Well, he is this one. But not this one. In the news, he is Former IPCC Leader Says Climategate Scientists "Manipulated data." and the "head of the International Technical Review Panel for IPCC's first report".
The latter is what interests me. What is it? I am just about old enough to remember IPCC '90, and indeed I have a paper copy, WG I of course, provided free of charge by the nice Hadley folk. I should have got them to autograph it. In it I find no mention of the said panel. There was the WG I core team co-ordination, who were at the Hadley, but what is the panel? A search of www.ipcc.ch finds nothing.
So, any ideas?
- Log in to post comments
The c.v. also has this (just above the Technical Review Panel entry):
Member and Head of Delegation, Working Group II, Impact Assessment, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, The United Nations, 1990;
So maybe it has something to do with WG2 report, not WG1?
P.S. You are mentioned/cited in my latest post on McIntyre and McKitrick. That's two in a row. No doubt the cheque is in the mail.
FWIW, there are 2 1988 mentions of him in Google News Archive, but they're both pay-per-view and the Gore conspiracy forgot to cut me a check this decade (or last, or the one before that, or...), so someone else can buy.
For what it's worth, he's listed as the contact person for this:
(see the end)
Physics News Update
Number 12 (Story #3), December 10, 1990 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein
WORLD CLIMATE CHANGE: Scientists participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarized some of their findings at the AGU meeting (and in a report distributed there). The IPCC scientists "are certain" that "there is a natural greenhouse effect which already keeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be" and that emissions from human activities "will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface." The IPCC "calculates with confidence" that "carbon dioxide has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect in the past, and is likely to remain so in the future." "Based on current model results," they predict that under a business-as-usual scenario, a "likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1 degree C above the present value by 2025 and 3 degrees C before the end of the next century" will occur, along with a rise of about 20 cm in global mean sea level by 2030. The IPCC report notes, however, that the anticipated greenhouse effects may be of roughly the same size as the natural variability of past temperature patterns and that "unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more. (William Sprigg, NOAA, 202-673-5360.)
"and led the scientific review of the first IPCC Report." - yes, but what does that mean? Is it just CV puffery? Why haven't I, or anyone else, ever heard of it?
> The alternative science panel should be funded and
> administered by non-government, private entities
-- Heartland
Because corporations are people, and, science is a matter of opinion, and we care about theirs:
http://abstrusegoose.com/strips/kickin_ass_n_takin_names.PNG
What I wonder about mostly is all these folks coming out of the woodwork accusing data fudging, based on no more info than the rest of us have -- and counter to the findings of those that have actually read the stolen mails with comprehension.
Seems some folks are in a great hurry to pre-empt the Muir Russell report. First the ICO guy, now this. I wonder why?
Did you try contacting Sprigg directly? His email is on his CV.
I asked someone who was acquainted with Sprigg, and all that person would say is that Sprigg is a nice fellow who would likely be responsive if approached respectfully.
[Hmm, are you mistaking me for a journalist? It didn't really occur to me. Now you mention it, hmm, I doubt I will. Go on, you do it -W]