In the olden days to become a distinguished 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.

The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) has been denied the opportunity to present at panel discussions, side events, and exhibits; its members were denied press credentials. The group consists of distinguished scientists from Africa, Australia, India, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The scientists, citing pivotal evidence on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals, have expressed their opposition to the UN’s alarmist theory of anthropogenic global warming. …

Taylor continued, “For example, ICSC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray recently published Unsound Science by the IPCC, which proves the main claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are scientifically unsound. Dr. Gray is an expert reviewer for the IPCC and has submitted more than 1,800 comments on IPCC reports. He is an expert on the IPCC methodology and published Spinning the Climate.

You might think that with the reference to “peer-reviewed journals” above that Gray published “Unsound Science by the IPCC” in a peer reviewed journal, but no, it just means that it was posted on the web somewhere. “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. And yes, he submitted a vast number of comments on the draft IPCC reports, for example:

Insert afer “scenario” “even when some of them are patently ridiculous”

Like most of his comments this was rejected because he provided no basis for his suggested change. After reading a hundred or so of Gray’s comments, I think the IPCC scientists who politely responded to each and every one of his 1,800+ suggestions, really really deserve their share of the Nobel.

If this post seems familiar to you, it may because I’ve recycled parts of my post from last year on the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. That’s because the International Climate Science Coalition is a recycling of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. They are run by the same group of New Zealanders and use many of the same scientists (Vincent Gray, Bob Carter, David Bellamy etc). Although they registered the domain for their web site last year (around the same time as they registered the one for the NZCSC), they’ve only just created a website — Google hasn’t even indexed it yet.

If you look at the ICSC delegation to Bali, you’ll find that their spokesman is Christopher Monckton and that the only one they have who claims to be a climate scientist is David Archibald, author of The worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhere.

Fortunately, apart from the shameless hacks at the Investors Business Daily, the media has ignored the ICSC. Some bloggers are more easily fooled, with Glenn Reynolds, for example, accusing the UN of crushing dissent.

Comments

  1. #1 bigcitylib@hotmail.com
    December 10, 2007

    Is anyone ever “asked to serve as an external reviewer” for the IPCC? McKitrick has made this claim.

    If you look at the denialist comments in the reports, you tend to find that each one has usually contributed several hundred, which allows them (coincidentally?) to argue that the consensus is not as firm as you have been led to believe–”20% of comments do not fall within consensus!”
    That kind of thing.

  2. #2 jre
    December 10, 2007

    I think the IPCC scientists who politely responded to each and every one of his 1,800+ suggestions, really really deserve their share of the Nobel.

    I followed your link and read some of them. Holy crap.
    A typical exchange goes like this:

    [Gray] No climate model ever been tested successfully against its prediction.

    [IPCC] Disagree. Here are some examples (polar warming, Pinatubo).

    [Gray] Yeah, but no model has ever predicted an actual climate change.

    [IPCC] Reject. See the chapter.

    [Gray] Hey — the models have never been validated against events.

    [IPCC] See the response to 8-76.

    [Gray] Did I mention that no model’s predictions have ever been compared to actual events?

    [IPCC] [heavy sigh] See the response to 8-76.

    Nobel, hell. I’m putting these foilks up for canonization.

  3. #3 jre
    December 10, 2007

    s/foilks/folks/

  4. #4 mark
    December 10, 2007

    Is this the guy referred to by such sources as Fox News as “the climate researcher who shared the Nobel Prize with Al Gore?”

  5. #5 Gareth
    December 10, 2007

    Good find, Tim. The ICSC site looks a tad more professional than the NZCSC, which would suggest some funding. Highly unlikely to have come from NZ, and given that the Heartland Institute has been issuing press releases, might their money be involved? I think we should be told.

  6. #6 ChrisC
    December 10, 2007

    There’s a few good examples of Vincent Grey’s work in the comments [here](http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/06/ar4_comments_now_available.php)

    Some of them are actually laugh out loud funny. That said, no one in their right minds should actually listen to him, let alone allow him to “present”.

  7. #7 Tony
    December 10, 2007

    Almost makes me embarrassed to be a Kiwi. That said, I enjoyed reading through the comments Vincent Gray left. “Rejected. No basis for the assertion” seems to be the most common reply from the lead authors.

  8. #8 bigcitylib
    December 11, 2007

    Looks like the Heartland Institute is planning its own climate change conference.

    http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2007/12/deniapalooza-climate-skeptics-plan.html#links

  9. #9 Thom
    December 11, 2007

    Look over on the left hand side of the ICSC website. One of their “must read” sites is Roger Pielke Sr.

    Ya’ know. You can’t run a denialist site without featuring someone from the Pielke clan….

  10. #10 Thom
    December 11, 2007

    Roger Pielke Jr. finally jumped the shark and has paired up with Stephen McIntyre.

    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/disasters/001288agu_powerpoint_with_.html

  11. #11 KenH
    December 11, 2007

    re: “The worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhere”.
    A little off topic, but I haven’t seen any new postings by NEXUS6 for quite some time. Anyone know why?

