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.
Sounds to me that her position may have been more like that of a secretary.
One could understand that this might be referred to as a “lead writer” by the IPCC.
RE: … For monthly data, temperatures are similar up to 1200km area.
Within 1200 km has “similar” monthly temperatures? Try telling that to the people of New York and Atlanta
To be fair, while the wording is poor, I believe what is meant is that for monthly data, temperature anomalies are similar up to 1200km area. Which is to say that if December in New York is 10 degrees colder than average, December in Atlanta is likely to be similarly below average.
Did anyone notice that the “Centre on Global Change and Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine” comes under the umbrella of the University of East Anglia (UEA)?
UnfrozenCavemanMD says:
“To be fair, while the wording is poor, I believe what is meant is that for monthly data, temperature anomalies are similar up to 1200km area. Which is to say that if December in New York is 10 degrees colder than average, December in Atlanta is likely to be similarly below average.”
UCave, I think you are close to the likely explanation. More precisely, I suspect she is poorly parroting Hansen’s assertion that at any point temperatures are highly correlated within a 1200 km radius from that point (Hansen uses this to aggressively project temperatures well into the Arctic, essentially creating data where no data exists). Perhaps she is trying to explain this simply but in this case the explanation is poor.
DJ says: “Seriously. When you read the opening to her abstract?? You’ve got to be kidding me. That just invites ridicule on every level.”
——————————————————————————–
I presume you refer to the insipid:
Climate variability can be expressed at various temporal scales (by day, season and year) and is an inherent characteristic of climate, whether the climate system is subject to change or not.”
So far, I see no evidence, zero, nil, kein, nichevo, that this is a peer-reviewed piece of writing. It is obviously, as it states (“for NCAR Colloquium. 2006”), an ad-hoc colloquium hand-out kloodged together to help the largely ignorant understand climate-health studies. If this is gibberish, blame those who first wrote it, not necessarily Kovats. It was apparently cut and pasted from the following:
“The health impacts of climate change and variability in developing countries,” by Bettina Menne, Nino Kunzli, Roberto Bertollini, International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Issue: Volume 2, Numbers 3-4 / 2002 / Pages: 181 – 205.
Nota bene: Menne and Kovats were co-authors on other papers, such as a WHO chapter, so this may have been their joint intellectual property at some point, if previously published elsewhere prior to the IJGE article. I haven’t been able to find a prior source, however.
A higher percentage of ‘knockers’ than I have seen for a while.
I guess, Anthony, that means you are doing something right.
Keep the information flowing.. Great work!
It is a reasonable conclusion that in 1994 Sari Kovats was not qualified academically to be a contributing author of a chapter on an IPCC assessment report.
That Sari Kovats was a contributing author in 1995 means the IPCC did not maintain even minimum professional academic standards.
Sari Kovats is still working on IPCC assessment reports (AR5); now as a lead author. It looks like her third assessment report to me.
The IPCC should do a better job of maintaining the appearance of openness to a broader range of scientists in any author position. The potential for persistence of bias from one assessment report to the next assessment report needs to be prevented. The IPCC needs to prevent the formation of cliques of scientists that persists from one assessment report to the next. Therefore, the IPCC should restrict an individual author to one assessment report. A promotion from contributing author in on assessment report to lead author in the next assessment report thus would not be allowed.
Based on my above comments, in order to provide assurance to the public that the IPCC is concerned about its past lack of prudence, the IPCC leadership should have Kovats step down from further participation in any future IPCC report.
NOTE: I would like to express my great appreciation to Donna Laframboise of “No Frakking Consensus”. Her tireless work on making more transparent the workings of the IPCC process is priceless. Also her work on making public the IPCC assessment team member’s professional background and academic qualifications is sorely needed. Donna’s work is a valuable contribution to the knowledge base needed to provide an accurate evaluation of the validity of the IPCC’s products. AR5 is the area of focus needed now and we need to understand the past assessment report processes and teams to get into what is happening on AR5 right now.
