William Schlesinger on IPCC: “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.”

[---]

William Schlesinger on IPCC: “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.”
17 02 2009

This is a bit disturbing, though in retrospect, not surprising. One of our local IPCC wonks at Chico State University, Jeff Price, is a biologist, but lectures me about climate all the same. - Anthony

by Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

I had intended to return to this point when I originally posted about this debate last week, but time got away from me. Thankfully, my colleague Roy Cordato brought it up today:

During the question and answer session of last week’s William Schlesinger/John Christy global warming debate, (alarmist) Schlesinger was asked how many members of United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate scientists. It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all. Its president, for example, is an economist.


Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC - trained initially as a railway engineer

This question came after Schlesinger had cited the IPCC as an authority for his position. His answer was quite telling.

First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had “some dealing with the climate.” His complete answer was that he thought, “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” In other words, even IPCC worshiper Schlesinger now acknowledges that 80 percent of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.

This shatters so much of the alarmists’ claim, as they almost always appeal to the IPCC as their ultimate authority.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/will...g-with-climate/

[hilly7]

Excellent, thanks

[JazzRoc]

But is it true? Why isn't there a list? We can read it, can't we?

[rsol]

would everyone prefer all the the people there to be climatologists? The actual solution requires ALL fields to come to an understanding.

Im an IT man. give me a computer and ill find out how to fix it. That doesn't mean i don't know about dermatology..... Your profession doesn't always reflect your interests. I know many civil engineers by education who run bars. You don't have to be a professional musician to play guitar...


climate change reparation requires economists. Its true. also social scientists, government officials......scientists being in charge of this wouldn't get much done. Book worms aren't always great with people.

Now if the information they receive IS NOT from scientists but from say....DuPont or one of its "universities" then go ahead and get skeptical. you dont need a bin man to run a refuge collection agency. the same applies here.

grab some salt just a pinch would do. now stir it in.......nice...

[---]

Quote:would everyone prefer all the the people there to be climatologists? The actual solution requires ALL fields to come to an understanding.

Im an IT man. give me a computer and ill find out how to fix it. That doesn't mean i don't know about dermatology..... Your profession doesn't always reflect your interests. I know many civil engineers by education who run bars. You don't have to be a professional musician to play guitar...


climate change reparation requires economists. Its true. also social scientists, government officials......scientists being in charge of this wouldn't get much done. Book worms aren't always great with people.

Now if the information they receive IS NOT from scientists but from say....DuPont or one of its "universities" then go ahead and get skeptical. you dont need a bin man to run a refuge collection agency. the same applies here.

grab some salt just a pinch would do. now stir it in.......nice...

Yes, what you say is clear minded but nevertheless, in the claim is valid, it's still an overly low proportion of climatologists considering what the IPCC purports to be - it doesn't exactly instill confidence in their claims imho.

[JazzRoc]

LOL. Nice, RSOL, nice!

Just so long as there aren't any estate agents, accountants, or bank managers - I'm with you.:beer:

[rsol]

exactly. its obvious to me. To say 20% is a low figure id like to ask nik, would 30% do you? maybe 50? im just wondering how many climatologists will do a better job at administering this compared to administrators. Surely these people would do better in the field.

[yeti]

I'd be satisfied if 100% of the sources they use were from climatologists. Anything less is bullshit, as the IPCC obviously is.

[---]

Quote:exactly. its obvious to me. To say 20% is a low figure id like to ask nik, would 30% do you? maybe 50? im just wondering how many climatologists will do a better job at administering this compared to administrators. Surely these people would do better in the field.

well is the administration outweighing the science, or inflect upon it? I don't have an actual percentage no, but then I haven't seen the breakdown list either.
IPCC public should liason have a background in the science too, not railways for example.

I liked to see more scientists involved including many ex IPCC who are persona non grata now.

At a guess 38%

[rsol]

well if economists are making weather pattern predictions you might be onto something here. however they take data FROM scientists.

Otherwise any science teacher isn't qualified to teach about AC correct simply for the fact he isn't Tesla. Doctors can't prescribe medicine as they have never worked as a chemist. Doctors know the effects, they know the affects. They might not be able to know WHY the effects happen but then they really only care about the results.

I wont say that 20% of a panel for the administration of farming needs to be farmers. MAFF (ministry for agriculture, fisheries and food) consists entirely of administrators. The farmers are the ones doing the work on the fields.

If you have a top climatologist behind a desk or talking to banks and businesses, do you really think they will be listened to? If you can get a business to be responsible AND turn a profit (which is the primary concern for most) you really could do with some economists to give them some ideas.

The environment is an economic problem more than a science issue. You fix the economics of a business around ecology, that will transpire towards a better environment. please remember the issue is MAN MADE. That means business and industry. more carrot, less stick.

[---]

Quote:well if economists are making weather pattern predictions you might be onto something here. however they take data FROM scientists.

Otherwise any science teacher isn't qualified to teach about AC correct simply for the fact he isn't Tesla. Doctors can't prescribe medicine as they have never worked as a chemist. Doctors know the effects, they know the affects. They might not be able to know WHY the effects happen but then they really only care about the results.

I wont say that 20% of a panel for the administration of farming needs to be farmers. MAFF (ministry for agriculture, fisheries and food) consists entirely of administrators. The farmers are the ones doing the work on the fields.

If you have a top climatologist behind a desk or talking to banks and businesses, do you really think they will be listened to? If you can get a business to be responsible AND turn a profit (which is the primary concern for most) you really could do with some economists to give them some ideas.

The environment is an economic problem more than a science issue. You fix the economics of a business around ecology, that will transpire towards a better environment. please remember the issue is MAN MADE. That means business and industry. more carrot, less stick.

Absolutely, in terms of AGW your point is valid. Nevertheless, 20% is the stat. The list would be good to see it these people even do advise the economists like we would assume. And vice versa as many also assume.
Although, it's pertinent and entirely on topic I still think it's relatively a non issue against the wider and clearly apparent 'hijack' of environmentalism. For me, it just adds to the already backlogged complaints against the IPCC.

[rsol]

tbh its like any institution . whether its government of some body advising these governments. Would you like your local bank manager to have a degree in biology? would that make him any less of a cunt?

[---]

Quote:tbh its like any institution . whether its government of some body advising these governments. Would you like your local bank manager to have a degree in biology? would that make him any less of a cunt?

I'd prefer it they had a degree in Ethical Banking as I would an official international spokesman for the IPCC to have at least a degree in Meteorology ideally. I think is was pinned previously - the imperative of the institution is seemingly economic and social ergo political, drives which don't necessarily actually stand in accord with protecting the biosphere as a given.

[hilly7]

I can see others in related fields adding input into data, but by and large the majority should be climatologists to study climate, others study the effects of the climate. Those on top would need to be versed in the fields that come together. To discover and study it though, most should have related studies.