> He uses the phrase "computer modelers" as if he's
> writing about a group of people attending a Nintendo
> Wii party. Of course, the fact that these "computer
> modelers" are, in fact, scientists - indeed, most of
> the scientists in the climate science field - is a
> minor point for Ace.
I'm not sure how much of the climatologist population consists of numerical (computer) modelers, but I find the focus on these tools somewhat misplaced. There seems at times to be a notion that the entire AGW argument rests on the results of weather prediction models run forward 100+ years, leading in part to such reasonable questions about predictability. There is a great deal more to it than that, starting with very well established (100+ years old) observations about CO2 absorbing heat radiation and speculation almost as old about the effect of mass industry on the climate. A great deal of work also in in geology and the chemistry behind it, with recognition of climate cycles from tectonic to sub-annual. Listening to some of these people you'd think geoscientists had never heard of volcanos.
Regarding Cockburn's sources, there are in fact a couple of... what's the word I want... contrarians ("skeptic" implies too much good faith) with some very respectable background. Consider Fred Singer:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer#Career>
[...]
Career
In the 1940s and 50s Singer was involved in designing instruments used in satellites to measure cosmic radiation and ozone.[11]
Previous government and academic positions:[11]
* Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62)
* Special advisor to President Eisenhower on space developments (1960)
* First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64)
* Founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67)
* Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70)
* Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71)
* Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1971-94)
* Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89)
[...]
Towards the end of this impressive record he started playing defence for the tabacco industry.
Richard Lindzen is an even more stark example. Scientists active in the field, including the one I mentioned using the IPCC report as a textbook, have explicitly expressed their respect for his abilities and contributions, though one person who worked around him noted "questions about honesty". So when somebody with credibility to burn (and lose) like Lindzen appears on stage with a stage IV fuckwit like Crichton, I can't help but wonder what's going through his head.
-- Andy