John
Dont worry Theo Goodwin , I agree with the content of the post, and despair that the IPCC has credibility in the MSM. Just a little concerned about the delivery thats all, especially that cartoon.
Just an opinion.
Re Commie Bob
gwaff, try graph as in hockey stick.
regards S.T.
Donna has done what mainstream journalists on high salaries should have done decades ago: lift the veil of propriety on these “top ranking scientists” and the way they were chosen. We have a RIGHT to know who is proposing drastic changes to our way of life.
As for Kovats, I had my doubts, till I read her report on Lesser Developed Countries’ health policies where she quotes the IPCC report which she authored, withoute mentioning her contribution to it. Quoting yourself as authority kind of diminishes your stature.
It is normal that graduate students sign papers for work they have done. What is not normal is to be set in the position of lead author.
In my generation it was also normal for female students to take a long time to get a PhD if at the same time as working full time they were in their child bearing years. I had many publications before writing a PhD thesis, because research was more important at work than running after references, and children of primary importance at home.
It is not known if Ms Kovat is in this category. I would doubt it, because juggling work and family does not leave time for projects requiring leadership and one upmanship .
So yes, it is a strange appointment, including that she is a senior lecturer ( associate professor in the UK) in less than a year from getting a PhD if not before.
I can write stuff like Sari:
“Based on integral subsystem considerations,a primary interrelationship between system and/or subsystem technologies presents extremely interesting challenges to the anticipated fourth generation equipment.
However, initiation of critical subsystem development must utilise and be functionally interwoven with the sophisticated software.
On the other hand, initiation of critical subsystem development recognises the importance of other systems and the necessity for the preliminary qualification limit.
In this regard, initiation of critical subsystem development must utilise and be functionally interwoven with the structural design, based on system engineering concepts.
In Particular, a constant flow of effective information recognises the importance of other systems and the necessity for the subsystem compatibility testing.
Similarly, the fully integrated test program recognises the importance of other systems and the necessity for the greater flight-worthiness concept.
In respect of specific goals, the independent functional principle adds explicit performance limits to the philosophy of commonality and standardisation.
As a resultant implication, the fully integrated test program requires considerable systems analysis and trade off studies to arrive at the discrete configuration mode.
For example, a large portion of the interface coordination communication maximises the probability of project success and minimises the cost and time required for the subsystem compatibility testing.
Similarly, any associated supporting element adds overriding performance constraints to the philosophy of commonality and standardisation.”
In may case, an Excel spreadsheet I built populated with phrases from a buzzword generator I found 30 years ago.
Seriously, to those who get on their high horses about WUWT posting on this, I say this: this young woman is part of a team that is responsible for governments committing trillions upon trillions of our tax dollars on something that raises serious doubts. We have a right to call her on it.
Finally, BTW: a ranking naval rating ‘secretary’ would hold the rank of ‘Leading Writer’. 🙂
I think the critics of this tread are right that this is a molehill. But I think it was OK to post the thread, as long as only an eyebrow was raised about it. I think there’s nothing wrong with noting molehills.
I also don’t think her opening sentence was that bad, in the context of scientific prose generally. I could understand what she was trying to say after a second reading. A lot of scientific prose needs to be unpacked in that fashion.
And her remark about temperatures being the same across some huge number of kms. may only mean within an area, not a radius, in which case she’s acquitted on that charge.
Obviously it was an exaggeration, but that’s so obvious on its face that it’s part of its humor. Josh’s cartoons always good-naturedly portray his targets as silly and childish rather than nasty–which makes them more effective than something biting. His coffee-cup cartoon showing Mann with a tilted hockey stick chart (a child’s coverup tactic) is typical.
I live in Brisbane Australia – a subtropical coastal city. 20km inland the summer daytime temperatures are 5C hotter and winter nights are 10C cooler.
