daveman
Diamond Member
The Strange Case of Sari Kovats
What kind of crap is this? Why was this woman hired as an expert? Is this garbage typical of the way the IPCC operates? Can anyone trust anything they publish?
[MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], I defy you to defend this with something besides your usual "The IPCC is infallible! We must blindly obey them!!"
In 1994, Kovats was one of only 21 people in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter that examined how climate change might affect human health. She was 25 years old. Her first academic paper wouldnt be published for another three years. It would be six years before shed even begin her doctoral studies and 16 years before shed graduate.
IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri says this about how IPCC authors are selected:
Im sorry to say that that was just the beginning. When it came time to write the next version of the climate bible, Kovats received a promotion. She was selected to be a lead author, again for the health chapter despite the fact that her doctoral studies wouldnt begin until the year the IPCC report was published.
What do we suppose happened with the next edition of the climate bible the one that appeared in 2007, still three full years before Kovats earned her doctorate? Was she selected once again to be a health chapter lead author? You betcha.
But by then the IPCC, in its wisdom, had decided she was a scientific expert in other areas, as well. Kovats served as a contributing author for three additional chapters in Working Group 2:
Theres no mystery as to why it took Kovats a decade to write her thesis. Shes had the equivalent of a full-time job just writing IPCC reports. As it turns out, the main assessments arent the only documents with which she has been involved.
The IPCC finds Kovats so enchanting it recruited her as an author for one of its smaller reports, published in 2008, about climate change and water. Soon after that, she was one of only eight members of the core writing team for a 2009 Good Practice Guidance Paper. The executive summary of that paper begins:
(In true IPCC tradition, a majority 8 of 15 of the papers appearing in the bibliography of the guidance paper were written by none other than the authors of the guidance themselves. But never mind.)
--
Were 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 shes an expert. This is totally improper. It represents a complete inversion of how things are supposed to work.
So when are Kovats, the IPCC, and the British government all going to admit that she is far from being a world-class scientific expert?
Will she resign her position as coordinating lead author or will the new edition of the climate bible be irretrievably tainted by her participation?
IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri 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 cant think of a better set of qualified people than what we have in the IPCC. [bold added]
Academically speaking, Kovats was invisible back in 1994. That anyone connected to the IPCC could have considered her a scientific expert is astonishing.Im sorry to say that that was just the beginning. When it came time to write the next version of the climate bible, Kovats received a promotion. She was selected to be a lead author, again for the health chapter despite the fact that her doctoral studies wouldnt begin until the year the IPCC report was published.
What do we suppose happened with the next edition of the climate bible the one that appeared in 2007, still three full years before Kovats earned her doctorate? Was she selected once again to be a health chapter lead author? You betcha.
But by then the IPCC, in its wisdom, had decided she was a scientific expert in other areas, as well. Kovats served as a contributing author for three additional chapters in Working Group 2:
Chapter 1 Assessment of Observed Changes and Responses in Natural and Managed Systems
Chapter 6 Coastal Systems and Low-lying Areas
Chapter 12 Europe
She was also an IPCC expert reviewer.Chapter 6 Coastal Systems and Low-lying Areas
Chapter 12 Europe
Theres no mystery as to why it took Kovats a decade to write her thesis. Shes had the equivalent of a full-time job just writing IPCC reports. As it turns out, the main assessments arent the only documents with which she has been involved.
The IPCC finds Kovats so enchanting it recruited her as an author for one of its smaller reports, published in 2008, about climate change and water. Soon after that, she was one of only eight members of the core writing team for a 2009 Good Practice Guidance Paper. The executive summary of that paper begins:
The reliable detection and attribution of changes in climate, and their effects, is fundamental to our understanding of the scientific basis of climate change
This paper
is intended as a guide for future IPCC Lead Authors. [bold added]
Were told the IPCC is a serious and rigorous body. Were told its reports are the gold-standard and that it is comprised of the worlds top experts. Were told we should trust the IPCCs conclusions because of these facts. And then we discover that a woman who still hadnt earned her own doctorate was recruited by the IPCC to write guidelines for other authors.(In true IPCC tradition, a majority 8 of 15 of the papers appearing in the bibliography of the guidance paper were written by none other than the authors of the guidance themselves. But never mind.)
--
Were 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 shes an expert. This is totally improper. It represents a complete inversion of how things are supposed to work.
So when are Kovats, the IPCC, and the British government all going to admit that she is far from being a world-class scientific expert?
Will she resign her position as coordinating lead author or will the new edition of the climate bible be irretrievably tainted by her participation?
What kind of crap is this? Why was this woman hired as an expert? Is this garbage typical of the way the IPCC operates? Can anyone trust anything they publish?
[MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION], I defy you to defend this with something besides your usual "The IPCC is infallible! We must blindly obey them!!"