19th March 2011
IPCC reports = toilet paper?
The IPCC has done enough by now to make its writings increasingly closer in value to toilet paper, but this information (below), if true, surely takes the cake as far as I'm concerned.
If true (which it appears to be) then the value of IPCC's reports is now dangerously close to the value of toilet paper. An arithmetical equality might ultimately prevail in the market place. But, of course, toilet paper, being processed and usable, might be found to be more valuable.
IPCC's lead author FINALLY finishes her PhD after writing IPCC reports since 1994!
In The Strange Case of Sari Kovats, Donna Laframboise notes that:
IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri [WHO HAS NOT A SHRED OF CLIMATE SCIENCE QUALIFICATIONS] says this about how IPCC authors are selected:
There is a very careful process of selection…These are people who have been chosen on the basis of their track record, on their record of publications, on the research that they have done…They are people who are at the top of their profession as far as research is concerned in a particular aspect of climate change…you can’t think of a better set of qualified people than what we have in the IPCC. [bold added]
However, Sari Kovats, a lead author for IPCC chapters on health, has been writing chapters since 1994, aged 25(!!) WITHOUT HAVING EVEN A SHRED OF ANY RESEARCH QUALIFICATIONS. "Top of her profession"! What a joke!!!
She finally received her PhD in 2010:
Kovats RS (2010) Temperature-related mortality in Delhi and Cape Town. Doctoral Thesis. University of London.
But Laframboise has NOT BEEN ABLE TO TRACE HER DISSERTATION in all relevant databases.
Sari has been FOOLING the world, the entire so-called "educated" community by exploiting the image of IPCC which works under the garb of the "United Nations" – an organisation that made Gaddafi a member of its Human Rights Council!
Donna sums it up:
We’re told the IPCC is comprised of top scientists. In the case of Kovats, it appears that it was actually her IPCC participation that convinced the wider community that she’s an expert. This is totally improper. It represents a complete inversion of how things are supposed to work.
There is STILL a possibility that IPCC may be right. After all the answer to the CO2 question is very simple: Yes or No. Only one of these is true, the other being wrong.
Even wrong methods can sometimes lead to the right answer. And one need not be a PhD to understand the truth (although the possibility that anyone without at least a PhD – with super-high quality skills in statistics – can independently produce top quality research, or even distinguish good from bad research, in such a complex matter as the climate, is practically zero).
But regardless of the truth is about the impacts of CO2 (which so far to me clearly appears to have net beneficial effects), and regardless of how brilliant or competent Sara is, the last shred of credibility that IPCC might have retained (at least with me) has now been lost. Fudging, falsification and amateur research skills have marked its chairperson/writers and 'scientists'. A typical bureaucratic organisation. Let no more be said.
Addendum
A climate of conflict (Economist)
Slowly warming the frogs. Paltridge on the history of the IPCC -shows how the growth industry of climate studies came up, and how they justify their existence through garbled models that produce a wide and meaningless range of estimates.
The Delinquent Teenager The book catalogues the various dirty tricks that insiders use to ensure the Politically Correct line of the IPCC reports, shows how many of the lead authors are not experts in the field for the chapters they control, demonstrates that 30% of the references are from the “Grey” literature, mainly from activist organisations like WWF, Greenpeace, EDF. It further shows that a great many of the references are from journals controlled by Phil Jones, Mann and others. he book catalogues the various dirty tricks that insiders use to ensure the Politically Correct line of the IPCC reports, shows how many of the lead authors are not experts in the field for the chapters they control, demonstrates that 30% of the references are from the “Grey” literature, mainly from activist organisations like WWF, Greenpeace, EDF. It further shows that a great many of the references are from journals controlled by Phil Jones, Mann and others.
Please follow and like us:
