Does the Opinion of an actual scientist matter?

Question

The speaker does an excellent job of presenting this material. I particularly like the penguin BBQ. Of course, he is only a geologist, so his work will be discounted by the AGW fanatics. Or maybe he received some oil company funding. He should ask the IPCC. I am sure they would be happy to fund his work as it deals directly with what they report.

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/27/best-statistical-scientific-talk-on-global-warming/

Answer 1

Your question here is actually, "Does the opinion of Bob Carter on climate change count?"

To which I emphatically reply, no, no it doesn't. Bob Carter may well be a brilliant marine geologist (I've never read any of his work), but he's a p*ss poor climate scientist. After all, he was the genius who first thought up the fallacious, "warming stopped in 1998" garbage.

You don't need to be a climatologist to be an expert in climate science, but you do actually need to understand the subject. Bob C. doesn't.

Answer 2

Sure, his opinion matters. It has been weighed, it's foundations scrutinised, and it has been found wanting by the thousands of other scientists.

Scientists like these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...

Answer 3

That depends on what the scientist is basing his opinions.

In the case of Bob "no warming since 1998" Carter, it's clear that he's not basing his opinions on sound fundamental science.

This is where being a climate scientist comes in.  Carter is a geologist, and geologists do not study climate science.  Does that mean he's inherently incapable of speaking to the issue with any authority?  No, of course not.  If Carter were to spend a few years studying the science behind global warming - which he is certainly capable of doing with a background in geology - he would be worth listening to.  But clearly Carter has not, because anyone who makes the 'no warming since 1998' argument hasn't even gotten past the first step of understanding climate science - basic statistics.

And of course, if Carter were a climate scientist, he would have the educational and research background to be able to realize in 5 seconds that global warming has not stopped, which is why one of the first questions to ask when determining if a person's opinion is worth listening to is "is he a climate scientist?".  If not, it's "has he studied climate science, and on what does he base his conclusions?"  In the case of Carter, the answers are no, no, and ignorance.

Why should I care what a guy who's done less global warming research than I have thinks about the issue?  I work with geologists, and I don't seek their opinions on global warming, because it's not a subject they've studied.

Answer 4

Not if the scientists is Bob Carter, who bases his propaganda on blatant cherry picking[1] and uses Fox News as a scientific source.[2]

Answer 5

I'll agree with you that Bob Carter is a colorful and engaging speaker.  I'd like to find him credible.  

Unfortunately there are many examples where his logic is flawed in support of one-sided reasoning:

http://timlambert.org/category/science/b...

He often speaks in propaganda terms: "Hansenist alarmism," "disease called Hansenism," a red flag that the speaker is driven by agenda, has little or no scientific foundation to stand on, and requires the extra drama and personal attacks to attract sympathizers.  

Here's just one example that reveals his lack of understanding (or possibly intentional misrepresentation?) about the processes involved in climate:

---

http://timlambert.org/category/science/b...

"The Earth’s comfortable (for us) average temperature of about 15C is maintained that way by the atmosphere. The presence of small amounts of water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide - the “greenhouse gases” which absorb Earth’s outgoing heat radiation and re-emit some of it downwards - causes warming. Most of the total warming of 33 degrees is caused by water vapour (more than 30 degrees), carbon dioxide contributing only about 1.2 degrees worth. And of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, just 3 per cent comes from human sources, which equates to a warming effect of about four-hundredths of a degree."

His calculation is out by a factor of twenty. Carbon dioxide contributes about 3 degrees towards the natural greenhouse effect. And over 25% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from human sources. 25% of 3 degrees is 3/4 of a degree Celsius, not four-hundredths as Carter claims. But he keeps repeating this false claim.

---

Here's where Bob gets some of his material:

"He has now posted the text of another talk where he gives a source for his bogus claim. It’s this FOXNews opinion piece by Steve Milloy."

(Look up Steve Milloy if you're not familiar with him... very interesting job he has.)

---

"Carter’s claim that observed warming trends are caused by the Urban Heat Island effect is rubbish because satellites, boreholes, rural stations and marine measurements all show warming, but it also contradicts his claim in the same article that the warming is natural and we are now seeing cooling. Is Carter contending that the UHI effect stopped operating in 1998? And also, when it suits him he argues that 1998 should not count because it was exceptional."

There's a lot more discussion on Bob's specific claims, often the same discredited theories that we see coming from places like Junkscience, here:

http://timlambert.org/category/science/b...

So to answer your question, no, given his record on science I'd have serious trouble believing a single word the guy says.

Answer 6

No, his opinion does not matter. Firs, he's not a real scientist--look more closely. Second, yes--bbeing a geologist has nothing to do with climate change--so his opinion is not relevant.

Man made global warming is a proen fact--and no amount of false claims or fake blogs like this one will change that. You even admit he's nothing but a mouthpiece for the oil companies.

Answer 7

His and every Scientists opinion matters. It's funny how the believers on here forget that not everyone that contributed to their beloved IPCC report was a Climatologist.

Answer 8

The opinion of a single scientist doesn't matter.

The aggregate data and scientific consensus of a community actively attempting to break the model does.

Answer 9

yes, but do his theorys or arguments have any merit? no