What's your opinion of conservative global warming "skeptics" like Sen. Inhofe, John Coleman and Glenn Beck?
Specifically, how do you judge their expertise and amount of political bias in their work, compared to the IPCC?
Ron C - Pielke Sr. is not a climatologist. He was trained as a meteorologist and has received acclaim for work in that field. In climatology, not so much. Your claim of "most respected climatologist" is simply not credible.
John Coleman is not known for any scientific contributions in meteorology. He's a former TV weatherman who started a cable channel. His recent statement includes such unscientific phrases as "environmental whackos". And you claim he's not political?
The IPCC IS the most respected body of climatologists, hundreds of them. Their work is not political. It is accepted as authoritative by most every world leader and corporate leader.
There is a substantial body of scientists (larger, and more distinguished than the "skeptics") that believes the IPCC is STILL being too conservative.
"Alarming UN report on climate change is too rosy, many say"
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
The IPCC is a science-based policy group--not a political group (the claims of the right-wing to the contrary are simply ignorance).
As to these politicians "skepticism" it is either due to ignornace or to being bought off by special interests. Man-made global warming is proven science. There is no "debate" by legitimate skeptics. It's not a matter of whether someone "believes" or disbelieves" global warming--it is a case of knowledge versus ignorance.
- gcnp58Lv 71 decade ago
Roger Pielke Sr.'s take on climate change is somewhat more complicated than simply being a "skeptic." He mainly objects to the the reliance on models to predict possible effects, claiming (with some justification) that regional climate models aren't useful and that land-use changes are more important to regional climate changes than global effects like changes in the radiative transfer properties of the atmosphere. However, and this is a huge however, Pielke Sr. does not deny outright that CO2 is altering the radiative transfer of the atmosphere. The wiki entry for Pielke Sr. describes his stance as "nuanced." To put Pielke Sr. in the same camp as the other skeptics such as Tim Ball is doing a huge favor to Ball et al. and a huge disservice to Pielke Sr.
As for Landsea, he was a Ph.D. student of Wm. Gray's, and my take on his leaving the IPCC was that of a scientist being backed into a corner, with only two options remaining, manning up publicly and admitting publicly he was wrong or falling on his own sword. Landsea is smart enough to understand that Emmanuel is basically correct and that tropical cyclones, while not occurring more frequently, are getting bigger and their behavior is becoming more unpredictable (e.g., Humberto this year). Faced with the two choices plus knowing if he caved to Emmanuel he cuts the legs out from under his mentor Gray, he chose the timeless response of honorable death before dishonor.
- Dana1981Lv 71 decade ago
I don't have a high opinion of many "skeptics", period.
Inhofe has made it his goal to disprove AGW even though he's a politician and not a scientist. His website frequently misrepresents the conclusions and importance of scientific studies.
Coleman is a meteorologist who has never studied climate science, never written a scientific paper, and whose opinion on global warming is both paranoid and runs completely contrary to the official position of The Weather Channel.
Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are political tools who have zero background in science and are the last people anyone should be listening to for expert advice on the subject.
Even many of the skeptical scientists are far from highly credible. Richard Lindzen thinks that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, and Tim Ball has lied about his credentials - he's a geographer.
Overall I think the AGW doubters should stop looking to political sources and start trying to make scientific arguments to support their positions. The problem is that many simply don't have the most basic scientific understanding of the issue necessary to make a scientific argument, and even if they did there's virtually no scientific evidence to support their position. So they resort to ad hominem attacks and quoting political sources instead.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Bob, I don't know who Glenn Beck is. Sen Inhofe is a politician. There is little doubt the politics drives him more than anything else. John Coleman is meteorologist with training in how our atmosphere works. As far as I know, he has little interest in politics.
The IPCC is totally a political machine. A number of scientists have complained about the way they exaggerate the data and make pronouncements not supported by the science. Christopher Landsea resigned because of the bogus claims made by Kevin Trenberth. Roger Pielke, the most prolific and highly cited climatologist in the field, has written extensively on the biases of the IPCC.
The most recent alarmism by the IPCC will probably cause more scientists to resign. The IPCC media release is completely unsupportable by the science.
Watching the IPCC is like watching someone lose an argument. The more evidence that comes out against their position, they louder and more shrill they get.
This kind of alarmism is exactly the kind of thing the responsible mainstream scientists hate. Scientists like Hans von Storch, Carl Wunsch, and Eduardo Zorita believe global warming is caused by CO2, but they will all be very upset when they read this news. They know this media statement is not true. The IPCC will face some serious fallout for being so irresponsible.
