"Kansas City Star" Article
Today's Kansas City Star has an article about television meteorologists (and, in this case, all are degreed meteorologists) who do not agree with the American Meteorological Society's position on global warming.
I am briefly mentioned in the article after spending about 45 minutes on the phone with reporter Rick Montgomery and exchanging a number of emails. I do not envy a reporter trying to sort through all of this and Rick did a reasonably good job. There are some comments I want to make regarding the article:
It is important to know that meteorologists are not climatologists.
In context, the article make this sound like a handicap in understanding the atmosphere. I believe the reverse is true and that is why so many meteorologists are skeptical of the IPCC's 'global warming' hypothesis.
Consider this: Probably the single most important scientist in the IPCC is Dr. James Hansen of NASA. I have his vitae which can be downloaded here. If you look at his academic background, you see nothing with regard to atmospheric science. While having outstanding credentials in astronomy (outer space), there is nothing to indicate he independently understands the workings of the atmosphere (meteorology) or the mechanisms of long term weather (climatology) -- he has no background in those subjects. So, my criticism of Dr. Hansen is that, while he is sincere, he tends to believe whatever the climate models (mentioned in the Star article) tell him and he doesn't have the background to independently judge whether the output of those models is realistic.
Then, consider former Vice President Gore. I have his academic transcript and he took just one course in natural science in college. The head of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, has a PhD in economics but no background in atmospheric science.
My point is when Bryan Busby modestly says he "only has one course in climatology" he has more credentials than these three leaders of the global warming movement. Plus, his background in meteorology and computer modeling gives him the knowledge and practical experience to understand the IPCC's climate models (which utterly failed to forecast the lack of warming the last dozen years) are highly fallible.
We'll have more about the lack of warming later today.
I am briefly mentioned in the article after spending about 45 minutes on the phone with reporter Rick Montgomery and exchanging a number of emails. I do not envy a reporter trying to sort through all of this and Rick did a reasonably good job. There are some comments I want to make regarding the article:
It is important to know that meteorologists are not climatologists.
In context, the article make this sound like a handicap in understanding the atmosphere. I believe the reverse is true and that is why so many meteorologists are skeptical of the IPCC's 'global warming' hypothesis.
Consider this: Probably the single most important scientist in the IPCC is Dr. James Hansen of NASA. I have his vitae which can be downloaded here. If you look at his academic background, you see nothing with regard to atmospheric science. While having outstanding credentials in astronomy (outer space), there is nothing to indicate he independently understands the workings of the atmosphere (meteorology) or the mechanisms of long term weather (climatology) -- he has no background in those subjects. So, my criticism of Dr. Hansen is that, while he is sincere, he tends to believe whatever the climate models (mentioned in the Star article) tell him and he doesn't have the background to independently judge whether the output of those models is realistic.
Then, consider former Vice President Gore. I have his academic transcript and he took just one course in natural science in college. The head of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, has a PhD in economics but no background in atmospheric science.
My point is when Bryan Busby modestly says he "only has one course in climatology" he has more credentials than these three leaders of the global warming movement. Plus, his background in meteorology and computer modeling gives him the knowledge and practical experience to understand the IPCC's climate models (which utterly failed to forecast the lack of warming the last dozen years) are highly fallible.
We'll have more about the lack of warming later today.
Comments
Post a Comment