George Rebane
It is clear the Left’s “climate scientists” can be anyone with the politically correct attitude toward AGW. It is a different matter for the AGW skeptics, their bona fides must include a degree in climatology for openers, else they are dismissed as not qualified to speak on the issue of anthropogenic global warming. This aspect of the global warming debate comes into focus this Saturday at the GV Peace Lutheran Church as reported by The Union and the Auburn Journal. There the leftwing League of Women Voters will assemble a couple of worthies to discuss, “How can the actions of our leaders impact our climate?”
Heading the marquee is Dr Tom Suchanek (pictured), he has a BS in zoology, MA in ecology and evolution, and a PhD in biology. He has been on the government tit all his life studying “coastal marine ecology”. Joining him will be geologist Dr Diz Smith advertised as a “former energy industry leader”. (H/T to Russ Steele for digging out Dr Smith’s bio.)
It boggles the professional mind that the Left continues to assume the public to be so gruberized as to accept these people as some kind of domain experts in ANY relevant aspect of AGW involving physics, chemistry, data management, estimation theory, stochastics, complex dynamic systems, algorithmics, computational error propagation, finite element modeling, feedback systems design, …, the list goes on. Such events should clarify the kind of ‘climate scientists’ that the AGW alarmists count in the UN’s IPCC “scientific consensus” that gives rise to ‘the debate is over’ hysteria which demands we immediately start doing very stupid things on a massive scale and worldwide.
So when it comes right down to it, if you are a skeptic with degrees and decades of professional experience in the climatology related physical sciences, mathematics, computer science, complex dynamics systems, probabilistics and stochastics, large scale computer models, data handling, algorithmics, decision theory, financial engineering, … with the ability to understand the seminal climatology literature, your skeptical assessments re AGW are not accepted. However, if you’re a biologist or geologist or, God knows, maybe even a labor lawyer or piano tuner with a history of global warming activism, you are automatically qualified to be presented to the public as having sufficient expertise “to discuss (the) several aspects of climate change.” Such is the state of the national debate, so go figger.
[11sep15 update] A reader sent me this graphic from the Heartland Institute. It correctly summarizes the current global sweep of politically driven ‘science’ and compares it to real science which is forever skeptical and has been vigorously suppressed wherever it dared raise its head.
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment