Another head-shaking interview from ABC’s Robyn , (we had this exchange: 100Metres) Williams, after comments go missing, the way back machine finds and comments thus: …Covers 8 parts…
6)…Then, concerning the petition of 31,000 sceptical scientists, that was encouraged by Frederick Seitz, past president of theNational Academy of Sciences (83 page pdf):
John Cook: The actual statement that they signed their name to is generally that human activity can’t cause climate disruption and in fact CO2 is a good thing, something to that effect. But when you look at all the names on the lists, about 99.9% of them are not climate scientists. So it’s this raising of fake experts, and that tactic has been used way back to the ’70s where the tobacco industry…
That’s not quite right, for instance, the petition was compiled before that new term for CAGW was invented. Also, the following breakdown of the scientists includes the disciplines which are foundation to various fields of “climate science”.
- Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences: 3,804
- Computer and mathematical sciences: 935
- Physics and aerospace sciences: 5,812
- Chemistry: 4,821
- Biology and agriculture: 2,965
That is a substantial majority sub total of 18,337, but to continue, concerning the grand total:
Robyn Williams: Who are these scientists nonetheless? Are they scientists? John Cook: Most of them probably are scientists. There are a few funny names there, I think Posh Spice might have been on there or somebody. But what they are, are mechanical engineers, medical doctors, and the point is when you have a technical and complicated subject like climate change, you want to get the opinions of climate experts. So, for example, if you were going to get a heart operation, you wouldn’t want a mechanical engineer cutting into you, you would want somebody who was an expert on that.
Well actually, the petition lists only a minority of “inferior” engineers, other scientists, and medical doctors within the 31,000:
- Medicine: 3,046
- Engineering and general science: 10,103
Furthermore, applied scientists such as engineers are arguably amongst the best at applying rational thought to scientific data, partly because they cannot in their careers be cavalier with any assumptions, as some elitist “climate scientists” seem prone to be. They are skilled at handling data, and researching the literature etc, no matter what the parameters, and are less likely to have a preconceived view on the outcomes. (I would further argue that peer review should not be via pal review, but from broader disciplines.)
[Cook is partly commenting on the first version of this petition, the second version removed names like Posh Spice, and removed duplicates, and … ended up larger than the first. See here for more info. It was done by volunteers, and done twice. –JN ]
(You mean these experts?…John, Robyn?
- Timothy Ball, Ph.D.
- Larry Bell, Ph.D.
- Alan Carlin, Ph.D.
- Robert “Bob” Carter, Hon. FRSNZ
- Christopher Horner, J.D.
- Robert O. Mendelsohn, Ph.D.
- Patrick Michaels, Ph.D.
- Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
- Harrison Schmitt, Ph.D.
- Willie Soon, Ph.D.
- S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.
- David G. Tuerck, Ph.D.
- Anthony Watts ) All speakers at next month’s climate conference.