not much experience in climate reseach.

And, just to reiterate: The total number of science degree holders on the
planet number in the MILLIONS. 39,000 is a pitiful number. Even if some of
those are duplicates, called Jeri Halliwell (Spice Girls) or even Mickey
Mouse.

So, if I want to know about orthopaedics, I'll consult with someone like
Dr Apfleback. If I want to know about climate science, I'll consult the
people who specialise in that area.

The real question is this: Why did you choose to bring up the long
discedited 'Oregon Petition'?



The breakdown is:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
3,805 Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences
935 Computer and mathematical sciences
5,812 Physics and aerospace sciences
4,822 Chemistry
2,965 Biology and agriculture
3,046 Medicine
10,102 Engineering and general science

"List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of
global warming"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

On the other foot, the IPCC AR4 had about 2500 contributors, including
800 listed as authors. The rest seem to be mostly reviewers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Contribu tors

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
http://www.nipccreport.org

In any case, the only opinions of interest are those who are those
who are credentialled in the area of climatology. I see no reference
to the credentials of these alleged "1,000 scientists"

It's amazingly difficult to verify credentials and degrees.

**It is, yet you'll note that I managed one, chosen more or less at
random, with a Google search. I selected a slightly unusual name.

I would
not be surprised if a fairly large number of degrees, on both sides of
the debate, were faked.

**The Oregon Petition has been very comprehensively debunked. Using it as
an example is putting your claims on very shakey ground.

There's also the question of qualifications.
I have a BS in Electrical and Electronics Engineering, which certainly
has little to do with climate. Yet, I my varied experience would
qualify me as a reviewer. Since the head of the IPCC, Rajendra K.
Pachauri, is an economist, and shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al
Gore, a professional politician, precisely what qualifications do you
believe are required in order to have an opinion on the subject?

**ANYONE may have an opinion. ANYONE may present the science. Science is
science. Although helpful, a science degree is not essential to present
solid evidence of a specific area of science. When a specialist in a
particular area of scientific research makes a claim, it makes perfect
sense to take careful notice of that claim. When a non-specialist makes a
claim, it makes perfect sense to dispense with that clima, unless there is
some compelling science to accompany it.



If that many of them really represent just a handful,
there must then be millions of climatologists in the world,

**There isn't. There are not very many climatologists.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
"The number of climate scientists in the US can be found
by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union
(AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a
minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is
available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide."

Spencer (the religious nutter that denies
Darwin's seminal work) is one of the most vocal. That should tell
you all you need to know.

What is your problem with Spencer?

**I have serious problems with anyone that embraces 'Creation Science' as
part of their belief system. Creationism is the most debunked, discredited
and utterly banal religious belief system on the planet. Spence is a
religious loon, who embraces 'Creation Science'.

Controversial causes and debates
all have their lunatic fringe. Every organization that I've ever been
associated with has had "supporters" that have done more damage than
good by their involvement. Many of them associate themselves with
causes and organizations simply to further their own agenda (cheap
advertising). With anything as argumentative as global warming, the
lunatic fringe is certain to be well represented on both sides of the
debate.

**Certainly. Trouble is, Spencer is a mover and a shaker in the denialist
camp. He is a big target.



Even the sacred
IPCC hasn't got that many climatologists on its panel,

**So?

It was you that was suggesting that the AGW deniers were
insufficiently qualified. The number of climatologists can be fairly
minimal, and still be correct.

**Of course.


Climatologists usually don't do their
own statistics

**Don't they?

, don't deal with economic impacts,

**Of course not. That is irrelevant to their area of research.

and have minimal
involvement in actual contents of the report.

**I don't know if that is the case. Do you have any evidence to support
that claim?


Climatologists and
researchers produce the original numbers on which the reports are
based. Those numbers are taken up by statisticians, chemists,
doctors, atmospheric researchers, economists, etc and turned into a
coherent and peer reviewed report, suitable for general consumption.

**That would be, generally, the case I would imagine.


If the report required the sole participation of only climate
scientists, then we might see the IPCC AR5 in the next century.

**I'm reasonably certain that religious fruit looks, like Spencer,
have automatically disqualified themselves, due to their insistence
that the fact of evolution is bunk and that the only form of
acceptable funding comes from Exxon.

That's the 3rd time you've mentioned Spencer in your rant. He's not
important.

**I was not the one who used Spencer as an expert in this thread. Since he
was cited, earlier in the thread, I have no issue with bringing him up. If
you wish to denounce Spencer as a nutcase, you may do so at any time.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au


Without snipping.

I'm sure that you will swear otherwise, and find arguments to back your
position, but I have to say - on the face of it, at least - your position
with regard to 'experts' seems very variable. In one breath, you insist that
valid input on the subject can only come from experts - that's
climatologists according to you - and that any non experts, regardless of
what qualifications - scientific or otherwise - they have, are just fools,
dissenters, deniers, religious fruits, and a whole raft of other derogatory
names.

Then, on the other hand, you seem to imply the complete reverse. You
continuously cite the output of the IPCC as the bible for this man-made
climate change argument, claiming them to be the 'experts', but then
happily accept that many of the scientists on that panel, are from
completely different disciplines, and insist that it doesn't matter. You
further validate the output of the panel, by declaring that it is all peer
reviewed prior to publication, but again, when it is pointed out to you that
many, if not most of the members of the peer review committee, are not
qualified in any scientific discipline remotely related to climatology, your
answer is "so?"

Well, "so" indeed. What exactly is it that they are reviewing and validating
with such authority, that makes the data any more valid in its conclusions ?
The spelling perhaps ? Or the grammar ? If they are not properly qualified
to understand the subtleties and nuances of the subject, then their opinions
carry no more weight than any person of a reasonable education level,
randomly picked off the street.

You picked on one person above, largely because you felt that his name was
odd. You then go on to state that your researches found him to be qualified
in orthopedic surgery which you then claim does not have much to do with
climate research.

So I have to say, back at you - so ?

You really can't have it both ways, Trevor. Either you must believe that
everyone involved in researching, processing and presenting the data needs
to be qualified in a branch of science at least *related* to climatology in
order for them to be authoritative on the subject, or not. You cannot
embrace both cases equally, and use each one as the fancy takes you, to
refute whatever arguments in that regard, are put to you by various people.

Arfa