Climate Change fraud

This blog is from a New Zealander who was an Expert Reviewer on all Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He concludes ‘There is not a scrap of evidence in any of them that human emissions of carbon dioxide have any harmful effect on the climate.’ And he describes the Global Warming Theory as an ‘elaborate fraud’.

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/nzclimate-truth-newsletter-no-287.html

Comments

[Duncan]

Dr Vincent Gray's credentials as an "Expert Reviewer for the IPCC" are disputed. According to his Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Gray

'He has been an "Expert Reviewer for the IPCC" since 1990, although this consideration has been challenged and considered misleading since it does not require any expertise at all, but only that "he asked to see the draft report" and signed an agreement not to publicly comment on the draft report.'

'Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change.'

Gray's credentials and the make-up of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition to which Gray belongs is discussed in more detail here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/you_too_can_be_a_leading_clima.php

Apparently, anyone can become an "Expert Reviewer".

[Alcuin]

You too, Terry? I follow you here and elsewhere on the Financial Crisis, and respect (and mostly agree with) your views. So I am disappointed to see that you have joined Melanie Phillips, Christopher Booker, James Delingpole and others in denying what the vast majority of Climate Scientists see as ever hardening evidence in favour of AGW.

Let me quote, for example, the editorial from the New Scientist of 22 February 2012:

"There simply is no credible scientific alternative to the theory that humans are warming the atmosphere. In 2010, a survey of 1372 climate scientists found that 97 per cent of those who publish most frequently in the field were in no doubt. They agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that human activity had caused most of Earth's warming over the second half of the 20th century. By comparison with these scientists, the climate expertise of the small group of contrarians was substantially lower". Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

People who stray outside their area of expertise can often make wild misjudgements. Opinions do not matter here, only evidence, and the people with the evidence are scientists. For my own take on this issue (as a retired professional Engineer and subscriber to New Scientist for over 40 years), see http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100114292/lying-cheating-climate-scientists-caught-lying-cheating-again/#comment-350708666.

[Terry Smith]

To Alcuin:

I’m not ‘denying’ anything. I’m a sceptic about manmade global warming. I think that’s a reasonable stance to take on any theory let alone one in which there has been undoubted attempts to misrepresent the evidence. I even find the use of the term ‘denying’ disconcerting; we are discussing a scientific theory not a set of religious beliefs. Although judging by the stance of some climate change proponents that is exactly what we are dealing with. By the way I haven’t joined anyone either.

[Alcuin]

Terry,

Sorry - no slur or aspersions intended, perhaps I should have said "rebutting" rather than "denying". Skepticism is probably the most vital tool in the scientists armory, and you are absolutely right to employ it. However, it has already been ruthlessly used in true Holmsian fashion by said scientists, few of whom would wish AGW to be true. Would any of us? By the way, even Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are only "Theories", despite their extraordinary success and accuracy.

I should like to correct my first link, which does not appear to work, this is better: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes

Best regards.

[Geoff Brown]

Duncan's quote "Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change" is from that almost infallible source Wikipedia. Interesting to note that the same Wikipedia item lists one of Vincent's peer-reviewed papers...hmmm

Alcuin "In 2010, a survey of 1372 climate scientists found that 97 per cent of those who publish most frequently in the field were in no doubt."

This was a flawed study and to state 1372 is incorrect. Try 75 see http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/97-consensus-is-only-76-self-selected.html

and

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/consensus-myth-97-of-nothing.html

[Terry Smith]

To Geoff Brown:

Thank you. Keep it coming.

[Duncan]

Geoff Brown raises two points:
1. The validity of my Wikipedia quote
2. The validity of Alcuin's 97 per cent

1. The validity of my Wikipedia quote

The only peer-reviewed scientific paper I can see referenced on Vincent Gray's Wikipedia page is "Gray, V.R. (1986). "The chemical properties and composition of Mokau Coal". New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 29: 447–461."

The first paragraph of this paper's Abstract states:
"Chemical and physical analyses carried out on Mokau coal as part of the recently completed New Zealand Government prospecting programme are treated statistically to define mean properties in-ground for each seam of each sector and to show geographical trends within and between seams. Properties studied include bed moisture, air-dried moisture, specific energy, volatile matter, sulphur, forms of sulphur, coal composition, mineral composition, ultimate analysis, ash constituents, trace elements, ash distribution, boiler fouling properties, ash fusibility, Hardgrove Grindability Index, and relative density."

My quote didn't say Gray had never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, but that he had never been published in a peer-reviewed journal *on the subject of climate change*. Clearly the paper cited on Wikipedia is about the chemical composition of coal, not about climate change so the quote "Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change" is not refuted. A search on the ScienceDirect database for the author Vincent Gray reveals other papers on the chemical composition of coal by Gray, but I see none on climate change.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&_method=list&_ArticleListID=1927458558&_sort=r&_st=13&view=c&_acct=C000228598&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e892b859c94fe7bdee490a97b2ab38ad&searchtype=a

2. The validity of Alcuin's 97 per cent

Alcuin: "In 2010, a survey of 1372 climate scientists found that 97 per cent of those who publish most frequently in the field were in no doubt."
Geoff Brown: "This was a flawed study and to state 1372 is incorrect."

There are at least two surveys showing 97 per cent support for AGW: one with authors from Stanford University that Alcuin refers to; another with authors from University of Illinois that Geoff Brown seems to be referring to (he doesn't clearly state).

Alcuin cites a study published in Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences in the United States of America which uses "an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

Another survey, “Examining the scientific consensus on climate change,” by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (see Eos, 90(3), 20 January 2009) surveyed 10257 earth scientists. 3146 completed the survey. "5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change. While respondents’ names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory." They were asked:

"1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman state: "In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."

This appears to be the 75 that Geoff Brown refers to, but clearly isn't the 1372 that Alcuin refers to.

Considering all 3146 scientists who completed the Doran and Kendall Zimmerman survey, "Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2."

[English roG]

Nice one, Duncan.

I trust Terry absolutely when it comes to his area of expertise - finance. I trust him 0% when he tries to do science.

[Propylene Glycol]

Thankyou for the information...
Please let us know something more...