  12. #12 Falafu1u Fisi
    December 11, 2007

    Gareth,

    Do you know the difference between numerical climate modeling and blind statistical inference? I amazes me, that your background is a wine author (no difference from one who cleans toilet), but you went on local NZ National TV to talk about climate science, where you aired the likely scenario for the next 100 years. God, you have pooh poohed Ken Ring in the past for the same ridiculous climate projection, but now you’re doing exactly what Ken Ring is doing. FFS, stick to what you’re good at and that is writing children story, and don’t try to veer off to an area where you have no clue to its core methods (climate numerical modeling). Get some real study in climate modeling before you blow out hot air to the public.

  13. #13 Gareth
    December 11, 2007

    My, what a diatribe. I suspect it says a lot about FF.

    For the record, I’ve never written a children’s story (though I do have a couple of ideas…).

    PDF Edition of Hot Topic now available, for anyone who wants to compare my take on climate science with Ken Ring’s.

    (And FF, if you want to comment on the book or my views, please do so at Hot Topic).

  14. #14 Hume's Ghost
    December 11, 2007

    Neal Boortz – who broadcasts 33 hours a week where I live – also cited the ICSC as evidence of suppression. http://boortz.com/nuze/200712/12072007.html#press

    Today he’s linking to this.

    http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2007/12/10/55974.html

    Funny how these sorts don’t believe every scientific magazine in the country, virtually every scientific body on the planet, or the scientific literature; but NewsMax runs a story saying what they want to hear and that’s good enough for them.

  15. #15 Marion Delgado
    December 11, 2007

    Tim Lambert, bless you.

    This may be the only place I can go to where people won’t tiptoe around what a hack and an axe-grinder McIntyre is, and what a gross fraud ClimateAudit is. Shark, indeed.

  16. #16 Dano
    December 11, 2007

    Funny how these sorts don’t believe every scientific magazine in the country, virtually every scientific body on the planet, or the scientific literature; but NewsMax runs a story saying what they want to hear and that’s good enough for them.

    Now THAT line’s a keeper.

    Best,

    D

  17. #17 Ex-drone
    December 11, 2007

    News flash – Christopher Monckton publishes on climate change. … Well, in The Jakarta Post at least. Apparently, “the shore-dwellers of Bali” can relax because “the IPCC has deliberately, persistently and prodigiously exaggerated not only the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature but also the environmental consequences of warmer weather.” But the Bali inhabitants may have to worry if the climate change conference participants insist on making “heroically stupid decisions”. I wonder if the The Jakarta Post publishers are amazed at the scoop that they got.

  18. #18 John Mashey
    December 12, 2007

    #17 Ex-drone thanks
    I see the Jakarta article describes the Viscount thusly:

    “The writer is an international business consultant specializing in the investigation of scientific frauds.”

  19. #19 John Mashey
    December 12, 2007

    #17 Ex-drone thanks
    I see the Jakarta article describes the Viscount thusly:

    “The writer is an international business consultant specializing in the investigation of scientific frauds.”

  20. #20 John Mashey
    December 12, 2007

    #17 Ex-drone thanks
    I see the Jakarta article describes the Viscount thusly:

    “The writer is an international business consultant specializing in the investigation of scientific frauds.”

  21. #21 John Mashey
    December 12, 2007

    #17 Ex-drone thanks
    I see the Jakarta article describes the Viscount thusly:

    “The writer is an international business consultant specializing in the investigation of scientific frauds.”

  22. #22 QrazyQat
    December 12, 2007

    “The writer is an international business consultant specializing in the investigation of scientific frauds.”

    Typo in the Jakarta article; I believe it’s spelled I-N-S-T-I-G-A-T-I-O-N.

  23. #23 Tony
    December 13, 2007

    Speaking of V Gray, I hope someone can shed some light on the “600 Dr. Grays” referred to here:

    “Dr. Gray is the last person the politicized UN wants speaking,” [Heartland Institute Senior Fellow James M.] Taylor noted. “He single-handedly debunks the entire alarmist theory. And there are more than 600 Dr. Grays trying to be the voice of reason and science. All are being censored.”

    [The press release is here: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22401

    To end my comment, I was going to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, but really I just want to know where all those sceptics are hiding and could one of them please come and sub for Vincent Gray? The poor man is clearly over-worked.

  24. #24 Tony
    December 13, 2007

    In fact, he’s beside himself — 600 times! Boom-chuk

    Ah, thank you, thank you. I’m here all week.

  25. #25 Nexus 6
    December 13, 2007

    Don’t worry KenH, I’m still around.

  26. #26 Marion Delgado
    December 19, 2007

    The only possible way people aren’t avoiding Gray like a scientific leper would be if they are focusing on the first draft comments, where he had a few accepteds at first and later on as well.

    I didn’t do any analysis on it. Did anyone else have as many rejecteds as him? As many that added “wrong” or “incorrect?” Especially in the 2nd draft?

    Those really do accumulate at an impressive rate.