And you thought railroad engineer Pachauri was odd…
Donna Laframboise of “No Frakking Consensus” does some digging, and what she turns up about the new IPCC lead author is to say the least, strange. Some excerpts:
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 wouldn’t be published for another three years. It would be six years before she’d even begin her doctoral studies and 16 years before she’d graduate.
This question Laframboise asks really, really, needs an answer:
How does one land that sort of position (and, presumably, that sort of salary) prior to finishing their PhD?
Josh provides some comic relief:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just gets weirder.
Of the three primary entrapments, Gold, Girls and Glory,
It appears all three were brought to bear.
Did these also sweep away the prophets of the press?
Ah yes, Best “Science” Blog.
Are you sure it wasn’t Best Smearing Blog.
Shameful. Juvenile. Revealing.
Hey guys (and gals)–let’s stay focused here. Does she do good science? That’s all I care about.
REPLY: You tell me, see this:
http://www.isse.ucar.edu/climatehealth/doc/Publications.Pg/Abstract.Kovats.doc
Within 1200 km has “similar” monthly temperatures? Try telling that to the people of New York and Atlanta
-Anthony
Studying part-time, working for theIPCC……..how did she manage to pay the bills?
Talking about Pachauri’s book seems out of context. I suggest mentioning her first name (like “In 1994, [Sari] Kovats was one of only 21 people…” ? ) would make the connection more obvious.
And the energy policy of the world is influenced by these people?
The UN IPCC has about the same level of credibility as the UN Human Rights Council.
This lack of scientific credentials for a lead author is certainly embarrassing for the IPCC. On the other hand, the insinuations in this posting makes this just as embarrassing for WUWT, and I for one wish you had stuck to the facts.
Regards,
Dan.
She obviously knows somebody who knew she would do their bidding. Their is NO other logical explanation.
And now that this rat is out of the bag, I’m guessing some diligent blogger will reveal the ‘who you know’ explanation for this.
RE: Anthony’s reply to Bob Fuller
Would it be wrong to posit that there is an inverse correlation between number of “quoted” terms and the seriousness of your scientific effort? The excerpt you used makes me think more of “pseudo” than of “science…”
This kind of reminds me of this:
Headline Story: Did a Secret Climate Deal Launch the Hockey Stick Fakery? by John O’Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists
Thursday, May 13th 2010
“It’s in 1996 that this story gets very curious. At that time Mann needed help to “defend” his Ph.D work in a documented but unexplained controversy at Yale. Inexplicably, this ‘controversy’ was peremptorily swept aside and between 1996-98 Mann was named as the Alexander Hollaender Distinguished Postdoctoral Research Fellow (DOE).
Mann’s Ph.D ‘Rushed Through’
All was now well and Yale gave Mann his Ph.D in 1998. One eminent source in my enquiries confirmed Mann’s Ph.D. was, in fact “rushed through.”
Instantly, Mann was then plucked from obscurity and appointed not just a contributing author for Chapters 7,8,12 of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (1998-00) but also Lead Author for Chapter 2. And with no track record whatsoever in this field, Mann now with tree ring data thrust into his hand, famously carved out his infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph.
“So what miracle turned this problematic researcher’s life around?
If miracles happened for Mann, they came in the form of Barry Saltzman. You see, this struggling student’s career was transformed the moment Saltzman became his Ph.D adviser. Only after Saltzman applied his influence were Mann’s lofty credentials “rushed through.” Mann then turned himself into a makeshift tree ring counter, and overnight became the iconic figure in the IPCC Third Report (2001). The rest is history, as they say.”
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5700
This whole thing is so rigged and corrupt that it is almost depressing.
[snip – over the top]
[snip – funny, but over the top, especially when using the name to comment – don’t do that – Anthony]
1200 km AREA.
The text as it stands is ambiguous. does she mean a 1200km radius? or a 1200 sqkm area?
sloppy writing. but the document in question doesnt appear to be an example of her Science.
That said, who knows why she was selected? or if it matters.
Anthony – it does say 1200 Km area. Not exactly SI units, but I presume that it means about 35×35 Km. which isn’t unreasonable, although shows a lack of clarity for a lead author of an IPCC report.
REPLY: Well GISS uses a 1200km smoothing radius in surface data map plots, so there’s precedence. – Anthony
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45244.html <– Julia Gillard, carbon Taxes, bigger brains needed to comment
Of course it matters.
OT But don’t you at WUWT (links) think
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/Science
should be put in the firm AGW camp rather than lukewarmer by now, they have definitely shifted 100% to that side me thinks of course?
Didn’t the UN have Gaddafi in the human rights council so this is not even close to a record for them.
And so St. Peter says, “…..eh, look, I don’t know how to put this…..but….God’s got this chick……”
Back in 94 climate science was a side show ignored by real science. Hence the (very) junior author, I’m guessing back then the salary was equally junior for someone higher up the food chain would have snapped it up.
She is just lucky, and got in on the ground floor of something before it really took off.
Kind of of like being Bill Gates roommate way back when. At the time most people would not have thought hanging around with a computer geek had much of a future.
We have been told repeatedly that the IPCC is composed of the worlds smartest scientists, and because of that we must believe everything they tell us and never question their conclusions or motives. But it appears that these “best and brightest” can indeed include people with no publications of any sort or any level of world-class expertise.
This is by far the worst post I have ever seen at WUWT. I certainly hope this is not an indication of a new direction.
Let’s please stick to science when possible and facts if not.
please delete above comment and use this one:
The IPCC has done enough by now to make its writings increasingly closer in value to toilet paper, but this information, 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.
See my blog post: IPCC reports = toilet paper? (http://sabhlokcity.com/2011/03/ipcc-reports-toilet-paper/)