Saturday, December 29, 2007

Deliberately Obtuse At Climate Resistance

Over At Climate Resistance they're playing a game of "my scientist is better than your scientist", with the contributors to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report versus the Inhofe 400. In their attempt to run down the qualifications of the boys and girls of the IPCC, the folks at CR start off by picking on one Abigail Bristow:

Nonetheless, were these contributors the "experts" that Dessler claims they are? There were a few professors, but few of them had the profile Dessler gives them. Many of them were in fact, hard to locate to establish just how much better than their [Inhofe 400] counterparts they were. One professor (Abigail Bristow) wasn't what you'd call a climate scientist, but a professor of Transport Studies at Newcastle University. How is she going to cure the sick child? Will she be driving the ambulance?

Bad medical metaphors aside, they are wondering essentially why a "transport studies" expert should be considered an expert when it comes to climate change. It takes about ten minutes of playing around with google to answer this question.

Ms. Bristow served as a member of Working Group II of the IPCC's three working groups. The focus of her group was "Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability ". More specifically, she worked as a "contributing author" on chapter 12 of working group II's contribution to the final IPCC report, which touched on the impacts and vulnerabilities of Europe to climate change. Since section12.4.8.2 of chapter 12 touches on the impacts of climate change on European transport ( Higher temperatures can damage rail and road surfaces (AEAT, 2003;Wooller 2003;Mayor of London, 2005) and affect passenger comfort.), I would assume that this is one section of the report in which Ms. Bristow had a hand.

And why not? Would you not want a transport expert, who has indeed written on road transport's effect on climate change, or on cutting CO2 emissions from transport, on the biofuel performance, to be involved in this section of the report? What good would a climate modeller do here? Or would the folks at Climate Resistance have preferred the IPCC call in Klaus the Space Libertarian, or Alan the TV Gardener, both of whom are on Inhofe's list.

Now, as I say, it took me all of ten minutes to find this out, and it wouldn't have taken the folks at Climate Resistance any longer if they had put their minds to it. So, on the assumption that when you see one roach you can conclude that there are roaches, I am not going to bother with the other names of the allegedly unqualified IPCCers on the CR list. I will just assume their mission over there is hacking out denialist crap.

BCL, over and out.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

you should Fisk the IPCC's list of 2500 Climate experts if you really wan to see fraud

Anonymous said...

They'll brush aside one of the greatest scientific minds of our times as a "denialist" (and hundreds of esteemed scientists just like him),

but bend over backwards to justify why an unpublished activist should be vaunted as one of the "experts" from who's opinion we should bow to unquestioningly.

And now all they are left with is a bizarre attempt to ridicule those who are shining the light of truth on this ignorance laden paradox.

Ti-Guy said...

you should Fisk the IPCC's list of 2500 Climate experts if you really wan to see fraud

That's your job, 'tard. Hope you can do a better job of it than the 'tards at Climate Resistance.

And now all they are left with is a bizarre attempt to ridicule those who are shining the light of truth on this ignorance laden paradox.

Ignorance-laden paradox? I think that rivals "Biff" as an all-purpose designation for the anonymii. Well, that and Calgarian.

anonymous academic said...

anon: "They'll brush aside one of the greatest scientific minds of our times as a "denialist" "

Ok. I'll bite. Who is this great scientific mind about whom you speak?

Teh Rational Denier said...

Ok. I'll bite. Who is this great scientific mind about whom you speak?

I think he means that guy who invented The Rubik's Cube. What was his name again?

anonymous academic said...

Rational: "I think he means that guy who invented The Rubik's Cube. What was his name again?"

Rubik?

Anonymous said...

That's quite the leap of logic BCL in implying a transport studies expert is also a climate expert.

Of course you would want a person of her caliber on board in assessing climate effects on transportation, but at the end of the day, she still remains an expert in transport studies only.

- Paul S

bigcitylib said...

She is an expert on the effects of climate change on transportation (in Europe), and also on means of making various means of transportation low emission. I never said or implied anything else, Paul. Sticking rather desperately to your talking points, aren't you?

Anonymous said...

So now you just review SDA for your stuff? Time to call it quits.

Kingston said...

BCL, Seriously my friend, how can she be an expert on the effects on a transportion system I am assuming after the full effects are felt when the severity of effects of GW cannot even be agree upon by the IPCC at this moment. We have all seen numerous fore casted effects from 2mm of increase to 5 meters in sea level.Is she computer modeling. What is she using for a reference. I mean I can fore cast too, If the bay of Fundy raises in level higher then Hwy 1 leaving Saint John heading southwest to St Stephens then yes we will need a new highway. I have no problem agreeing the GW is happening, whether it is from Human causes or nature is an argument I will not enter because every time I think I have a handle on it, something else is published that causes me to re-think so I am sitting back and waiting for more information. By the way, an awful lot of contradictory information for something that is a settle science.

Ti-Guy said...

That's quite the leap of logic BCL in implying a transport studies expert is also a climate expert.

Jesus Christ, it's like they don't fucking read or they can't fucking read.

By the way, an awful lot of contradictory information for something that is a settle science.

...Round and round we go...

The contradictions are coming from frauds, Kingston. The same people who argued that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

Anonymous said...

ti-guy said:

"Jesus Christ, it's like they don't fucking read or they can't fucking read."

Now, now, don't lose your little temper ti-guy. We read just fine.

Here's what BCL said:

"Bad medical metaphors aside, they are wondering essentially why a "transport studies" expert should be considered an expert when it comes to climate change."

