Posted by: Barry Bickmore | December 13, 2010

Another Red Herring Survey

This week Marc Morano (you know–the guy who gives out the e-mail addresses of mainstream climate scientists so his hordes of slack-jawed minions can send them hate mail) released a SPECIAL REPORT for the benefit of the delegates at the climate conference in Cancun.  Yes, “More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”!!!

My first reaction to this bombshell was that 1000 scientists is kind of a yawner, since the organizers of the Oregon Petition got over 34,000 “scientists” to sign their statement.  Of course, it turned out that less than 1% of those signers had a PhD in anything related to climatology, and they allowed anyone to sign who claimed to have a bachelor’s degree in ANY science or engineering field, including veterinarians, entomologists (people who study insects), metallurgists, and electrical engineers.  Since about 40% of the signers only had bachelor’s degrees, it was probably more likely that a given signer was a urine sample lab tech than a working climate scientist.

But this SPECIAL REPORT claims to include “many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC”.  Really?  I decided to comb through the highlights page to see how impressive their stable of contrarians was.  Here are the first few of the people mentioned.

1. Tom Tripp. Yes, Tom Tripp, the very first dissenter listed in the highlights, was a “lead author” for part of the last IPCC report!  Impressive, right?  Well, I dunno, which part did he work on?  As I reported way back in March, he worked on the section about greenhouse gas emissions from magnesium production operations.  Since Tripp is a metallurgist working for U.S. Magnesium, he is presumably well qualified to comment on the chemistry of magnesium production.  Unfortunately, it also means that he is likely to be quite unqualified to make comments about the state of climate science.

2. Leonard Weinstein. It turns out that Weinstein is a retired NASA aerospace engineer.  Which means his specialty was designing aircraft/spacecraft.  Two people and I’m already sensing a pattern, here…

3. Robert Laughlin. Although he won a Nobel Prize in physics, Laughlin is a particle physicist, not an atmospheric physicist.  Oh well, Nobel winners have a tradition of publicly commenting on whatever they feel like, and why not?  Smart people know everything about everything, don’t they?

4. Christopher Kobus. Here’s how the Climate Depot page lists him:  “Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.”  Yep.  A mechanical engineer.  It sounds like his background would give him a leg up on others who want to get up to speed on atmospheric physics, but where’s the evidence that he has done so?  A quick check of the ISI Web of Science database, which indexes all the major peer-reviewed scientific literature, revealed a number of articles on engineering topics, but none on climate.

5. Anatoly Levitin. Again, here’s how the Climate Depot page lists this guy:  “the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.”  Well, at least the Ionosphere is part of the atmosphere.  So, at last!!!!  Five people into the list, and we have an actual atmospheric scientist of some sort!!!  A quick check of the Web of Science shows that he has published a number of articles about the interaction of solar radiation with the Earth’s magnetic field, and the like.

6. Geraldo Luís Lino. Lino is a Brazilian geologist who wrote a book called The Global Warming Fraud.  Some geologists study past climates, so I wondered what Lino’s research specialty is, and looked him up on the Web of Science.  Guess what?  Lino didn’t show up.  In other words, he has never published anything, about any scientific topic, unless it was in some obscure Portuguese journal, or something.  As far as I can tell, Lino doesn’t have a PhD, either.

7. Mary Mumper. Dr. Mumper is apparently the Chemistry Department chair at Frostburg State University in Maryland.  Her faculty web page doesn’t list any research specialties, so I assume her job is limited to teaching.  But if she has a PhD, surely she has published something, hasn’t she?  Yep.  the Web of Science says she published 3 articles and one abstract in the period from 1993-1998… about biochemistry.   So she isn’t an active researcher, and her training was not in anything to do with climate science.

8. William C. Gilbert. The Climate Depot page says:  “Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled ‘The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere’ and he published a paper in August 2009 titled ‘Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.’  Energy and Environment is a joke of a journal that will seemingly publish anything by anyone, as long as it’s skeptical of mainstream climate science.  The second article seems to just be something Gilbert posted on the Internet.  What is Gilbert’s real research specialty?  Well, I’m not sure.  There is a person named WC Gilbert listed in the Web of Science who has co-authored a few studies of anesthesiology.  Another winner.

9. Hans Jelbring. Climate Depot introduces him as: “Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.”  An actual climatologist?  Wow!  Let’s look in the Web of Science and see what he’s published about climatology.  Wait… he doesn’t have ANY peer-reviewed articles about ANYTHING listed in the Web of Science?  What a surprise.

