New IPCC lead author, one word: strange

ShrNfr says:
March 18, 2011 at 5:00 pm
“Sadly many of the AGW crowd are self-satirizing. Apparently the lady in question was part of that group.”
Glad you brought this up. Pachauri was self-satirizing when he let the world know that he had used a lot of time writing a novel about the serial sexcapades of a sixtyish climate scientist. He was foolish enough to publish it. When that happened, Ms. Kovats and everyone in a similar situation should have promptly kicked him in the cojones. To put the point in a serious way, by publishing that novel Pachauri demeaned all of his employees, the IPCC, and most especially himself. He revealed that the person who heads an agency that has primary input into decisions about CO2 mitigation that will cost the world trillions finds the time to indulge in narcissistic fantasies about his sexual exploits. The man has no sense of proportion and no sense of self-respect whatsoever; rather, he has the self-respect of a rock star. But that is not the worst part. This out of control rock star wannabe lacks the training, intelligence, and ability to carry out the critical task given to the head of the IPCC. The Pachauri who published that novel has no self-critical faculty. A self-respecting Kofi Annan should boot him from the IPCC and the UN.

I was not familiar with Sari Kovats, but it took me a few minutes to determine that she has coauthored a lot of papers that have been cited by others, without getting a PHD. Since 2001 she has published 45 peer reviewed papers, in addition to 23 conference contributions and 9 book chapters.
http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/publications/list.php?show_grid=1&filter=staff_id&value=10989&grouping=grid&order=author&type=10&inpress=1&paging=10&year=all&start=40
This is not unprecedented. Freeman Dyson has had a remarkable career in Physcis without ever earning a PHD. He also wrote articles on different aspects of Physics and didn’t dwell on a single topic for long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson#Career

Dyson has said that “I think it’s almost true without exception if you want to win a Nobel Prize, you should have a long attention span, get hold of some deep and important problem and stay with it for 10 years. That wasn’t my style.”[4]
It seems to me that the leadership of the IPCC recognized that Kovats was a smart and knowledgeable person in her field, despite the fact the she didn’t have a PHD when she got her first assignment.
The author of this blogpost is simply doing a hatchetjob, in an attempt to discredit the IPCC leadership, and Kovats.This is probably because she disagrees with the conclusions of the IPCC. She could have determined that Kovats was a productive researcher if she wanted to look for the information.
REPLY: Smart and knowledgeable? Read the essay link I posted. Grade school quality. Given the bizarre ramblings of Pachauri, his shady business dealings, anything is possible with these clowns, and you are simply too delusional to see any other possibility. – Anthony

illuminati

Smokey: “where Mann deviously hid the actual temperature decline and replaced it with a steeply rising hockey stick”
Are you seriously proposing that global temperatures have fallen during the instrumental period? If not, then what the dickens ARE you saying?

“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.”
To be fair, maybe she got her degree in political science and she wants to become a “One World Governance” politician.

Anyone else notice how alive and real Josh’s Little Ms. Kovats looks? Lots of real emotion in that kid. I think this is a breakthrough moment for Josh.

Phil Clarke in response to Smokey:
Smokey: “where Mann deviously hid the actual temperature decline and replaced it with a steeply rising hockey stick”
“Are you seriously proposing that global temperatures have fallen during the instrumental period? If not, then what the dickens ARE you saying?”
Smokey is referring to post-1960 declines in global temperature proxies, a period where actual average global temperatures were rising. Since the proxy temperature movements differed from the movement in the actual temperature data, these adverse results were not reported by Mann and others both in peer reviewed literature and in IPCC reports. That this is the case is now well documented.

Kovat’s statement via Anthony:
“As a general rule, if using daily data, temperatures are homogenous (sic) within about 300km area providing that there are no local landscape features that affect climate, such as mountains, or water courses or coastal regions. For monthly data, temperatures are similar up to 1200km area.”
The conditions she is referring to would only exist in featureless interior areas such as the US middle west or central Asia. Since most people in the world live in coastal regions or near “water courses” (the Great Lakes should qualify here) the statement doesn’t mean much. The monthly data statement is so poorly written that I have no idea of what she is trying to say. This is not big league product.
I do agree with others here that have posted about the cartoon’s poor taste.

For those getting sniffy, the IPCC reports have been for decades trumpeted as being the work of the most prestigious scientists in the field. As Donna of “No Frakking Consensus” has pointed out a significant proportion of authors hadn’t even graduated at the time they worked on more than one report and numerous chapters.
Of course critiquing the science is vital but to most of the general public their access to the science isn’t through primary sources. It’s not even through critically reading the IPCC reports. It’s through the (equally ignorant) media and politicians pointing at the IPCC reports and saying “Look, the finest, most experienced, most prestigious minds in science have spoken!”
How many of the public do you think imagine that many of these people on whose word societies are supposed to radically shift and trillions of dollars are to be spent are still in, or barely out of, the scientific cradle?
It would be great if all the flaws and dodgy reasoning in scientific papers could be reason why the CAGW public edifice crumbles but it’s not going to happen because it wasn’t really the science which created the edifice in the first place. It’s gone way beyond that anyway, it has to be a collapse in the public perception. Most of the public won’t understand the science but they will understand being conned and lied to and that’s the sort of thing which will really piss them off.

16 years to get her Ph.D.? This certainly gets stranger all the time….
Oh, by the way, Pauchuri is a railroad engineer and part-time pornographer. Wonder if that plays into it?

The concern trolls can take a hike. If they don’t like the post don’t read it. If they don’t like WUWT, stick to RC.
Theo Goodwin @5:46 is dead right. Not that Houghton was any better. Now promoting the zerocarbonbritain 2030 extreme ecotard group.
Of course Kovats might be a genius for all we know. But the stench of incompetence, dogma & corruption hangs over the IPCC like a huge toxic cloud.
You’d more likely find someone with a conscience and a little humility in the Mafia.

Gee I thought this was easy. But some here seem to need it explained. The IPCC was suppose a consensus of the worlds greatest climate scientists. This matters because it proves that’s not anywhere near correct.