So it doesn’t matter who is on the IPCC? Well let none other than Doctor Pachauri explain it all to us here-
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/05inter.htm
when asked-
Quest: Could you describe to all the disbelievers — people who question the science involved in the IPCC reports — the science involved in drafting these reports? Do you believe that the science is absolutely flawless?
Dr Pachauri: That’s a matter of opinion. I can’t change anybody’s mind. But you look at the facts as they are. You have close to 600 people who are actually the authors of these working group reports. 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 have been nominated either by governments or major international organisations.
There is a very careful process of selection. We had something like 2,000 such nominations and out of that less than 600 were selected. So it is not as though anybody can get in.
They are people who are at the top of their profession as far as research is concerned in a particular aspect of climate change. Then the process itself is such — I mean they draft out their reports on the basis of clearly developed outlines of each working group report and these outlines are accepted by the plenary session of the IPCC.
And then at each stage of the production of the report it goes through a process of reviews and all the comments we get are carefully logged, each one is taken into account. It is not necessary that everything will be accepted, but everything has to be considered and then you know finally in the plenary session, there could be one country or two countries that may take a certain position, but there are several others who can counter that and they do.
So you can’t think of a more transparent process, you can’t think of a better set of qualified people than what we have in the IPCC. I would only put that forward as valid reasons to accept the science and the scientific assessments that are carried out.
Jer0me says: March 18, 2011 at 4:17 pm and other posts
“So my home city of Sydney would have a similar monthly temperature to that of Brisbane or Melbourne…Hmm”
You will find that Bernard Salt recently wondered on the urban planning policies developed for Australian capital cities. Cut n paste templates?
Variables tested by the public health experts have evolved from supporting, in some instances, the green movement stance (violence) of anti-mining and anti-nuclear (energy and development+ population) including using the union movement through shaping an ever restrictive OHS framework.
Urban studies of lead in (old) paint of inner city abodes, then vehicle emissions and transport planning (urban pollution and public transport) were captured. Social epidemiology then used health promotion, underpinned by allied pseudo-experts morphing into control at local government planning and regulation levels (obesity/parks/school tuck shop menus, smoking, bikeways, local waterways etc) with extensive funding for such and other promotive activities.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/melbourne-sets-planning-agenda-for-other-cities/story-e6frg9gx-1226014970749
Readers may recall Marc Hendrickx’ work and his dispute with the article on early emergence of H merope due to claimed Co2 levels in a proposed greenfield site. Whether butterflies are analogous to (human) Years of Life Lost (YLL) commonly coded as death or mortality is questionable. But a useful approach to extracting funding for ‘the health of cities’ at the global level may be profitable. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/23/butterfly-study-a-case-study-in-confirmation-bias/
Of course
Anthony @Tom Fuller says: March 18, 2011 at 3:22 pm and Theo Goodwin says:
March 18, 2011 at 4:49 pm
require some comment on link to the abstract provided:- The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Clint Eastwood should do nicely.
What’s so amazing is that the IPCC in itself becomes a career path.
You can’t blame an aspiring scientist for choosing a career path, but isn’t this one about ready for out to grass ?
Kovats is not the problem. She saw an opportunity and took it. She’s better than the average IPCC author. The problem is the IPCC claim that it is an exclusive club for leading experts. That claim is just not true.
Pachauri has nothing to do with this. He was a lead author at the time. He helped Amrita Achanta become a lead author, but was not involved with Kovats.
Qualifications aren’t everything.
The lady might be a very good organiser, for instance.
Indeed the EU Foreign Ministry might be a natural next step.
John Tofflemire said: 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.
Referring to them without knowing that he’s referring to them, maybe. He says “actual temperature decline.”
This is a repost I made on other other blogs, but on a similar subject, of IPCC members:
From Donna Laframboise’s blog, I saw the name Richard Moss, and his affiliation, the WWF.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/the-wwf-vice-president-the-new-ipcc-report/
Richard Moss is on the 15th chapter of the AR5, the section on Adaptation Planning and Implementation.