Ok, I’m quitting now, since this is getting a bit boring.  I checked the first nine people on Marc Morano’s list, and found exactly two of them with training in something to do with climate, and one of those doesn’t appear to have published anything in the major peer-reviewed literature.  I’m sure there are more active climate scientists in the list, somewhere, (I could name a few off the top of my head,) but I get the impression that their number is FAR less than 1000.  Apparently, Morano’s list is just another cheap red herring to distract attention from the fact that there is a strong consensus AMONG ACTIVE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.  Not engineers.  Not mechanics.  Not dog catchers.

I would say that Morano should go back to cyber-bullying (he’s better at it,) but I guess I shouldn’t be encouraging that, either.



  1. […] post: Another Red Herring Survey « Anti-Climate Change Extremism in Utah This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged book-called, brazilian, fraud-some, […]

  2. Barry,
    One of the first things to remember is to check whether the people are actually alive.

    There is a strong tendency to include the dead even when their work indicates that they didn’t dispute the science; scientists who do not dispute the science and who are absolutely horrified and demand to be removed, but never are removed. Those people are used to pad-out the usual suspects – the paid quibblers and deniers.

  3. Another dissection / demolition of the Morano crap:

  4. Par for the course really. It would be interesting to find out how many of the can be counted in the ‘“many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC”’.

    I suspect the word ‘many’ may have to be redefined to accommodate.

  5. […] could go on.  For instance, I pointed out in a previous post that Tom Tripp is a metallurgist working for US Magnesium, and lead author of a small section in […]

  6. Google Scholar for Hans Jelbring.

    Journal of Coastal Research, 1995
    Analysis of Sunspot Cycle Phase Variations—Based on D. Justin Schove’s Proxy Data

    Energy & Environment, 2003
    The” Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass

    Click to access FunctionOfMass.pdf

    • Thanks, WhiteBeard. Neither of these journals appears to have made it into the ISI database. In the case of E&E, it is a well known climate contrarian “safe haven”. I believe they even published an article about how the Sun is made of iron.

  7. […] sample technician signed than a real climate researcher.  Nevermind that Inhofe’s report included mostly non-specialists in climate, and although he touted a few IPCC authors in the bunch, they amounted to less than 1% […]

  8. […] There are undoubtedly thousands of scientists who doubt the anthropogenic global warming theory.  There are millions of Americans with scientific degrees, so finding a few thousand who are climate "skeptics" is simply not noteworthy.  Inhofe may refer to this list compiled by his former employee Marc Morano which boasts "More than 1,000 dissenting scientists."  However, as documented by Barry Bickmore, even the scientists most prominently highlighted on that list have lit…. […]

  9. Uncredentialed ankle biters not withstanding; scientists often work across disciplines, and the major disciplines should be physicists, chemists, oceanographers, mathematicians, programmers and even foia lawyers for defining and detailing fraud and coverup. You should also include economist and accountants to count up the money spent propelling the fraud vs how many want to throw money into convincing bobbleheads that AGW science is in fact junk
    . The IPCC lists of scientists include more secretaries and receptionists than scientists. Read “The Denier’s” by Solomon to get a grip on reality. Since government scientists are punished when they dissent from and rewarded when they “find” AGW, even a few dissenters would be significant.
    To be fair, the UN sponsors should be required to finance an equal agency IPCSS (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Stays the Same”.

    • Jim, as I mentioned above, the point is NOT that nobody can get up to speed on climate issues enough to comment intelligently unless they are trained, publishing climate scientists. Rather, the point is that if you are going to make a “consensus” argument (which is a reasonable thing to do,) you should 1) have some kind of criterion to distinguish people with climate expertise and those without, and 2) you should try to determine what FRACTION of those who meet your criteria agree about something. Morano does neither. Why? Because doing so would be shooting himself in the foot.

      If you want to make the argument that consensus doesn’t matter, then fine. You’ve given notice that your views would go against those of the majority of experts, and people can decide whether to look into them further on that basis. Morano won’t do that, because he is dishonest, in my opinion.

  10. Glad to find a Republican source not in denial. Sorry to see so much anti-science among many Republican supporters. Used to be a more even representation of scientists across oparty lines when I was in college(70’s), but now few PHD scientists are Republican. > 10% now. That worries me, as issues of real concern, such as AGW will get lost in the partison battles. Keep up the good analysis on this subject.

  11. […] Mormon, and an active Republican,” looked at a sample of the names on Morano’s list and found mechanical engineers, a biochemist and a metallurgist working for US Magnesium, but no working […]

  12. […] active Mormon, and an active Republican,” looked at a sample of the names on Morano’s list and found mechanical engineers, a biochemist and a metallurgist working for US Magnesium, but no working […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: