Greenfyre has a nice roundup of corrections to Inhofe’s list of 650 604 scientists that he claims dispute the consensus on global warming. Eli Rabett notes some resume inflation in the list, while Bob has a blog doing an entry on each name on the list

Reporters seem to have wised up to Inhofe’s game and the list has been mostly ignored in the media. Here in Australia, that means that all the AGW denialist columnists will write about it, and sure enough, here’s Miranda Devine in today’s paper

They include Japanese scientist Dr Kiminori Itoh, who was an expert reviewer for last year’s United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, who declared global warming the “worst scientific scandal in [history]“. Former NASA atmospheric scientist Dr Joanne Simpson is quoted: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organisation nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly … As a scientist I remain sceptical.”

OK, let’s look at those two. I wonder what Inhofe hid with that ellipsis? Here’s a fuller quote from Simpson:


What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.

And she goes on to talk about how NASA’s Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission can provide more complete information by testing the predictions of climate models. Simpson is skeptical, but she’s using the word with its original meaning, not the way that “global warming skeptics” use it.

What about Itoh? The quote seems to have come from this post on Pielke Sr’s blog:

[I] did some contribution to the IPCC AR4 as an expert reviewer. This is no doubt surprising for an environmental physical chemist like me. I am now even feeling that my original expertise, metrology, was all along close to meteorology; that is, “meteorology” is formed by putting “eo” inside “metrology.”

It is an exceptionally great pleasure for me that I can introduce to you my recent book “Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affairs” …

Preface: The worst scientific scandal in the history.

Alas, Itoh doesn’t explain why global warming is such a big scandal. I looked at his comments on the IPCC AR4 draft, and the changes he wanted seemed pretty minor. You’d think if the report was part of such a big scandal, he’s be wanting to make sime big changes.

(Credit to DavidONE, who first picked up Inhofe’s quote mine of Simpson.)

Comments

  1. #1 janama
    December 17, 2008

    “Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affairs”
    “But as a scientist I remain skeptical.”

    keep trying to spin it Tim – the more you concentrate on the personalities the less you to need address the science.

  2. #2 NJ
    December 17, 2008

    Project much, hoss?

  3. #3 Brian Schmidt
    December 17, 2008

    Tim (or anyone) – do you have a good link to the proof that it’s 604, not 650 plus scientists? I want to make trouble using that fact.

  4. #4 Lank
    December 17, 2008

    Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultantsays ….. “Global warming is not accelerating. Global warming has stopped. There has been no statistically significant rise in [mean global temperature or MGT] since 1995 and MGT has fallen since 1998 . . .”

  5. #5 guthrie
    December 17, 2008

    Lank, why are you quoting Courtney making demonstrably false claims?
    Entertainingly, apart from the non-existent statistics, his claim to be a climate and atmospheric science consultant is about the same as my claiming to be one. I dont have any relevant qualifications or experience. Neither does Courtney.

  6. #6 ChrisC
    December 17, 2008

    Richard Courtney is not an atmospheric scientist. He is a materials scientist and works for the coal industry:

    http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1095
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Courtney

    He has never published any peer reviewed research in climatology.

  7. #7 Lank
    December 17, 2008

    Guthrie, If Courtney, like you, has no “relevant qualifications or experience” then why was he a “U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expert reviewer” – Were the other IPCC reviewers also untrained and inexperienced?

  8. #8 Brian D
    December 17, 2008

    Once again, Janama showcases spectacularly poor reading comprehension. The “Lies and Traps” book and the “I remain skeptical” remark come from two different authors, the latter of which Inhofe (or Morano) judiciously quote-mined to misrepresent their position. Those confirmation-bias blinders really compliment your eyes.

    Brian Schmidt: Count the list of names. I don’t have a link myself; Tim’s own previous posts point out that several names appear to be counted more than once.

  9. #9 guthrie
    December 17, 2008

    That is a good question Lank. It appears that all you have to do is ask the IPCC for a copy of the draft report.
    Failing that, you need to be nominated to review it by a gvt or an interested body, although finding out precisely which ones is a bit trickier. So all Courtney needs to be is well connected, (Which he is) and big mouthed, which he is as well. The fact that he knows even less about the science than I matters not a jot. Aren’t you glad that the IPCC process is so open to critical input?

  10. #10 Brian D
    December 17, 2008

    Lank, anyone could become an IPCC reviewer. The classic example would be Vincent Gray, who accounted for a majority of all the rejected comments on Chapter 9.

