Via the hugely prolific Tom Nelson, this Climate Resistance post takes one of the IPCC's recent reports and decides to test how "scientisty" their authors are. The results make incredulous and hilarious reading.
There were 380 contributors to the report [PDF of contributors]. A thorough and exhaustive analysis of the backgrounds of these experts (or were they?) was too ambitious (it's Christmas, and we have wine to drink, and mince pies to eat, too). So, we focused on the contributors who operate in the UK. Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3 epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management / insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren't clear about whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology. But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20 social scientists.
Even those who might be properly classified as climate scientists were not exactly all that they might seem; in other words, they were mostly research associates and many were not even in proper climate science. Could this be right? Climate Resistance decided to check the US contributors...
Of the 70 US contributors, there were 7 economists, 13 social scientists, 3 epidemiologists, 10 biologists/ecologists, 5 engineers, 2 modellers/statisticians, 1 full-time activist (and 1 part time), 5 were in public health and policy, and 4 were unknowns. 17 worked in earth/atmospheric sciences. Again, we gave the benefit of the doubt to geographers where it wasn't clear whether their specialism was physical, or human geography.
And yet Andrew Dessler—whom the post is fisking—has yet more arguments up his sleeve, and they are slapped down equally quickly.
In a follow-up post, Dessler has set about 'Busting the 'consensus busters'' by ridiculing the qualifications of Inhofe's 400 experts, starting with a certain Thomas Ring. In the comments section he justifies this approach:I agree it would be quicker to simply note the qualified skeptics on the list (there are probably a few dozen), but, from a rhetorical point of view, I think pointing out these immensely unqualified members of the list is more effective.
Well, we can all play that game... Included as contributors to WGII are Patricia Craig, Judith Cranage, Susan Mann, and Christopher Pfeiffer, all from Pennsylvania State University. It's not that these people aren't experts in their field - they probably are. Our problem with their inclusion on the list of Contributors to the IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment report is that their jobs are (in order) website-designer, administrative assistant (x2), and network administrator.
Also on the list is Peter Neofotis who appears to be a 2003 graduate of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology from Columbia. Are there many experts in anything who graduated in 2003?
Well, quite. And these people have been included on the list of a so-called scientific report issued by the IPCC as contributors to the report. Had Climate Resistance not decided to look them up—and do read the whole thing for yet more exciting revelations—you might have thought that they were scientific experts and marvelled at the huge number of acclaimed climate science experts who had contributed.
Can anyone honestly say that this was not a dishonest action by the IPCC, that this was not deliberately intended to mislead readers and to give a false impression of the capabilities of those who had composed the report?
The IPCC are liars and as the whole anthropogenic climate change crap unravels—even on the Left—they cling ever more desperately to their outdated theories by propagating yet more obfuscations, half-truths and outright lies.
Wake up, people!—we are being lied to, and it is so that the political establishment can make complete slaves of us all.