Can "skeptics" name more than two climate scientists?

I'll weigh in on this, perhaps defending some of the deniers' answers. Climate scientist is a relatively new term, climatologist is an older term. They are not synonymous (at least not to me). Climate scientists have degrees in many fields, they are more defined by their research area than what their degree says. I know climate scientists with degrees in meteorology, geology, physics, oceanography, chemistry--even economics! My Ph.D. says "Earth Sciences" but it is from a climate science program; it could just as well have said "Oceanography."

I think it is important to distinguish between people that do research and people that don't. Publishing in scientific journals is an easy way to recognize a scientist--people like William Gray or Richard Lindzen are clearly scientists, and if they want to call themselves climate scientists I wouldn't argue that with them. Others, like Piers Corbyn or Joe Bastardi I would not consider climate scientists--both of them strike me as crackpot self-promoters.

As for jim z's assessment that Hansen and Mann are not scientists, well, that just sounds like jealousy talking. Michael Mann has a Ph.D. in Geology and Geophysics from Yale and Hansen has a Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Iowa. They have published dozens (probably hundreds) of papers and received numerous awards for their scientific work. Hansen has also received the highest award that the American Meteorological Society gives, the Rossby Medal.

Care to share your own expertise jim z? Where is your Ph.D. from? How many papers have you published in scientific journals?

Just because someone's politics differs from yours doesn't disqualify them as a scientist (although believing in science these days is almost sure to get you called a "RINO.")

Maxx: Give it up with the Oregon Petition. Everyone knows that it is a joke. The most famous signatories are dead--and one of them was dead long before the latest IPCC report even came out. Most of the people on the list are in no way scientists, and I'd be willing to bet you can't come up with the "hundreds of skeptical climate scientists" that you claim are on the list. Forget 100, try to come up with 20 such names.

As for our own list--it's virtually all the major scientific societies in the world: the American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society and on and on.

These are REAL scientists, and just the first society I mentioned (AGU) is about twice as big as your list of 31000 optometrists, veterinarians, proctologists and dead people.

Freedom and Liberty -

Though I think this is an odd question your is a false answer.

William Gray has a PHD in geophysical science. I suppose that classifies at a climate scientist though it also deals with geology and other earthly sciences.

Don Easterbrook is a geologist

Khabibullo Abdusamatov is an astrophysicist

Ian Plimer is a geologist

Ian Clark is a geologist

Tim Patterson is a geologist

Piers Corbyn isn't much of anything though he does make predictions and is called a 'weatherman'.

Anyways, that's what my quick search of those names turned up.

Ottawa Mike: Why do you keep posting ignorance in response to me? I listed what each of the individuals did and what they studied. I mentioned that yes, there were more than what was posted but the ones that were posted were false. A geologist does not deal with climate. They went through different studies than a climatologist does. Do you understand that? The question concerned 'climate scientists' a geologist is not a 'climate scientist'. An astrophysicist is not 'a climate scientist'. Once you get it out of your head that virtually anyone can be a climate scientist if they put their mind to it then perhaps you'll learn to differentiate reality from non-reality.

Your list is better as they are 'climate scientists'. Stop responding to my posts with stupidity.

Well this is too easy a question because according to Jeff M, a climate scientist doesn't need to know about geology or astrophysics or physics or solar physics or chemistry or biology or hydrology or meteorology.

Hey, I'm a climate scientist! And I didn't even have to Google it!

(But putting all seriousness aside, I'll bet I can do a Google search that proves that experts in each of the fields I listed above have been "disqualified" from talking about the climate because their PhD is not "climate science". Go ahead, make my day.)

But hey, let's amuse Jeff M for a second.

Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist

Garth Paltridge, atmospheric physicist

Roy Spencer, climatologist

John Christy, climate scientist

Judith Curry, climate scientist

Sherwood B. Idso, Climatology, Ecology, Soil Science

Patrick Michaels, climatologist

There you go Jeff M, does that float your boat?

David - it seems there is a fault with FB & perhaps you should re post the question.

I am only seeing the truncated question : "Can "skeptics" name more than two climate scientists?"

From several of the answers , your question was clearly : "Can "skeptics" name more than two climate scientists? But if thats too intellectually challenging, just regurgitate the normal paranoid BS about Nazis and Al Gore "

My first response was which ones would you like. But I see you already initiated . Did you google those names?

It would be interesting to also have the skeptics explain why a particular scientist is wrong. For example, how precisely are Michael Schlesinger's models so wrong that they cannot be describing what will happen as CO2 concentrations rise? Where has Trenberth gotten radiative transfer so wrong that it cannot be determined that adding CO2 to the atmosphere makes temperature go up? Why would ocean acidification not happen as Dick Feely says it will?

If they can do so without resorting to known skeptic myths that would be fascinating. But I doubt they can.

We all know the debacle Phil Jones put us through.

Notice how many people know who Hitler and Al Capone.. It shows being corrupt also gains noteriety.

Now as for the thousands of scientists who disagree with AGW, they are shut out of the debate. This is by plan.

Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”

So you can say Goebbels was right.

Joseph Goebbels,

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Us true scientists and truth are the enemy of AGW.

How about this one. Quote by Will Harper, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

We could go on, but what is the use? You are convinced by liars so what effect would the truth have on you. Nada!

William M. Gray, Don Easterbrook, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Ian Plimer, Ian Clark, Tim Patterson and Piers Corbyn to name a few.

There are thousands upon thousands of scientists who disagree with the theory of anthrprogenic global warming.

The alarmists top warmist Al Gore isn't even a scientist.

Bob Carter = good guy.

Professor Milne = raving idiot.

No and No

(and even "skeptics" in quotes is a too polite euphemism for lazy dumb anti-science liars).