In previous editions of the “Inhofe 400,” we found some skeptics who were completely unqualified and others who are qualified but not actually skeptical.
Today’s “skeptic” falls into the latter category. He is meteorologist George Waldenberger.
In response to his inclusion on the list, George sent an email to Inhofe’s staffers that began:
Marc, Matthew:
Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I’ve never made any claims that debunk the “Consensus”.
You quoted a newspaper article that’s main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific … yet I’m guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility.
You also didn’t ask for my permission to use these statements. That’s not a very respectable way of doing “research”.
Wow. He doesn’t leave much to the imagination.
A few thoughts.
First, he’s still on the list. Apparently, emailing them and telling them you are not a skeptic and want to be removed is just not sufficient for Inhofe. Maybe this list is like spam: once you get on, you cannot unsubscribe. Or like the mafia: “Just when I thought I was out … they pull me back in.”
Second, the more I look through this list, the more it perfectly demonstrates the weakness of the skeptics. The AGU, for example, has 50,000 members, the majority of whom are Ph.D. Earth scientists. Inhofe would have been tickled pink to take any one of them. But he couldn’t. Despite the huge numbers of qualified scientists out there, Inhofe could barely muster a few dozen for his list.
As a result, Inhofe was forced to include on this list people with zero qualifications as well as people who are not actually skeptics. In the end, I estimate that his list is 80-90 percent bogus — which leaves a few dozen credible climate skeptics on the list. Hmm, just what I’ve been saying all along.
Third, several commenters here as well as other websites have taken it upon themselves to look at the qualifications of the authors of the IPCC. Despite their best efforts, none of them has been able to provide names of any authors of the working group 1 report that are similarly unqualified.
It seems that a careful analysis of the situation shows clearly that the scientific consensus is as robust as ever. Keep tryin’, Jim.
