Many of you by now have probably heard about the infamous list of "over 400 prominent scientists" that supposedly disagree with the idea that humans are responsible for global warming. Since this report came out, collecting over 1,000 Diggs and causing much excitement within the skeptical community, there have been many various responses from those who were eager to find the truth behind the hype. As it turned out, there was not much to find.

First, the report was found to have been padded with names of people who are not by any stretch of the imagination a "prominent scientist". I thought Grist explained very well why this is important:

To understand why Inhofe's claims are fundamentally bogus, consider the following scenario: imagine a child is diagnosed with cancer. Who are his parents going to take him to in order to determine the best course of treatment?

Most people would take the child to a specialist. Not just someone with a PhD in a technical subject, but an actual medical doctor. And not just any medical doctor, but someone who was a specialist in cancer. And not just any specialist in cancer, but someone who was a specialist in pediatric cancer. And, if possible, not just any pediatric oncologist, but someone who specialized in that particular type of cancer.

Expertise matters. Not everyone's opinion is equally valid. - Gristmill

So, in this instance, it is extremely important that those whose advice is sought are actually experts in the field of climate science. A detailed examination of the names in the list has revealed that many of those in the list are not at all climate scientists. After taking a quick survey of the available profession information for those on the list, I came up with 62 meteorologists, 24 engineers, 13 economists, and 26 geologists. There are plenty more mathematicians, statisticians, horticulturists, botanists, zoologists, biologists, agronomists, etc. Now, don't get me wrong. Many if not all of these individuals may have an understanding of the basics of climate science, as do some laymen, but they are by no means "prominent scientists" whose opinions should be sought on the subject of climate science. In fact, Joe Romm at Climate Progress said he was "not certain a dozen on the list would qualify as 'prominent scientists'".

James Inhofe

A second problem to note with this report is the credibility of its source. This report was first publicized by U.S. Senator James Inhofe, who is well-known for being an avid climate skeptic, willing to publicize the strangest of conspiracies, as long as they conformed with his conservative views. For example:

Sen. Inhofe has compared environmentalists to Nazis and the Environmental Protection Agency to the Nazi’s Gestapo secret police. He’s also accused the Weather Channel of overhyping climate change as part of a Double Secret Probation-level conspiracy to get ratings. - TheGreenMiles

Credibility is extremely important in a scientific debate such as this, so if one is to be taken seriously, one must separate oneself from extremist remarks about the opposition and about science. Instead, Senator Inhofe has embraced these remarks and even made them himself in public hearings.

Another problem to watch out for are the climate scientists listed who were misquoted, or whose quotes were taken out of context in order to pad the list with some credible names. Atmoz has one such example:

At least one person on that list has had their views distorted. From my personal discussions with Dr. Castro, I do not believe that he is a “climate skeptic”, and I don’t believe that he would think so either. In fact, on many occasions he has stated that Inhofe has misrepresented his views on climate science. - Atmoz

This is only one example. The list is long, so it's taking some time for everyone to dig through all of the names and credentials, but several are expected to ask to be removed.

Another thing that might be interesting to examine is the basis for some of these skeptics' views. My own studies on this subject have shown me that the science definitely points to anthropogenic global warming. No other convincing theory has been presented in scientific literature. With this in mind, I wonder what might make others think otherwise. Grist has recently highlighted one particularly disturbing example:

He is Chris Allen, weather director at WBKO, the ABC affiliate for south-central Kentucky. On his blog, Chris says this about global warming:

My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture. It must have slipped these people's minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what's going on. (Dear Lord Jesus...did I just open a new pandora's box?) Yeah, I said it. Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created? Of course, if you don't believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do - rid the mere mention of God in any context. What these environmentalists are actually saying is "we know more than God - we're bigger than God - God is just a fantasy - science is real...He isn't...listen to US!" I have a huge problem with that. - Gristmill

Now, I'm not criticizing Mr. Allen's religion. I'm only examining the argument itself, which has pitted his personal beliefs - that God wouldn't allow us to destroy the Earth, with which many Christians would disagree - against science and favored his beliefs. Again, this is only one example, but it should raise some questions about how many others have based their skepticism on something other than science.

Finally, we must understand that even if this list was made up entirely of climate scientists, it is still only a list of names and quotes. Names are great, but what is most important is what published scientific research tells us. I thought Kate Sheppard at the American Prospect summed this up very nicely:

It's not too hard to dredge up 400 people in all the world who think the lunar landing was a farce or believe that Elvis is living in Albuquerque, much like it isn't too hard to dig up 400 people with a vague background in the field of science who find something to dispute in climate science. That doesn't mean their views should be lauded and held up as scientific proof that global warming isn't so bad. There haven't been any peer-reviewed scientific studies validating any claims that the planet is either not warming, or not warming because of humans, and the world's most-respected climatologists are all in agreement. - The American Prospect

In other words, the scientific research that has been performed to this point lends itself strongly to the idea that humans are causing global warming. All of the relevant research has been examined by the scientists at the IPCC, and their latest report says as much. Now, should anyone perform any credible research that disputes anthropogenic global warming, the world will surely take notice, but this has not yet occurred. Until then, I will remain convinced that the IPCC is correct, and that Inhofe and others are the last in a dying breed of deniers, stuck in an old paradigm of natural warming.

So, rest assured, this list does not in any way disprove the theory of man-made global warming. This was yet another pathetic attempt by climate deniers to obfuscate and confuse the public. Fortunately, it is painfully obvious that this list is not at all that it is advertised to be. Now we can all go back to focusing on fixing the problem, which is exactly what this and other attempts by deniers have tried to prevent.

See also: Inel