BCL uses a bit of sophistry to alter the debate away from the original question.

Ms. Bristow shouldn't be considered an expert on climate change, except in a periphery role to the science of climate.

No one questioned whether Ms. Bristow should be on the IPCC panels, they questioned her lack of credentials to be called a climate expert. That is a legitimate question.

- Paul S

Ti-Guy said...

I'm drowning in trollish sophistry, Paul S. Who exactly called her a "climate expert" and is that really germane to the issue or is it simply a distraction?

She certainly appears to have the expertise to address what she did in fact address; if you don't think so, you'll have to make the case for it.

Anonymous said...

Once again:

"Bad medical metaphors aside, they are wondering essentially why a "transport studies" expert should be considered an expert when it comes to climate change. It takes about ten minutes of playing around with google to answer this question."

If she is listed as one of the IPCC's 2500 climate experts in agreement with AGW, then the public has been misled through linguistic sleight of hand.

There is no attempt to impugn her expertise in her select field, but if she (and others) are presented to the public as climate experts, that is a sophist's argument. And as sophist's arguments usually are, a misleading one at that.

- Paul S

Ti-Guy said...

...Maybe I should type more slowly for you?..

If she is listed as one of the IPCC's 2500 climate experts in agreement with AGW, then the public has been misled through linguistic sleight of hand.

You didn't answer my question...where is she called a "climate expert?" BCL's description refers to an "expert"..."when it comes to climate change," but that's transparently in the context of an expert contributing to the discussion of climate change.

You're insisting something has been asserted and then suggesting it's "linguistic sleight of hand" and "sophistry" (I'm starting to think you don't know what that word means) but you're not providing proper evidence of that.

Talk about sophistry. You seem to be a pro at it, though, truth be told...a lot of sophists don't really understand that they're engaging in sophistry. It's actually how their minds work.

Anyway, I think I'm done with this little episode of Denial Theatre. Even if you can provide evidence for what you're asserting, it really is of trivial import.

Anonymous said...

It is an interesting question.

Is the IPCC scientific consensus composed of 2500 climate scientists or climate experts? Or, gawd forbid, "expert(s) contributing to the discussion of climate change"?

ti-guy says:

"BCL's description refers to an "expert"..."when it comes to climate change," but that's transparently in the context of an expert contributing to the discussion of climate change."


You are being rather specious also ti-guy. Why not just say she is not a climate change expert? Simple, eh?

No one is questioning her competency or expertise, as is so common from the ardent warmers side. The question being raised is, I believe, is her name included as one of the 2500 experts from the IPCC?

If her name is on the list, then the general public has been misled about the size and makeup of the consensus.

- Paul S

bigcitylib said...

Paul wrote:

"If her name is on the list, then the general public has been misled about the size and makeup of the consensus."


Or, on the other hand, you and the folks at CLimate Resistance could simply be too ignorant to know upfront what the makeup of the consensus is. You can find what the elements of the consensus are by visiting the IPCC home-page (or just reading the A. Dessler post that sparked this whole discussion). It is not just that GW is happening, or that it is AGW, but it is also a consensus as to its effects on, among other things, transportation in Europe (Ms. Bristow's specialty). Hence the experts required to pull together the IPCC report include experts on the effects of climate change on transportation. Its not the general public thats been misled, but rather you and the guys at CR have managed to mislead yourselves due to a lack of basic googling skills.

Ti-Guy said...

You are being rather specious also ti-guy.

That's not the proper use of the word "specious."

Why not just say she is not a climate change expert? Simple, eh?

Why should I refute something no one with any credibility has asserted?

If her name is on the list, then the general public has been misled about the size and makeup of the consensus.

You'd actually have to provide evidence that this has occurred among the general public. You don't know that at all.

You denialists should really stick to the scientific deliberations (if you can; most you of seem to be unaware that science requires evidence) and stop trying to assert things about the political or social reality of an issue when it's clear that you have no information on that at all.

Anonymous said...

"Scientific expert reviewers" is what the IPCC calls the 2500. Not exactly the most honest description when many are not scientists in any sense nor experts on the science of climate either.

- Paul S

TCO said...

I had a very temperate post scrubbed.* Not a TCO drunk post, but making a point on how we need to avoid sophistry by either side...make valid arguments, not play games of what one side does wrong.


*I can't find it...and there is a post deleted marker.

TCO said...

I think both "sides" have a history of playing games here in attributing expertise and numbers. It distresses me more when my side does it, because we are supposed to be corrective. And if we are stooping to sophistry "because the other side does it", it implies we don't have good valid arguments to use to shoot them down. Plus it's just morally wrong and sloppy.

Moving to an actuall attempt to discuss the subject (yeah...how silly of me), couple things:

A. There is a history of this kind of people citing "improper experts" if it helps them. Some examples: nuclear PHYSICISTS on the strategic/moral issues of nuclear warfare. Fundamental physical scientists (basic chemists and engineers) on "Star Wars missile defense" (it is an engineering debate and a technology development debate). Carl Sagan (planetary astronomer) on climate ("nuclear winter"). The ones I know are from the conservative slant, since I am one...but my side is likely guilty of several as well.

B. Just because something is a "consensus" does not mean we should not try to understand it, should take things without question. Enron was a consensus great company by all the MBA professors...but they were wrong. A more penetrating examination would have surfaced the problems earlier (there were tell-tales in the SEC 10Ks, as well as fundamental questions about the value proposition of being a trading company). However, many people failed to question things...and when they did, there were angry responses from Skilling and the like, that tried to cut off examination.