It’s interesting about his WWF connection, and the name just below his on the AR5, Walter Vergara, with the World Bank.
The WWF, with grant money from the World Bank, have purchased the rights to Amazonian forest, and hope to make 60 billion dollars from carbon credits, through REDD (reducing emissions from developing countries deforestation).
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/amazongate-part-ii-seeing-redd.html
Of course, Chapter 15 also deals with REDD.
I really suspect that the theme music to the IPCC is “Dueling Banjos”. And that they feel the hillbillies in “Deliverance” were just misunderstood.
Could not conflict of interest be seen here?
observa says:
March 19, 2011 at 4:33 am
So it doesn’t matter who is on the IPCC? Well let none other than Doctor Pachauri explain it all to us here-
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/05inter.htm
when asked-
“There is a very careful process of selection. We had something like 2,000 such nominations and out of that less than 600 were selected. So it is not as though anybody can get in.”
In other words, it is about as difficult as getting into a mediocre liberal arts college. By contrast, if an academic department at a research university advertises a non-tenure track but fulltime position, they get about 500 applications and the first 100 of those are excellent prospects even for tenure.
anna v says:
March 19, 2011 at 2:35 am
“So yes, it is a strange appointment, including that she is a senior lecturer ( associate professor in the UK) in less than a year from getting a PhD if not before.”
Your comments are very helpful. What one would like to know about her hire is how many people applied for that job. If it was advertised properly, the number of applicants would be in the hundreds and scores of them would be excellent. In academia today, it is difficult to move either vertically or horizontally. Some of the people applying for that job would be associate professors tenured at other universities. Apparently, she was treated as if she were an associate professor from the university of IPCC. Obviously, she did not go through tenure and promotion hearings but was hired with tenure. (The fact that she was tenured in her first year means that she was hired with tenure.) As far as I know, hiring an applicant who does not have tenure and giving them tenure as part of the hire is something that has not been done since the halcyon days of the Sixties. So, the hire seems to have been made by people who have an unreasonably high regard for the IPCC.
Of course, one may argue that her research is unique among applicants and she was hired over better scholars for that reason. However, that line of reasoning makes the hire look more questionable. In effect, the academic department doing the hiring would be moving IPCC research to their campus when the same research is not widely supported on comparable and competitive campuses. In today’s academic world, if her research specialty were supported on other campuses then there would be scores of applicants as good or better than she.
Anthony,
This has to be one of the funniest stories I have read here at WUWT, well not so much in way of the story itself, but in some of the comments that attempt to defend the indefensible.
That said and M/s Kovats may be a very nice person however, it is heartening to now have confirmation that the IPCC is in fact no better than a busted arse Australian farmer like me, in that, in order to make a living I work by the old rule that is “Necessity is the Mother of All Invention” meaning; that if what one is looking for, or to do is not yet available build it yourself.
The IPCC has a necessity, so they put together a team to build the invention, no qualifications really necessary, although it seems that navel gazing and tyre kicking is some sort of prerequisite.
Kovats evidently met the right people under the right circumstances and left with them a favorable impression. When opportunity later knocked, she opened the door. And she received an amazing number of knocks. I once observed a recent graduate of Stanford go from editing the newsletter of the company at which I worked to a position as a Director at Apple. In any walk of life, favorably impressing those who can advance your career puts you on the fast track. This can be done socially if you are well connected or through recognized achievement if you are less fortunate. While drudges, like me, who have done things the hard way may sometimes resent this we can’t fault others for taking this path. Ad hominen attacks on Kovats are, to me, unwarranted.
James Treybig, once the CEO of a computer company he founded and built into a Fortune 500 company, once said in a meeting I attended, “First rate people hire first rate people. Second rate people hire third rate people.” Enough said there about the IPCC.