    A typical Gray comment: There is simply no evidence forthese extravagant assertions [VINCENT GRAY (Reviewer's comment ID #: 88-911)]. The response was: Rejected. The reviewer provides no supporting reasoning for the proposed change. A brief overview of the evidence is provided in the following >100 pages. Seems his reading comprehension is only slightly better than Janama’s.

    You can read Courtney’s comments and everyone else’s yourself. See who’s unqualified by the nature of their comments and the editorial reasons for accepting or rejecting them.

  11. #11 guthrie
    December 17, 2008

    Interestingly enough, when you look up the IPCC website, and find COurtney on it, you can find him in the list of reviewers from 2001, sorted by country.
    Now, the UK has people from such obvious concerned bodies as DEFRA (The department for the elimination of farming and rural affairs), the universities of Cambridge, Hull, Surrey and others, not to mention the MET office Hadley centre (Established by that well known communist Margaret Thatcher).
    Slightly more unusual members include someone from ICI, the “global commons INstitute” and our pal Courtney, whose affiliation is “The Libert”.

    Now can anyone tell me what “The libert” is? Maybe its just an error in transcription?
    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/203.htm

    By the time of the Fourth report, Courtney is someone from “The European Science and Environment Forum”,
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-annexes.pdf

    This organisation is an astro-turf group, and is now defunct, thus demonstrating the tissue of lies and confusion which Courtney spreads wherever he goes. Certainly, there is no evidence available online to suggest taht the European science and environment forum actually had a legitimate interest in climate change, i.e. are capable of commenting rationally on it and do not have a hidden agenda.

  12. #12 DavidONE
    December 17, 2008

    Thanks for the credit, Tim. It’s heartening that the collective eyeballs and brains of the Reality team are shutting down much of the Denial team’s propaganda before it gets traction. Let’s just hope it’s not [too late](http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/17/nasa-another-brutally-hot-year-for-the-siberian-tundra/).

    And nice to see [greenfyre](http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/) receiving attention from you, [Romm](http://climateprogress.org/) and others – he’s a worthwhile addition to anyone’s [RSS feed reader](http://www.rssowl.org/).

  13. #13 guthrie
    December 17, 2008

    Ahh yes, Courtneys contribution did in a few examples make the report easier to read and slightly more accurate. However his comments regarding the actual science were rejected, because they were wrong or biased or muddied the water. Only on planet denier does making lots and lots of wrong statements mean that you know more about the subject than anyone else.

  14. #15 Bernard J.
    December 17, 2008

    keep trying to spin it Tim – the more you concentrate on the personalities the less you to need address the science.

    This is absolutely precious coming from one who so spectacularly displays a profound lack of understanding of even the essential processes of science on the earlier Inhofe thread. I note too that you let the rebuttals of your howlers slide… don’t think that we didn’t notice your ignominous slinking away.

    Together with an obvious incapacity to assess the body of scientific evidence, and to dissect and reject discredited pseudoscience, your comment represents the height of hypocrisy.

    Janama, you wouldn’t know science if it slapped you in the face with a wet fish.

  15. #16 Doug Mackie
    December 17, 2008

    But of course,

    Lank claims to have a
    doctorate in geochemistry. (3rd comment in the thread) and would have thus been ideally placed to make “expert” IPCC comments.

  16. #17 z
    December 17, 2008

    typo flame:

    you misspelled “Moron Inhofe’s”

  17. #18 sod
    December 18, 2008

    “expert reviewer” is a title, specifically invented for denialist, who don t have a significant REAL one.

    using the same principle, a person who once read the weather report on radio becomes a “climate scientists”.

    and people (who never even heard the term “peer review), posting in an blog comment section, end up being cited as “having published multiple papers on climate change”

    my special thanks to all those real scientists, who had to waste countless of hours, REVIEWING the nonsense posted by the “expert reviewers.

  18. #19 Tim Lambert
    December 18, 2008

    Brian Schmidt: here is a list of all the names, along with the number of times each name is repeated. I found another duplicate, so the number is down to 603.

  19. #20 Chris W
    December 18, 2008

    DES MOORE ?! The guy that pays Jennifer Marohasy to be a complete twat? Hahahahahahahahaha hahahahaha ha ha ha. Poor old Inhofe … suckered by the IPA.

