Saturday, 13 February 2010

The inconsistency in the response of the Klimatosoof’s Theo Richel to the Open Letter of 55 Dutch Scientists

Theo Richel Klimatosoof Lord Monckton global warming nonsense statement
Theo Richel and Christopher Monckton
On the Klimatosoof-website DGR’s Theo Richel complains that the “55 Dutch scientists open letter” published on SENSE contains a lot of “non-climate scientists” like biologists. He writes a whole paragraph to say he thinks biologists aren’t able to understand the complex physical processes of climate science. He also wonders about the fact there are economists, politicologists, mathematicians on the list. He concludes :
On the grounds of their education only a minority of all signers is able to judge whether IPCC’s claims on anthropogenic climate change are true.
According to a comment of Bart Verheggen (link in Dutch) most of the names he recognizes actually do work in a domain related with climate research
But given Richel’s argumentation it might be fun to have a little closer look at the people who wrote (or were interviewed) on the Klimatosoof website the past half a year or so :
  • Bas Van Geel is a biologist
  • Theo Richel himself is a man who apparently has no education after high school
  • Hans Labohm is an economist
  • Benny Peiser is an anthropologist
  • Lord Monckton is a man with no scientific training whatsoever
  • Arthur Rörsch was a professor teaching genetics
And of course in the entire advisory board of the Klimatosoof there’s no-one who ever worked in a field even remotely close to climate science.
I think Theo Richel just disqualified his entire website :)
Geplaatst door op
Labels: , , ,

2 comments:

  1. MarcoSaturday, February 13, 2010

    The internal inconsistencies of the deniosphere in a nutshell.

    It's like Monckton approvingly (but wrongly) quoting Pinker, while at the same time attacking just about all other scientists. Or people lamenting that 'skeptics' are kept out of the scientific journals, and then later publish a list of 450 papers that supposedly are 'skeptic'.

    It would have been hilarious, if not for the fact that so many people actually lend credibility to these nutcases, and the implications.

    ReplyDelete
  2. EliRabettSaturday, February 20, 2010

    If you look at the papers being published on climate change in the last decade, there is an exponential increase in ones dealing with environmental and biological effects (WG II stuff). The biologists and civil engineers are just sinking their teeth into this issue, which is why the rending of garments about WGII is silly and immature. Essentially WGII is now where WGI was ten years ago.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)