AGW catastrophism Climate Change Culture Global Warming IPCC Omniclimate Policy Politics Science Skepticism

Climate Scientists Fight Back (Minus The Climate Scientists)

Funny people, the climate scientists. One would expect, for example, that behind a website sporting a “new rapid response team of climate scientists [that] promises to connect reporters and editors with a team of experts” (in the words of The Guardian), there would be at least the one climate scientist ready to put their face where their internet connection is.

Alas, one would be wrong. For who’s organizing the Climate Rapid Response?

  • Dr. John Abraham, “Associate Professor of Thermal and Fluid Sciences at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering.[1][2] His area of research includes thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid flow, numerical simulation, and energy“(from Wikipedia)
  • Scott A. Mandia,  “Professor of Earth and Space Sciences and Assistant Chair of the Physical Sciences Department […] He received his M.S. – Meteorology from the Pennsylvania State University in 1990 and his B.S. – Meteorology from University of Lowell in 1987” (from Wikipedia)
  • Dr. Ray J. Weymann, “Staff Member Emeritus and Director Emeritus, Carnegie Observatories” (as far as I can tell, an astronomer)

As far as I can tell, the combined scientific output of the public faces of the Climate Rapid Response Team is zero. Or maybe one, by stretching things a bit.

This is not to criticize anybody, esp. Prof. Mandia, who after a couple of decades of teaching introductory climatology may know a thing or two, so to speak. But in absence of original research by its leaders, we can only expect the  Climate Rapid Response Team to be a campaigning (political) platform, not a scientific one.

0 replies on “Climate Scientists Fight Back (Minus The Climate Scientists)”

I would not discredit anyone for not having dedicated Climate researchers. A chemical engineer definitely has the qualifications to evaluate climate change science (effectively, ChemE is a degree in mathematical modeling of chemical systems), an astronomer would have decent knowledge of the atmosphere, and a meteorologist… do I even have to defend this one?

While we can laugh at the hypocrisy, and we can discredit the people individually (Dr. Abraham’s laughable “debunking” especially), we cannot allow ourselves to stoop to the level of the warmists by demanding foolish and meaningless qualifications.

Ben – as I wrote, I am not criticizing anybody. All I am doing is pointing out that the “Climate Rapid Response” team is just another bunch of activists, hence their replies will be the activists’, not the scientists’ (even if they can contact actual climate scientists).

As you said, the problem is (as usual) the hypocrisy. Why can’t they present themselves for what they are, and leave to the reader the effort to find it out? Is AGW belief aimed at lazy people?

The Guardian article says: “Abraham may be familiar to some readers for dissecting – and comprehensively debunking – global warming denier Christopher Monckton in 126 slides, called A Scientist Replies to Lord Monckton”. This links to a short article by Abraham in the Guardian last June, which in turn contains a link entitled “Read John Abraham’s reply to Christopher Monckton in full”.
But there’s nothing to read at the link, merely an 83 minute audio monologue by Abraham, whose method of debunking Monckton is to quote a reference from Monckton, send an email to the author of the Monckton reference, and report back e.g. “the author says he’s right and Monckton is wrong” or “the author didn’t reply to my email, but I’ve been to his website, and he knows a lot about climate change” or best of all “I do not believe Monckton has read my work, or that of other prominent polar bears”.
Sending Abraham into the frontline of the battle seems pretty desperate. Could this be the final kamikaze stage of the climate wars?

So Abraham actually checking with the original researchers to confirm his interpretation is now considered lame, while Monckton’s ignorant (or more likely deliberate) mangling of the science passes without criticism?

That looks like a good acronym! Probably about equal to what will come from the “Patrol”
Climate Rapid Response Academic Patrol!
One R needs to be ommited as their response seems to lack the rapidity it claims. That would leave Climate Response Academic Patrol of the Chicken Little Brigade!
Truth in advertising!

I got this site confused with the one from NAS with the 300 who are waiting to answer all your questions.
This site sounds like a cross between Romm’s and the Onion.

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.