Posted on 01/28/2008 8:15:38 PM PST by EPW Comm Team
Morano (Senator Inhofe's Comm. Dir. on Environment & Public Works Committee) Rebuts Critics of Senate 'Consensus Busters' report featuring over 400 plus (and growing) scientists (Debunks Rabett, Dessler & Pierrehumbert )
[Full Senate ‘Consensus Busters’ of Over 400 plus (well over 450 actually and growing)scientists can be found here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport ]
Key Excerpts from Marc Morano’s New York Times rebuttal to critics of Senate blockbuster report: (There has been at least one call to have Morano's postings banned from the New York Times website. See: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/earth-scientists-express-rising-concern-over-warming/#comment-8921 )
Morano: “Your attacks were expected. What was not expected was how weak and petty your challenges to the Senate report have been thus far. My only request to the three of you is please take a bit more time and actually do some real research before you post again about the Senate ‘Consensus Busters’ report. Spending more time and crafting thoughtful responses would go a long way to making your attacks effective. < > The attempts to discredit the Senate report are growing more bizarre. We even have the hilarious scenario of Andrew Dessler (of eco-mag Grist) trapping himself by his own logic. Dessler in his blogs at Grist.org rejects broadcast meteorologists as unqualified. But when Dessler erroneously thought he found one TV weatherman who agreed with his climate views, Dessler proclaimed that the TV weatherman was now suddenly qualified to have an opinion on man-made climate fears. How convenient Dessler. Dessler’s “research” of the Senate report has also uncovered a meteorologist who believes in God. Dessler attempted to besmirch the meteorologist for his religious comments. But Dessler never once printed the meteorologist’s scientific reasons for rejecting claims of a “climate crisis.” Rabett also wrote that the Senate report contained “web site owners who think they know everything about climate.” Now Rabett, no wonder your critiques have gained no traction. The “web site owners” you refer to are scientists who happen to have a website. Once again, you are caught in grade school level intellectual bullying. (see full text of rebuttal below)
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/earth-scientists-express-rising-concern-over-warming/#comment-9135
# # #
Background Note: The rebuttal is addressed to three promoters of climate fear who have been spending weeks of their life poring over every line in the Senate report (over 80,000 words) trying to find any crack or angle to discredit it. The three climate alarmists are not interested in a serious debate, rather they spend their time publicly mocking and ridiculing any skeptical scientists who dares to speak out and they reject any science view that does not fit their narrow predetermined criteria.
The Players: In one corner: Marc Morano, Communications Director for Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (minority) Received Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from George Mason University. VS In the other corner: 1) PhD Physicist Dr. Raymond Pierrehumbert of the propaganda website RealClimate.org - http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1 ) 2) Eco-mag Grist.org’s Dr. Andrew Dessler - PhD professor at Texas A&M University in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences (formerly of a Senior Policy Analyst in The Clinton/Gore White House Office of Science and Technology Policy - http://www.met.tamu.edu/people/faculty/dessler.php & 3) Eli Rabett (pseudonym) - http://rabett.blogspot.com )
Full Text of Complete debunking of critics of Senate ‘Consensus Busters’ report published on January 27, 2007 on New York Times Website. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/earth-scientists-express-rising-concern-over-warming/#comment-9135
264.
January 27th, 2008 10:18 am
Re: Response to Critiques of U.S. Senate ‘Consensus Busters’ Report by Eli Rabett, Andrew Dessler and Raymond Pierrehumbert (# 219, # 248, # 174 & others)
Simply stated: By focusing your attack tactics on picking out a few members in the Senate report and smearing them and raising the most trivial of issues, you have implicitly acknowledged defeat.
First, sorry to disappoint you Rabett, but your basic problem with your latest critique is your poor math skills.
There are well OVER 400 scientists in the Senate Report. In your zeal to throw as much mud at the report as you can muster, you tripped up on simple arithmetic.
Even if YOU disqualify one scientist in the report, the number does not drop to “399” as you erroneously claim. We will forgive your little embarrassment for now.
Second, you mentioned the Senate report had “TV garden show guys.”
Once again, you reveal more basic mathematical woes. Is there more than one individual that you denigrate as a “TV garden show” guy in the report? It appears you have serial addition deficiency.
Let’s examine your “TV garden show guys” charge carefully. By calling someone a “TV gardener,” I gather that is your low brow way of mocking them?
It appears you are referring to Alan Titchmarch, a prominent award winning UK horticulturist/naturalist in the Senate report. Oh, and he also hosts a TV show. Using your tactics, you could downgrade anyone you wish. If any scientist hosted a weekly TV show on climate, would you refer to him as a “TV Host” only? (the answer is obviously yes if their views differed from yours)
Understandably from your point of view, you would not want to highlight anything but a horticulturist’s “TV” work.
By your condescending tone, you also seem to think climate science can have nothing to do with horticulture. But let me quote atmospheric scientist William R. Kininmonth. (His short bio: He headed Australia’s National Climate Center from 1986 to 1998 and coordinated the scientific and technical review of the 1997-98 El Niño event for the World Meteorological Organization and its input to the United Nations Task Force on El Niño.) (Quick, Rabett, Dessler and, Pierrehumbert, you have another scientist to smear!)
