In the olden days to become a leading climate scientist you had to work hard, do lots of research and publish it in good journals. Now there’s a quicker method. Put out a press release.


A group of leading climate scientists has announced the formation of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, aimed at refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about man-made global warming. …

The coalition includes such well-known climate scientists as:

Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre in China.

“Expert reviewer for the IPCC” doesn’t mean that they asked him to review material — all it means is that he asked to see the draft report. The only real requirement to be a reviewer is to sign an agreement not to publicly comment on the draft.
Of course, just because he hasn’t any qualifications or experience in climate research doesn’t mean that he might not be able to offer some insight. Let’s look at his public comments on the draft of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:

It is a piece of strident propaganda. …

They make no bones about suppressing any information they do not like. The most important example is McKitrick and Michaels 2004 Climate Research Vol 26 pages 159-173 which shows that the surface temperature record is biased. A statistical study on station records and the total record between 1979 and 2000 shows a significant influence of population increase, fuek usage, prosperity, and even literacy.

Not to mention the significant influence of feeding degrees into software the expected radians. So his “most important example” of them suppressing information they do not like was that they ignored a paper that contained serious errors.

Also former Met Service chief meteorologist Augie Auer, who offers this:

Prof Auer said that three quarters of the planet was ocean, and 95 percent of the greenhouse effect was governed by water vapour.

“Of that remaining 5 percent, only about 3.6 percent is governed by CO2 and when you break it down even further, studies have shown that the anthropogenic (man-made) contribution to CO2 versus the natural is about 3.2 percent.

“So if you multiply the total contribution 3.6 by the man-made portion of it, 3.2, you find out that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the the global greenhouse effect is 0.117 percent, roughly 0.12 percent, that’s like 12c in $100.

“It’s miniscule … it’s nothing,” he said.

Actually, humans have increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere by 30%. You would have hoped that a “leading climate scientist”, or a climate scientist, or even a plain old scientist of any kind would not have got something so basic so wrong.

Also in the coalition is geologist Bob Carter. It seems that even though he’s a geologist at James Cook University in Australia, he’s a New Zealander. Rounding out the numbers are some more geologists and the only actual well-known climate scientist in the coalition: Chris de Freitas. Of course he’s well-known for being the editor responsible for the publication of a paper in Climate Research that was so unscientific that five editors resigned. And he was also the editor responsible for publishing the McKitrick and Michaels degree/radian screwup. Correction: Chris de Freitas isn’t listed as a member, so the Coalition doesn’t contain any actual climate scientists.

Comments

  1. #1 Mark Paris
    May 9, 2006

    I pointed out in a comment to another post that Auer is a TV weatherman, er, meterologist, not a climatologist. There is a difference between the two, and it’s more than just who looks good on TV.

    Maybe they are taking advice from Paul Simon: “why don’t we get together and call ourselves an institute?”

  2. #2 z
    May 9, 2006

    Isn’t somebody who claims to be “an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)” complaining that “the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had an effective monopoly on public announcements” reminiscent of citing the successful uses of DDT against malaria to prove the existence of a ban on the use of DDT against malaria?

  3. #3 z
    May 9, 2006

    “fuek usage”
    Well, fuek usage tooage.

  4. #4 z
    May 9, 2006

    “Chris de Feitas. Of course he’s well-known for being the editor responsible for the publication of a paper in Climate Research that was so unscientific that five editors resigned. And he was also the editor responsible for publishing the McKitrick and Michaels degree/radian screwup.”

    And one of the 60 brave signatories of the Canadian Petition recently.

  5. #5 Dano
    May 9, 2006

    Coming soon to a leading department store near you:

    Leading Climate Scientist bobblehead dolls.

    The cutest ones will be looking at a CO2 molecule and be painted with a frown.

    Best,

    D

  6. #6 huxley
    May 9, 2006

    Speaking of miniscule, “Prof Auer said that three quarters of the planet was ocean …”

    Confusing surface area and volume is much worse than a rookie mistake.

    A bit less than 3/4 of the surface of the planet is covered by water, but if I recall correctly, the Ocean’s volume is one tenth of one percent of the volume of Earth and its mass is about one-quarter of one tenth of one percent of the Earth’s mass.

    I might be wrong, but I doubt it is as badly as Professor Auer.

  7. #7 Steve
    May 10, 2006

    Hey, I’m an expert IPCC reviewer too (report downloaded)!! Cool. Have been arguing with the world’s most famous climate expert, Andrew Bolt, on his forum. Bolt claims that Mann’s hockey stick has been completely discredited. I explained why it hasn’t been, with the medieval warm period and mini-ice age being regional rather than global effects part of that explanation. Check the super-scientist’s reply on his forum today.

    ” Andrew replies: It is discredited. I’ll leave it to others to post the evidence here, which I’ve cited in part before. I have a sick wife to look after. I’ll just note that Mann’s hockey stick even seems to deny the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that are so well attested by even historical records, which should be a warning to you.”

    Idiot.

  8. #8 Tim Worstall
    May 10, 2006

    “The only real requirement to be a reviewer is to sign an agreement not to publicly comment on the draft.”

    Great, that makes me a reviewer as well: and a whole bunch of TCS Daily readers as well.

  9. #9 Mark Hadfield
    May 10, 2006
  10. #10 Stephen Berg
    May 17, 2006

    z, “And one of the 60 brave signatories of the Canadian Petition recently.”?

    More like one of 60 lackies who have sold their soul to the devil.

  11. #11 z
    May 17, 2006

    “”The only real requirement to be a reviewer is to sign an agreement not to publicly comment on the draft.”
    Great, that makes me a reviewer as well: and a whole bunch of TCS Daily readers as well”

    Many of them have the added qualifications of not even having seen the draft.

  12. #12 Gandalf
    January 11, 2007
  13. […] signed up to be a reviewer for the draft report, which is really easy to do. Basically all you have to do is ask to see a draft and agree that you won’t release it. […]

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.