Tuesday, July 29, 2008

You too could be Richard Courtney, Expert Peer Reviewer

One of the jokes of the ages are those who place great stock in their having been "Expert Peer Reviewers" of the IPCC TAR and AR4 as evidence of their expertise on climate matters. Anyone with a room temperature IQ knows that the IPCC accepted comments from every Tom, Dick and Richard (even a Vincent Gray or two) who sent them in, and even, sometimes with a bit a exasperation, sometimes with a lot of exasperation, dealt with them all.

Now, all those who missed their chance can be "Expert Reviewers", ok commentators, on the Unified Synthesis Product on Global Climate Change in the United States.

To be considered, your comments must be submitted by e-mail, by Close of Business on 14 August 2008, referencing "Comments on USP draft" with your surname in the subject line (e.g., Comments on USP draft: Smith). Please re-label your comments file attachment with your surname to help with the collation process
More seriously, you know where the chaff is going to come from. Do the right thing. Mom Rabett will be proud

5 comments:

Chester said...

HapiBlogging to you my friend! Have a nice day!

Cthulhu said...

You reminded me of this article which is a sort of "101 reasons to not believe what Vincent Gray says"

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1

He's not just an Expert Reviewer but "a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception".

We also learn that he has "a Large Library".

It screams of "Take me seriously!" then he plugs the Ernst Beck paper..Supposedly his Big Library didn't help him discern how the carbon cycle works.

If you can get past the feeling of anger at something so rubbish existing to mislead people then it's actually quite funny to read.

This part just left me scratching my head in disbelief:
"In order to calculate the radiative effects of carbon dioxide you have to use a formula involving a logarithm. When such a formula is applied to a set of figures, the low figures have a greater weight in the final average radiation. The figure obtained from the so-called "background figure" is therefore biased in an upwards direction."

Boris said...

Richard Courtney is a putz.

There. Now I'm off to tell everyone I've written a biography of Richard Courtney.

Thomas Palm said...

Only amateurs claim to be expert reviewers of IPCC. The pros claim to have won the Nobel prize. (Since IPCC got the prize and as reviewers they are supposedly part of IPCC).

Anonymous said...

I once updated some of the Wikipedia pages dealing with global warming and climate change et al and the edits were not reverted. So I suppose I am part of the club and qualified to help edit AR5.

Should I be putting that on my CV?

Joe P.