Kininmonth explained the research horticulturists have conducted as it relates to CO2: “CO2 is an essential component of photosynthesis: Increased CO2 in the atmosphere is an effective fertiliser of the biosphere as shown by horticulturalists artificially increasing the CO2 content within glasshouses. CO2 is NOT a pollutant,” Kininmonth said in a May 30, 2007 article.” End excerpt.
Including a horticulturist/naturalist in the Senate report to comment on his area of expertise makes perfect sense. Titchmarch is quoted in the Senate 400 plus report discussing his views on climate change as it relates to vineyards and the potential impact on the natural world.
Rabett, you are so desperate to ridicule and foment your brand of nastiness that you do not tell your web readers any of this basic information.
Why don’t you give a complete and accurate picture Rabett?
Rabett, and Andrew Dessler have both also attempted to ridicule meteorologists included in the Senate report. Once again they use the obvious tactic of they are on “TV” as a way to denigrate them and imply they cannot understand atmospheric science.
What Rabett — the math challenged critic — fails to note is the meteorologists are certified by the American Meteorological Society (AMS) or the National Weather Association. (Yes, the AMS, the same group so many in this forum hold in such high esteem) Many of them have masters degrees or PHD’s in meteorology.
The meteorologists in the Senate 400 plus report stand out as prominent skeptical members of the AMS, in stark contrast to the two dozen or so governing board members of AMS who approved the so-called ‘consensus’ statements.
The attempts to discredit the Senate report are growing more bizarre. We even have the hilarious scenario of Andrew Dessler trapping himself by his own logic. Dessler in his blogs at Grist.org rejects broadcast meteorologists as unqualified.
But when Dessler erroneously thought he found one TV weatherman who agreed with his climate views, Dessler proclaimed that the TV weatherman was now suddenly qualified to have an opinion on man-made climate fears. How convenient Dessler.
Dessler’s “research” of the Senate report has also uncovered a meteorologist who believes in God. Dessler attempted to besmirch the meteorologist for his religious comments. But Dessler never once printed the meteorologist’s scientific reasons for rejecting claims of a “climate crisis.”
Rabett also wrote that the Senate report contained “web site owners who think they know everything about climate.” Now Rabett, no wonder your critiques have gained no traction. The “web site owners” you refer to are scientists who happen to have a website.
Once again, you are caught in grade school level intellectual bullying.
Rabett also singles out the signers of the German Climate Manifest as being “totally clueless.”
Rabett, have you even read the Senate report? The signers of the German Manifest include: Physics Professor Hubert Becker; Professor of physics Dr. Ludecke Horst-Joachim; Peter Martin; Chemical and environmental engineer Donald Clauson; Physicist Dr. Theo Eichten; Biochemist Flick Hendrikje; Chemist Dr. Hauck Guenther; Professor of environmental and climate physics Dr. Detlef Hebert; Astrophysicist Dr Peter Heller; Chemist Dr. Albert Krause; Chemist Dr. Hans Penner; Mathematician Dr. Paul Matthews; Chemist Dr. Wuntke Knut; and Meteorologist Klaus-pulse Eckart.
Mr. “Eli Rabett”, it may be easy for you to label all of the above scientists “totally clueless” as you hide behind your pseudonym. But anyone who actually uses their real name in public and has to be held accountable for what they write would not make such baseless comments.
Rabett also claims that one of the 400 plus scientists “sent a clear Email asking to be taken off the list.” Really Rabett. Where is your proof or do we have to just take your word for it? The scientist in question never responded to multiple emails or a voicemail trying to confirm he actually did send an email.
Here is the full story behind Rabett’s claim. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/the-road-f rom-climate-science-to-climate-advocacy/#comment-7365
Rabett’s desperation to find ONE scientist he can claim does not want to be in the Senate report out of WELL OVER 400 provides endless humor. Go ahead Rabett, hang your hopes on your ONE scientist to discredit the entire report of over 400. If you actually do find ONE scientist out of over 400, by all means, pop the champagne corks!
Rabett also brings up my challenge to Andrew Dessler to name the names of the only “two dozen” skeptical scientists that Dessler deems “qualified’ to comment on climate change.
It is a fair challenge. The U.S. Senate released its report detailing the 400 plus (and growing) skeptical scientists for public scrutiny (and derision by you three.)
Why won’t Dessler name the names of the only “two dozen” skeptics he deems “qualified” to have an opinion?
It’s very easy for Dessler to bloviate about who is “qualified”, but when publicly challenged to name names, he predictably shrinks away and suddenly goes silent.
Dessler knows once he lists his “two dozen” skeptical scientists he deems “qualified;” he will be further ridiculed for his baseless and absurd assertion.
Alas, that is the reason we will continue to hear nothing but the sounds of crickets chirping as we await Dessler’s response to the public challenge.
The Senate list of 400 plus scientists (and growing) has the same make up of scientists as your fabled UN IPCC “thousands” of scientists. Again, read this report to find out about the backgrounds of scientists who make up the UN IPCC. http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-heal-thyself.html )
The Senate 400 plus report has many current and former IPCC scientists from all types of disciplines.
Excerpt from Senate ‘Consensus Busters’ Report : The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. End Excerpt.
Have you ever spent any time researching whether IPCC scientists meet your “standards?”
Pierrehumbert, you wrote to me: “You seem to be saying that peer review is worthless.”
Once again Pierrehumbert, this is another example of your failed attempt at distortion. I used Cockburn’s writing to expose your tactics of claiming peer-review is the “only” standard by which to judge a scientist.
Please take the time to actually read what is being written before you shoot from the hip.
As I have written, you seem to believe that unless someone published a study in a publication of your approval, they are not qualified to have a view on climate change. What about field research, university research, professional papers, advanced degrees, certifications, real world observational data? None of these criteria seems to matter to you if the scientist does not meet your arbitrary criteria.
The Senate ‘Consensus Busters’ report embraces the latest peer-reviewed studies. Our award winning Senate website (thanks National Science Foundation and JFK School of Government at Harvard U. for making award possible!) is chock full of recent peer-review scientific studies debunking man-made climate fears.
Excerpt from August 20, 2007 Senate report: An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears. Recent scientific studies may make 2007 go down in history as the “tipping point” of man-made global warming fears. End Excerpt. See weblink here:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
The Senate ‘Consensus Busters’ report also has an entire section detailing the new peer-reviewed studies.
The 400 plus scientists Rabett labeled “sad souls” (getting a bit close to sounding theological there Rabett) must really be troubling you three.
The bottom line: Rabett, Pierrehumbert and Dessler — you gentlemen are spending literally hours of your life poring over every name in the Senate report looking for any angle to smear and belittle the scientists.
Mr. Pierrehumbert, I believe the appropriate term you would use to describe your attacks on these scientists would be “swiftboating.”
It is obvious that you all are very worried that your huge personal investments in climate activism are being seriously threatened by the mere existence of the Senate 400 plus report. Your previous claims that the “debate is over” and there are only “two dozen” skeptical scientists have been exposed for the world to see.
When faced with a Senate report featuring eight times the number of scientists who participated in the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers, you have no option but to invent any means necessary to besmirch the scientists and their reputations.
Your attacks were expected.
What was not expected was how weak and petty your challenges to the Senate report have been thus far.
My only request to the three of you is please take a bit more time and actually do some real research before you post again about the Senate ‘Consensus Busters’ report.
Spending more time and crafting thoughtful responses would go a long way to making your attacks effective.
I leave with a quote from Alexander Cockburn (yes, not a scientist, but he does not need to be one to refute the activist attacks of Rabett, Dessler and Pierrehumbert.)
Cockburn Excerpt: There was a shocking intensity to their self-righteous fury, as if I had transgressed a moral as well as an intellectual boundary and committed blasphemy. I really feel that; it is remarkable how quickly the hysterical reaction takes hold and rains down upon those who question the consensus. End Excerpt. For Cockburn’s full essay see: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbo oks_article/4357
Enough said.
Once again: Please read the full Senate ‘Consensus Busters’ report here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
For more rebuttals to critics of Senate report: see: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/the-road-from-climate-science-to-climate-advocacy/#comment-6813 & http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/the-road-from-climate-science-to-climate-advocacy/#comment-6702
Sincerely,
Marc Morano U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee
# # #
This is a messy post. Borderline intelligible.
Whew.
Glad you said that. It's late and I'm tired = so thought it was me. I couldn't make heads nor tails of it
My apologies for the formatting.
You must not have read the post to have made the comment you did. I read it all the way through.
I will grant you that if you only spend the amount of time it takes to read a comic strip you would not get much out of this post.
To all of you out there shoveling “global warming” and chaining up your wheels to be able to get around in “global warming” you have my sympathy.
By the way, has anyone heard from Algore this winter?
Would someone please provide and Executive Summary?
Okay. Global warming is bogus. Short enough for ya?
If that is "borderline intelligible", I hate to try and make sense out of something "totally unintelligible"!
After scanning twice, I'm still not sure if the Senate report is pro-global-warming or con-GW!!
If this is an example of Republican Senate Staff work, I suggest someone that has Inhofe as a Senator, clue him in that his staffer, Marc Morano, needs to go to "Report Writing 101" - and then recieve tutoring for a year or two.
Here is a basic restatement of the above:
The U.S. Senate released a Dec. 20, 2007 report featuring over 400 scientists dissenting from man-made global warming fears.
The report was, as expected, attacked by promoters of a man-made climate crisis.”
Above is a detailed response to three of the key climate alarmists.
Hope this helps.
Thanks
Note: Correct spellng is “remedial.”
Thanks.
Response to Critiques of U.S. Senate 'Consensus Busters' Report by Eli Rabett, Andrew Dessler and Raymond Pierrehumbert
Thanks for interpreting the article for me. It was written in a language I don't comprehend. Perhaps its beacuse I took only "English for Engineers 101 & 102"....but I don't think so.
Now I know I agree with the guys gibberish!! LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
