Our local wallpaper hanger (he is real good at cut and paste) and flack, Marc Morano has been out there shilling. Marc sent one of those Inhofegrams to dotearth and Ray Pierrehumbert replied by pointing to some of the more spectacular roadkill in the 400 Club.
Someone also came by and shoved a copy of his 399 Club resignation letter into the burrow
Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that disputeEli put a line through his name on the list. Also did the same for Richard Tol.
Man-Made Global warming claims. I've never made any claims that
debunk the "Consensus".
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
You quoted a newspaper article that's main focus was scoring the
accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific...yet I'm guessing
some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility.
You also didn't ask for my permission to use these statements. That's
not a very respectable way of doing "research".
We have climatic temperatures rising, greenhouse gas concentrations
rising, any scientist that ignores this information because of a "lack
of proof" is just irresponsible.
George Waldenberger
Say, wasn't there a similar list of eminent nephrologists and such who affirmed they didn't believe in the ozone hole? I've lost my memory for anything before Google, it seems.
ReplyDeleteSinger was one ozone hole sceptic, as were Baliunas, Michaels, Milloy, and Seitz, amongst others. Though I'm not sure whether they signed anything.
ReplyDeleteYou also find some of these names disputed (still?) the risks of passive smoking.
Are the reported opinions of the "usual suspects" common to these two sets of disparate scientific data/hypotheses enough to draw a statistically significant conclusion about do you reckon?
I'm sure there was another bone of contention, too -- but I can't think now what it might be. If only I could recall, that might well clinch it (the statistically significant wrong conclusion that is).
Cymraeg llygoden
DDT? Aren't some of them in the 'demonize Rachel Carson' camp?
ReplyDeleteIf Eli (and his bunnies) can predict when the ice caps will melt away, I'm curious if they can also predict when the 400 Club will melt away as well...
ReplyDeleteYes, denialists have to be all arounders because their bench is so thin. Also, most of them don't get paid much for denying any one particular issue, so they have to work overtime. You find the same names denying the effects of ozone depletion, air pollution tobacco and evolution. Some draw the line at evolution.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious if they can also predict when the 400 [sic] Club will melt away as well..."
ReplyDeleteBetter to burn out than to melt away.
Bye, bye, hey, hey.
"Some draw the line at evolution."
ReplyDeleteYou mean they don't deny it's bad for their health?
Cymraeg, not only Baliunas denied the ozone depletion hypothesis, but she testified in Congress about it. Going far beyond her scope of expertise she predicted that banning CFCs would cost "trillions." Then, well after the Nobel and the Montreal Protocol, she tried to postulate ozone depletion as an explanation for GW. Enough said.
ReplyDeleteSaturnian
"Going far beyond her scope of expertise she predicted that banning CFCs would cost "trillions."
ReplyDeleteBalihoonas' expertise is in astrophysics, so she went far beyond the scope of her expertise the second she opened her mouth about ozone.
Or perhaps I am mistaken and stellar atmospheres have ozone?
I see that at DotEarth Mr. Morano did not believe your claim, so he wrote Dr. Waldenberger. Any bets as to whether he will print a response?
ReplyDeleteIf you take out the mistakes (like Richard Tol, I thought that was strange), the non-scientists, and the scientists with no climate expertise, what is the list down to?
ReplyDeleteOne of the 399 club claims that earth's surface temperature has nothing to do with CO2, here.
ReplyDeletePathetic old man.
Best,
D