Excerpt: However, the authors of Chapter 1 “The Climate System: An Overview” signed their own death warrant when they wrote: “ The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic effect on the climate has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural” This true statement has led to the replacement in “Climate Change 2007” of this introductory Chapter with a completely different Chapter entitled “Historical Overview of Climate Change Science” which is a highly selective history boosting the activities of the IPCC…..
One of its features is to conceal the very existence of measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration before 1958 which show a variability which would interfere with the IPCC calculations of “radiative forcing” The Chapters in “Climate Change 2007” are only slightly rearranged and they all push the same message, enforced by an increase in gloomy “opinions” derived from the “spin” process described herein. < > It is all (the UN IPCC process) a magnificent example of what public relations can achieve, but the consequences for most of us, and for the scientific community before it is eventually exposed for the deception that it is do not bear contemplation.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Gawd, it says here “Dr Vincent Gray has been a member of the expert reviewers panel for all of the IPCC assessment reports”
Is that true?
What an utterly incomprehensible post? What does it mean.
Surely we’re not on about that Beck nonsense again are we?
Gray’s voluminous comments are ignored. Exasperated chapter authors have noted that rampant opinion is not scientific rebuttal.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/06/ar4_comments_now_available.php
As Stoat has commented:
[Anyone can be an “expert reviewer”; curiously its only the contrarians who use it to puff their status -W]
And Deltoid
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/you_too_can_be_a_leading_clima.php
“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.
Mr Grays review comments are good for a laugh.
“From chapter 3 (2nd round comments)
in his first comment on the chapter our plucky Kiwi expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, writes ..
“This Chapter is completely distorted, sustained by suppression or denigration of publications which challenge its conclusions. It depends upon a failure to permit any publicatons or arguments which challenge the virginity of the amalgamated surface record…” etc etc he carries on in the same vain for quite a while
The long-suffering editors respond:
“We thank Vincent for his diligence in writng so many comments. However, the comments would be much more useful if they were backed up by other than opinion. …””
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/06/ar4_comments_now_available.php
You can nominate yourself as “expert reviewer” to the IPCC?
Well the term “expert reveiwer” is of some meaning to the IPCC;
http://www.ipccinfo.com/briefings.php
However if as you infer the title “expert reviewer” is of little or no meaning one would then ask why did they ever bother with the title and procedure?
OK, Lambert and Stoat are “expert reviewers?”
Excuse me folks, I think the topic is about the culling of statements that do not support the party line.
Was the original Chapter 1 completely revised, or not? Did the revision exclude relevant facts, or not?
And as far as the response quoted by Luke in concerned, was the statement by Grey in relation to the revision a statement of fact or one of opinion? Clearly, it is a statement of fact. And any attempt to portray it as opinion unsupported by fact is blatantly misleading.
Get back under that rock, Luke and SJT, the slime mould is getting lonely.
Actually yes they are – they’re highly intelligent on the issue for a start unlike youself.
And gee if they said “Dear Rog you can’t play” – imagine your mock outrage if they said you can’t comment eh?
Many of the expert reviewers are indeed experts – but I guess we could have a section called “others” or “silly people” or “those we don’t like” or “right wing extremists” or “Exxon”. The would get you even more annoyed – maybe you might even snap a pencil.
One can only pity the editors duty bound to read everything in case of some gem of wisdom lurking in all those suggestions.
Ian – one can tell of your high interest- the spelling is “Gray”.
And excuse us but your mate Rog started the “expert line”.
and Luke is also an “expert reviewer” if gratuitous comments are the only qualifier.
says the great one-liner merchant. ROTFL.
Gray seems to claim a victory: “The first draft of the 1995 Report had a Chapter 5 “Validation of Climate Models” as in the First Report. I pointed out that it was wrong since no climate model has ever been “validated”, and they did not even try to do so. They thereupon changed the word “Validation” to “Evaluation” no less that fifty times.”
Gray has a First Class Honours Degree in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University (1942) and a PhD Degree 1946
He “retired” in 1987 and has wrote 1,878 comments on the last IPCC Report, most of which were “rejected.”
Paul
he retired in 1987, and that was when his understanding of the science stopped. He is stuck in the last century.
I guess as a self-proclaimed expert reviewer and super-duper one at that Gray would have a great number of papers published in the climate or meteorology field? hmmmm
I know Vincent Gray and can attest that
(a) “Expert reviewer” is a designation not a qualification but yes, he has reviewed every IPCC assessment report
(b) He has published numerous papers and articles which challenge the IPCC party line. (No Luke, you can show some willingness to investigate claims that don’t agree with your beliefs)
(c) He got tired of justifying each and every comment in his latest review and replaced detailed comment with references to earlier substantiation but the authors decided that a lack of explicit justification for each and every comment was grounds to dismiss much of what he said.
(d) The IPCC’s assessment reports are heavily biased towards the organisation’s charter – the investigation of risks posed by any human influence on climate. If the IPCC says there’s no human influence then the IPCC disappears. Add to that the fact that the report authors are usually researchers, funded on the assumption of a human influence, who both cite their own papers and sometimes act as IPCC reviewers. Also add that many reviewers are likewise researchers funded the same assumptions. and that both authors and reviewers often developed their professional reputations on the claim of man-made warming.
How many people still believe the IPCC to be an impartial organisation whose reports are free from bias and vested interest?
Well John expecting to be overwhelmned with scores of papers I typed … “vincent gray” climate … into Google Scholar and got one journal hit in of all things Energy and Environment and a few reports. Perhaps I’m not searching correctly?
As has been previously noted:
The long-suffering editors respond:
“We thank Vincent for his diligence in writng so many comments. However, the comments would be much more useful if they were backed up by other than opinion. …””
As for your (b) investigating claims that don’t agree with beliefs – that’s your big problem John – I do a stack of that actually and keep finding you guys coming up empty. So don’t talk to me about “belief”.
To protect itself and its very existance, the IPCC lives by Maier’s Law..
Maier’s Law states that.. “If the facts don’t conform to the theory they must be disposed of.”
Sid
which part of the report do you base that conclusion on?
Champs Go Karting [url=http://group/kyle-ruacho.googlegroups.com/web/champs-go-karting.html]Champs Go Karting[/url] Sophacles Antigone [url=http://group/kyle-ruacho.googlegroups.com/web/sophacles-antigone.html]Sophacles Antigone[/url] Summerfield Suites Orlando [url=http://group/kyle-ruacho.googlegroups.com/web/summerfield-suites-orlando.html]Summerfield Suites Orlando[/url] Autograph Picture Frames [url=http://group/kyle-ruacho.googlegroups.com/web/autograph-picture-frames.html]Autograph Picture Frames[/url] Yolo County Courthouse [url=http://group/kyle-ruacho.googlegroups.com/web/yolo-county-courthouse.html]Yolo County Courthouse[/url]
Control Charts In Quality [url=http://thomas-pryor.googlegroups.com/web/control-charts-in-quality.html]Control Charts In Quality[/url] Ingredient Hersheys Chocolate [url=http://thomas-pryor.googlegroups.com/web/ingredient-hersheys-chocolate.html]Ingredient Hersheys Chocolate[/url] Answering Best Cordless Machine Phone [url=http://thomas-pryor.googlegroups.com/web/answering-best-cordless-machine-phone.html]Answering Best Cordless Machine Phone[/url] Physical Map Austria [url=http://thomas-pryor.googlegroups.com/web/physical-map-austria.html]Physical Map Austria[/url] Spx Group [url=http://thomas-pryor.googlegroups.com/web/spx-group.html]Spx Group[/url]