  20. #21 MrPC
    December 18, 2008

    What is it about Courtney again? This guy’s lack of expertise and relevance have not yet thrown him back into oblivion?
    His credentials were thoroughly explored at Rabett’s and found to be lacking. He has been called “Dr” Courtney on occasions by deferrent denialists but does not have a traceable PhD. It’s not entirely clear that he has graduate education at all. Publications are lacking. From what I remember, it is a stretch (approaching breaking point) to call him even a material scientist, or any kind of scientist. Courtney got the title of expert associated to his name only because of misuse of the IPCC process and terminology.

  21. #22 Chris O'Neill
    December 18, 2008

    Poor old Inhofe … suckered by the IPA.

    I don’t think he’s going to care.

  22. #23 Boris
    December 18, 2008

    “expert reviewer” is a title, specifically invented for denialist, who don t have a significant REAL one.

    Yep. Just Google “Expert IPCC Reviewer” and all you find are denialists padding their resumes.

  23. #24 Steve Berwick
    December 18, 2008

    If all you’re dropping it from is 650 to 600, that’s not as high of an error/exaggeration rate as Al Gore’s “An Incovenient Truth.” Sorry, I’m not a supporter of deniers, only interested in the real truth. As you know, even the pro-global warming science folks have conceded the inaccuracy rate of Gore’s movie. Which means both sides have taken part in the hype wars. I would have hoped that the deniers would be more guilty.

  24. #25 Boris
    December 18, 2008

    If all you’re dropping it from is 650 to 600, that’s not as high of an error/exaggeration rate as Al Gore’s “An Incovenient Truth.”

    I’ll let someone else educate you on AIT.

    However, it’s not just dropping the number from 650 to 600. It’s quote mining. It’s including scientists who disagree (and ask to be removed!!) It’s including TV weatherpeople and calling them prominent scientists. It’s inflating the credentials of scientists on the list. It’s the lying about how many scientists produced the WG1 report.

    I would have hoped that the deniers would be more guilty.

    Well, congrats. Not many hopes are so easily realized.

  25. #26 bi -- IJI
    December 18, 2008

    > inaccuracy rate of Gore’s movie.

    And what’s the inaccuracy rate again? Ah yes, it’s “very high”. No, wait. It’s “very very high”. Nope, still wrong. It’s “very very very high”. It’s VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY HIGH!!!!!!!!!!! OH NOES!!!!!!!!!!!

    OK, 9 errors.

  26. #27 bi -- IJI
    December 18, 2008

    Well, they may be 9 errors… but they’re HUGE FASCIST ERRORS!!!!! FROG IN BOILING WATER!!!!!! FROG IN BOILING WATER!!!!!! FROG IN BOILING WATER!!!!!! FROG IN BOILING WATER!!!!!! FROG IN BOILING WATER!!!!!! FROG IN BOILING WATER!!!!!! FROG IN BOILING WATER!!!!!! FROG IN BOILING WATER!!!!!! FROG IN BOILING WATER!!!!!! FROG IN BOILING WATER!!!!!! FROG IN BOILING WATER!!!!!! FROG IN BOILING WATER!!!!!! BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG ERROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT’S INHOFE’S 650 604 603 COMPARED TO THIS?!?!?!? WHY DO YOU HATE INHOFE’S FREE SPEECH?!?!?!?!? WHO ARE YOU TO SAY IT’S JUST 650?!?!?!? THOUGHT POLICE!!!!! GESTAPO!!!!!! INQUISITION!!!!!!! STALIN!!!!!!!

  27. #28 Brian D
    December 18, 2008

    So evidently the metric we should use to determine the accuracy of climate science is the error rate in Gore’s movie (a documentary made for the general public by a layman), as opposed to the error rate in the IPCC reports (quite possibly the larges, most rigorous peer-reviewed scientific project in history). Got it, chief.

  28. #29 Dano
    December 18, 2008

    Brian D:

    This in an indicator for you – this is the strength of their argumentation. It’s the best they can do.

    Best,

    D

  29. #30 luminous beauty
    December 18, 2008

    As you know, even the pro-global warming science folks have conceded the inaccuracy rate of Gore’s movie. Which means both sides have taken part in the hype wars. I would have hoped that the deniers would be more guilty.

    Simple arithmetic says they are:

    http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/GoreversusLomborg.htm

    A count of the errors gives the following result:
    Al Gore´s film: 2 errors, 8 flaws, 10 in total.
    Al Gore´s book: 2 errors, 11 flaws, 13 in total.
    Film and book together: 2 errors, 12 flaws, 14 in total.

