Beginning of the end for "blinkered and corrupt" IPCC?
Hot on the heals of IPCC member John R. Christy rejecting his share of the Nobel Prize and denouncing climate alarmism (here), Vincent Gray - expert IPCC reviewer since the early 1990s - is now calling for the abolition of the blinkered and corrupt organisation, accusing it of having "an appalling absence of scientific rigour in the IPCC review process." Grey - one of the IPCCs most prolific and oft-cited reviewers - goes on to explain " The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) 1992 defined 'climate change' as changes in climate caused by human interference with atmospheric composition... The task of the IPCC, therefore, has been to accumulate evidence to support this belief that all changes in the climate are caused by human interference with the atmosphere. Studies of natural climate change have largely been used to claim that these are negligible compared with 'climate change.'" Full article (highly recommended) here
Any idea how many other IPCC 'experts' may feel this way? It's quite understandable that the 'award' could be regarded by some 'experts' as an 'undeserved' association.
Since realprimate seems to consider it enough that there is a page devoted to Christy, it might interest readers to know (some of - copyright precludes a longer quote) what it actually says:
"Professor and Director, Atmospheric Science Department, University of Alabama at Huntsville Alabama State Climatologist. Lead Author, 2001 IPCC TAR.
.... Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive."
Since realprimate seems to consider it enough that there is a page devoted to Christy, it might interest readers to know (some of - copyright precludes a longer quote) what it actually says:
"Professor and Director, Atmospheric Science Department, University of Alabama at Huntsville Alabama State Climatologist. Lead Author, 2001 IPCC TAR.
.... Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive."
Wow, really damning stuff!
Damning in what way? To those who deny that GW is happening at all, or to those who claim that CO2 has nothing to do with it?
Originally posted by Lucibee: How is one scientist's opinion "damning"?
As you keep saying, this is going to take at least 20 years to prove either one way or the other - one opinion isn't going to do it!!!
realprimate thought he had produced damning evidence about Christy (at least I think he thinks he did).
On climate change and evidence, I agree with your point
NOW here's damning evidence about Christy's competence. Bless realclimate.org whose latest post (1st Nov. 2007) states the following:-
[Response: Mr. Christy is the guy who made a sign error in his analysis of satellite temperature records, with the result that satellites didn’t show the warming measured on the ground. This was a big argument in the denialist quiver until Mears cleaned up the mess. David]
Originally posted by Lucibee: How is one scientist's opinion "damning"?
As you keep saying, this is going to take at least 20 years to prove either one way or the other - one opinion isn't going to do it!!!
realprimate thought he had produced damning evidence about Christy (at least I think he thinks he did).
On climate change and evidence, I agree with your point
The triumphalism shown here is interesting based on, as Lucibee points out, one or two scientists opinion. It says everything about the denialist approach. Only Suricat on this forum comes up with serious arguments against.
However, in the real world of science, Lovelock explains how increases in CO2 might be disasterous. Christy sees the function of CO2 solely as plant food and no threat. Lets hope Christy is right but why play Russian Roulette rather than plan for a sustainable future?
And I bet you Christy never admitted the mistake and let it fester in the web. A classic symptom of sceptic-cemia!
quote from Christy.. "My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today EOQ(taken from the first link in the thread opener)
Do any of you lot actually follow the links posted or is it a case of jotting down the name and looking it up on source watch? As for Greenpeaces Exxon list, I wouldn't take what that say to seriously
And I bet you Christy never admitted the mistake and let it fester in the web. A classic symptom of sceptic-cemia!
quote from Christy.. "My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today EOQ(taken from the first link in the thread opener)
Do any of you lot actually follow the links posted or is it a case of jotting down the name and looking it up on source watch? As for Greenpeaces Exxon list, I wouldn't take what that say to seriously
Couldn't find his Mother Theresa routine but I'll take your word for it.
Couldn't find his Mother Theresa routine but I'll take your word for it.
Its right at the end, I know thats a lot of reading but if you break it up into little portions you'll get there eventually
I'd like to use my signature to remind everyone that at this time of year there will be a lot of toads crossing the roads so be careful when you're driving, especially at night. Thank you
By all accounts John Christy is an ethical scientist who has an opposing view, google the following:
"Kyoto Global Warming Treaty's Impact on Ohio's Coal Dependent Communities"
It's a US-focused sceptical view from someone working in one of the more difficult areas of earth observation. Obviously I think he's too optimistic.
Most of the Vincent Gray comments on the IPCC report appear to have been rejected because he did not provide the literature to back them up. He appears to enjoy the monicker "expert IPCC reviewer"!
Good link that Steve to a very interesting paper, a lot of people don't seem to realize that the cure is going to be worse that the disease for people at the poorer end of human civilization when it comes to Co2/GW/
Originally posted by mufcdiver: Good link that Steve to a very interesting paper, a lot of people don't seem to realize that the cure is going to be worse that the disease for people at the poorer end of human civilization when it comes to Co2/GW/
Can you show me anyone who doesn't want the planets poorest to have a better life?
Can you show me anyone who doesn't want the planets poorest to have a better life?
Why are you asking me that?
I'd like to use my signature to remind everyone that at this time of year there will be a lot of toads crossing the roads so be careful when you're driving, especially at night. Thank you
And I bet you Christy never admitted the mistake and let it fester in the web. A classic symptom of sceptic-cemia!
quote from Christy.. "My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today EOQ(taken from the first link in the thread opener)
Do any of you lot actually follow the links posted or is it a case of jotting down the name and looking it up on source watch?
mufcdiver - the mistake Vincent Grey is drawing attention to is the FCCC linking something like climate change with the word "human". With a little foresight they might have realised such a project would immediately become the magnet for every malcontent and misanthropist on the planet - as it promises both a diagnosis and cure for their own insignificance.