Bob, your claim that Pielke is not a climatologist is not credible. I have answered this issue once before but perhaps you did not see it. Pielke received his Ph.D. in meteorology at a time when the degree was not offered in climatology. Pielke has been publishing articles in climatology since the early 1980s, almost as long as Reid Bryson, the father of modern climatology.
This link shows he is listed as "highly cited" in "global climate change." He is not new to the field, no matter how times you make the statement.
This link shows he was state climatologist for Colorado beginning in 1999 and was also named a fellow of AGU for his contributions to hydroclimatology and lasting impact on the discipline.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
The skeptics are out there because of the science being represented, it doesn't fit. My question was always, Co2 is plant food and if we have too much in the air, why are we chopping down the forests that take care of that?
This question is the downside to so many people with power and missing science having all the opinion. Eg. I respect Gore for bringing the climate change issue to the forefront or we wouldn't be discussing this.
My background is creating emissions, generating electrical energy, architecture, building engineering complimented by 28 years of thermography application. 100% of my education was completed to compliment seeing temperature with infrared technology.
The missing science for the above groups including the IPCC is because no one could actually qualify what was happening on the surface of the planet.
Buildings and development are designed with temperature in a calculator. Then the entire national to municipal process is signed off as compliant.
Through missing temperature science, Surface temperature monitoring isn't reflecting the reality of what is happening.
Meteorologists and climate specialists have always assumed the sun's rays were being absorbed by the earth's surface. That absorbed energy is then released into the atmosphere as part of the cycle.
Weather is the interaction of 3 things, heat, air and water vapour. Winds are the result of temperature interaction between land and water. High and low pressure are the result of temperature.
Thermografix Consulting Corporation is a privately owned company that spent over 18 years and thousands of hours to qualify surface temperatures on the surface of the planet.
The results employed the most advanced thermography applications in the world so we could see outside the calculator.
Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-heatgain.ht... and see that Meteorologists are missing critical data. Buildings and development are supposed to be finished with reflective paints, coatings, materials or functional landscaping so they don't generate heat from solar radiation. Buildings are signed off as compliant so the UV impact wasn't qualified.
At the link above you will see buildings and the surface of the planet generating extreme heat close to boiling temperature. Because we couldn't see it, we reacted to by treating the symptoms with ozone depleting refrigearants in 100% of buildings. The massive wasted electrical generation is producing emissions, toxins and economy or oil is blamed for this waste.
The domino effect of buildings and the surface of the planet generating extreme heat is far reaching. Buildings exceeding their design temperatures will impact heat loss in the winter. Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-heatloss.ht... to see how we waste energy in the winter and blame it on economy.
Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/ and scroll down to the picture of the fetus, click and see the study on polluted newborns as a result of the above. The toxicity ratio in brand new babies that have never taken a breath was 100%.
This problem impacts weather, climate and warms the globe. None of the scientists at the IPCC are even discussing this, they are trying to develop cheaper energy while we superheat the globe.
Brownouts are avoidable and buildings aren't insured for those temperatures thay are generating.
- CAPTAIN BEARLv 61 decade ago
My opinion on senators ? They only care for their own interests and hardly if any for the american people as evidenced by their comments. The IPCC reports on GW are made by scientists in their own specified fields and to call their work skeptical is sheer stupidity and irresponsible to the public who stands to lose their homes and lives because of the government's unwillingness to take part in curbing emissions of gasolene or other fuels into the air.
- Dr JelloLv 71 decade ago
Bob - The IPCC report was negotiated by the UN. Do you really believe science can be negotiated? Can the science be divided so every one is treated equally?
It is not arguable that the IPCC is a political body looking for political solutions.
Science should not be determined by which political party is in office, or what person is sent to a debate by their government.
Science needs to remain objective. Terms like "likely", "most likely", "probably" are not objective terms. Global warming is not objective, therefore it is not science.
- Ben OLv 61 decade ago
I would say that the individuals you mentioned and Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC are excellent politicians.
They are doing their job which is to represent and protect the interests of their electors (especially the ones that make contributions) and in the case of Mr Pachauri to further the aims of the IPCC. They can hardly be expected to agree if they are representing different interests.
Incidently Mr Pachauri is an engineer and used to be a director in an oil company & the same skills which enabled him to manage that company and further its aims also allow him to manage the IPCC.
- George BLv 61 decade ago
The IPCC may be a science group........ maybe!
However, as in all parts of the UN, politics controls what they do and say.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Thank you for a simple direct reply. For those still on the question whether Global Warming is real, your holding up the opportunity to do something...