Behold, a senate committee communications director at work:
Comment #382, January 28th, 9:15 pm: [...] Error # 1 - You wrote: "I hope Senator Imhofe (sic) reads it into the record- aloud, in full, and not to an empty chamber."
"Imhofe"? Who is that?
Ooh, a spelling mistake! Snap!
Comment #411, January 29th, 10:52 am: [...] Maybe you should spend less time trying to wow us with your impressive writing skills and "Latinisms" and instead work on avoiding multiple factual errors per posting.
What exactly does "ecomium" (sic) mean?
Ooh, ooh, I know, another spelling mistake! You got 'im Morano!
And it's not just English and "Latinisms" this guy knows - nope, in addition to being a POLITICAL scientist, he's got his math down cold:
Comment # 264, January 27th, 10:18 am: 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.
But Mr. Morano, you yourself neglected another award-winning aspect of Alan Titchmarsh's very full life - as novelist! As Wikipedia puts it, "One of his novels memorably won an award for the worst sex scene in a book." And we know they don't give those awards away lightly, nosirree!
But the real meat of Morano's comments this time around is reserved for his little feud with noted climate scientist Raymond T. Pierrehumbert. You see, Pierrehumbert has vowed to post a report demolishing one of Morano's "400 noted climate skeptics" every time Morano writes to a blog. Given Morano's activity at Dot Earth, Pierrehumbert has been making very good headway through the list. So far, every one of them has fallen into one of two categories: either on the one hand they have made no public claims that disagree with the climate consensus, and in some cases actively support it, or on the other they have no scientific expertise in the field at all, as exhibited by their lack of peer reviewed publications in any related field.
And Morano is very attached to his list of 400 - now "well over 450 dissenting scientists"; he's not removing a single name no matter what. Even when some of them admit to not really being what people usually refer to as scientists:
Comment #378 from George E. Smith: So you haven’t even read The Senate EPW Comittee Minority report; have you Dano. If you had done that then you would know that I am in fact one of that 400, and growing fast list of scientists who are skeptical about what is supposed to be settled science of the IPCC report kind.
To save you all the trouble; no I am not a climatologist (whatever that is), nor a meteorologist, not a geologist, or astrophysicist, not a historian (to read science out of historical records); not an expert on corals(which grow in water not air), not a tree ring counter; [...] No I’m not a University Professor, and I don’t live on any Government grants; nor do I receive any funding from any oil or energy company or for that matter any other sort of natural resource dependent company or business. I don’t even have a PhD [...]
But on to the real battle:
Comment #197, January 25th, 10:16 pm: I know it must be embarrassing to have your tactics so perfectly described by Cockburn.
Let’s see it one more time:
"There was a shocking intensity to their self-righteous fury..."
But there is no time to rest for you. You must get back to the task at hand. Please, by all means, continue with your ’swiftboating’ of skeptical scientists. You must continue to validate Cockburn’s writings.
Wait, I thought wingers regarded "swiftboating" as a good thing? I'm confused!
Comment # 264, January 27th, 10:18 am: [...] 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 bottom line: Rabett, Pierrehumbert and Dessler — you gentlemen are spending literally hours of your life pouring 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."
[...]
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.
Pierrehumbert, in response, rather fairly points out that Morano's the one who picked these people, not him:
Comment #394: In this email you repeat the ludicrous accusation that I have "hand picked" a few of your precious skeptics to discredit, whereas it was you who picked out these skeptics. I’ll repeat: If you didn’t think all of these had arguments that would bear scrutiny, why did you list them? When we’re done, I doubt that we’ll have a dozen left with any relevant journal articles. These too, will turn out to be wrong, but wrong in a way that justifies a more extended rebuttal (one which, for the most part, has already happened in the peer reviewed literature, as is the case for Lindzen’s "IRIS" paper).
But Morano just can't help himself:
Comment #415 - January 29th, 12:12 pm: I am surprised you are still engaging in your smear campaign after the embarrassment of having your tactics so well exposed at the hands of the non-scientist Alexander Cockburn. But I guess you are still hopeful that one of your voluminous critiques will actually have an impact.
Your tiresome and predictable "swift-boating" of atmospheric scientist William R. Kininmonth follows your same failed critique methods. You reject Kininmonth as "unqualified" to have an opinion on man-made climate fears because he does not meet your arbitrary rule that "peer-review" is the "sole" means of determining whether a scientist is "qualified." [...]
By all means, continue with your little "qualification" games, Mr. Pierrehumbert. All I ask is that as you continue (in the words of Cockburn) to "witch-hunt" scientists please don’t run for cover when your tactics are so easily stripped bare.
One can read more about the esteemed Mr. Kininmonth over at sourcewatch. Interesting fellow indeed. Little did I know E=mc^2 had anything to do with climate!
Now Dr. Pierrehumbert has to admit he mischaracterized one of the names on the list, of a Dr. Malberg (thanks to correction from another commenter, not Mr. Morano). That admission of error deserves a massive broadside from somebody who of course never makes mistakes himself:
Comment #450, January 29th, 7:11 pm: You wrote: "Based on the new search, we can move [skeptical Meteorologist Horst] Malberg into a different category." You added Malberg is in "a somewhat higher category of skeptic than I originally put him in."
Wow! Why don’t you contact Malberg and let him know that YOU have just RAISED him to a "higher category" in your little project!
I am sure Malberg will breathe a huge sigh of relief and celebrate at being informed of such an honor. He may even send you flowers to show his appreciation.
You wrote: "If that best articulation (of skeptical scientists) is found wanting by the standards of science, so be it."
Thank goodness you are on the job in your self-appointed exercise to determine which scientists pass your interpretation of the "standards of science." Humanity owes you thanks for your self-appointed exercise to determine who is or is not qualified to speak about global warming. And please don’t try and hide behind the "scientific method" to justify your smear campaign. That is a huge stretch even for you. Do you really think you are contributing to the free exchange of ideas and open scientific debate with your little mocking "qualification" game?
Your reliance on the peer-review process as the "only" criteria to determine who is qualified to have a climate opinion is humorous.
No, no, Mr. Morano, it's you who's providing all the humor on this thread, trust me. Well, it would be funny, if we were talking about something unimportant like the housing market, say.
How do people get so divorced from reality? Or is Mr. Morano just a paid shill who doesn't care what he says as long as he's out there "communicating" and confusing the public? Where does this stuff come from? Oh yeah, on the peer review thing: Cockburn lovingly quotes some stories about Einstein; turns out Einstein benefited from peer review without even realizing it, in the end. Great story, and a bit of relief from the inanities of the Morano and his "over 450" list.
Permalink | 5 comments