    This may be compared with the situation in Lomborg´s books. Up to now (4./1. 2008) the following number of distortions has been found and listed:

    Chapter 24 on global warming in “The Skeptical Environmentalist”: 19 errors, 52 flaws, 71 in total.
    (This is slightly more than one distortion per page).
    “The Skeptical Environmentalist” in total (up to now): 110 errors, 208 flaws, 318 in total.
    “Cool it!”, British edition: 23 errors, 59 flaws, 82 in total (up to now, with about 33 % of the book investigated).
    (This is slightly more than one distortion per page).

  30. #31 luminous beauty
    December 18, 2008

    I should add that Gore has admitted his errors. Lomborg, not so much.

  31. #32 bi -- IJI
    December 18, 2008

    luminous beauty:

    Eh, we’re not really comparing Gore with Lomborg, but rather Gore with Inhofe. Maybe Kåre Fog will do such a comparison one day…

    But for now, we know that frogs won’t stay in boiling water, and this is a very very serious and freedom-hating and Marxistic and Islamistic error which dwarfs all of the world’s inactivists’ errors combined.

  32. #33 Dano
    December 18, 2008

    Speaking of ridiculous error rates and marginalization tactics, has anyone calculated how many kw Lomborg uses at his home?

    Best,

    D

  33. #34 guthrie
    December 18, 2008

    Bi, would you mind awfully not using bold caps for emphasis for an entire paragraph? They’re a bit tiring on the eyes.

  34. #35 bi -- IJI
    December 18, 2008

    guthrie: Oh. OK.

  35. #36 Brian D
    December 18, 2008

    Dano: I may be relatively new to the counter-denialist blogosphere (going on about a year now), but I’m not quite that inexperienced. ;) That was just an attempt at delivering a sarcastic dismissal. The lack of common written tonal indicators is my second-least-favorite thing about English (the least favorite being no distinguishing features between second-person You and generic You, which has led to many a general remark taken as a grievous personal insult).

    Can someone more schooled in the US political system enlighten me why Inhofe’s in charge of EPW, and what it would take to get that to switch leadership? Is it an appointment given to the minority party in the Senate or something?

  36. #37 Boris
    December 18, 2008

    Can someone more schooled in the US political system enlighten me why Inhofe’s in charge of EPW, and what it would take to get that to switch leadership?

    He’s out. But he remains the minority leader on the committee. Barbara Boxer heads the EPW now.

  37. #38 Brodie
    December 18, 2008

    @ Lank #4

    For your own benefit you should realize that 1998 was an ENSO year and thus an outlier; any claim using it as a baseline for MGT is completely absurd from any statistical point of view. This is standard evidence for someone using bad statistics to support a claim they know is false – because it must be dug out of a larger graph showing the very clear positive trend.

  38. #39 llewelly
    December 21, 2008

    here is a list of all the names, along with the number of times each name is repeated.

    Wait a minute. What’s going on here? Fred Singer is listed only 3 times. Surely he’s a much more hardcore denier than that? I mean, even little Timmy Ball got listed 3 times. I think Inhofe’s being stingy with due credit.

  39. #40 Dano
    December 21, 2008

    Dano: I may be relatively new to the counter-denialist blogosphere (going on about a year now), but I’m not quite that inexperienced. ;) That was just an attempt at delivering a sarcastic dismissal.

    A current theme in Dano comments is the recapping of the weakness of the denialist position, rather than addressing a particular denialist. So when I see an opportunity for simple recapping, I take it. There’s no denigrating your sarcasm, merely taking the time to point out the fact that denialists ain’t got nothin’.

    :o)

    Best,

    D

  40. #41 guthrie
    December 21, 2008

    Bi- cheers.

  41. #42 luminous beauty
    December 21, 2008

    (the least favorite being no distinguishing features between second-person You and generic You, which has led to many a general remark taken as a grievous personal insult)

    Brian,

    The English generic pronoun for ‘you’ is ‘one’, as in, ‘when one rants like a rabid monkey, one should not be surprised when one’s ideas are met with levity and abuse’.

  42. #43 John Q. Public
    December 31, 2008

    I love “Denialist” – I will use that in every argument I have from here on, using it to browbeat the person I am arguing with every time they disagree with me.

    God, how I love Newspeak and the bloodsuckers who generate it for profit! Bless you all, you have improved prospects for our species immeasurably with your brilliantly crafted psychopathological shackles!

  43. #44 Mark
    June 28, 2009

    We’re ALL John Q Public. Well half are Jenny Housecoat. ~You’re Rufus T Troll.

    But yes, if you only say you KNOW something is wrong, but have nothing to say on what the replacement is, that’s denial.

    See

    http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

    for further details.

Current ye@r *