Ray Bates: My conclusion stands that SR1.5 is not a scientifically rigorous document

Posted: December 31, 2018 by oldbrew in censorship, climate, Critique, IPCC
Tags:


Prof Ray Bates discusses some points raised by a critic in response to his recent analysis of the latest IPCC summary report (SR 1.5).

Reply by Ray Bates to the blog post by Peter Thorne of Maynooth University
H/T The GWPF

A) General comments

1) Prof. Thorne states that my critique of SR1.5 was not peer-reviewed and should not be referred to as a paper.
His statement is incorrect. My critique was peer-reviewed.

I wouldn’t list it in my CV as a journal article, but it is correct to call it a paper (see the Oxford Dictionary). That said, it matters little to me whether my publication is called a critique, a piece, or a paper.

2) Press freedom and right of reply
Prof. Thorne states, in relation to critical comments of his published in the Irish Times of 21/12/2018 regarding my SR1.5 critique: “To be crystal clear, a free press is an essential component of a healthy, vibrant democracy and it would be strange for the media to completely censure views.” I find it very comforting to hear Prof. Thorne express this viewpoint in such a clear manner. I would request him to note, however, that I have not been accorded a corresponding right of reply to a number of defamatory articles about me by a climate-activist journalist writing in an Irish monthly magazine. It takes the website of what Prof. Thorne describes as a ‘highly questionable think tank’ to provide me with the opportunity to point this out.

3) Dynamic meteorologists cannot be counted as climate scientists.
In reply to Prof. Thorne’s assertion that dynamic meteorologists cannot be counted as climate scientists, it will suffice to look at an example. The first assessment report addressed to policymakers warning of the risks associated with increasing carbon dioxide was “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: a Scientific Assessment” (US National Academy of Sciences, 1979). That report, known as the ‘Charney Report’, had nine authors. Five of these (including Charney, its chairman) were dynamic meteorologists. Is Prof. Thorne suggesting that the US National Academy of Sciences did not know what it was doing when it selected this committee?

Continued here.

Comments
  1. dennisambler says:

    “Dynamic meteorologists cannot be counted as climate scientists”

    Neither can geographers, Opha Pauline Dube CLA
    https://alumni.uq.edu.au/story/5888/professor-opha-pauline-dube
    University of Botswana PhD in Geographical Science at The University of Queensland
    Editor journal Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability

    Or Lawyers: Stephen HUMPHREYS
    http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/profile/stephen-humphreys/
    Stephen is also a Lecturer in the Department of Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science

    Or Psychologists: STEG Linda
    https://www.rug.nl/about-us/news-and-events/people-perspectives/scientists-in-focus/lsteg?lang=en
    Professor of Environmental Psychology

    Or whatever discipline this is:

    TSCHAKERT Petra
    http://archive.climate-adaptation.org.au/speakers/petra-tschakert/
    Petra conducts research at the intersection of political ecology, climate change adaptation, social-ecological resilience, environmental justice, livelihood security, and participatory action research and learning within a development context.

    The IPCC SR15 list has many more of these airy fairy pseudo-science participants, including Sociologists, Sustainability “experts”, Economists, Political Scientists, Ecologists, etc, laughably described by the Media as “The World’s Leading Climate Scientists”.

    Added to which was the requirement for compliance with diversity and gender constraints under UN rules, so in the end your gender and ethnic origin could be more important than any supposed science qualifications. The report was set up by the IPCC two years ago, to report prior to Katowice and ramp up the scare stories another notch, a repeated strategy over the time of the IPCC.

  2. oldbrew says:

    The Summary for policymakers (SPM) [1] is a summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports intended to aid policymakers. The form is approved line by line by governments: “Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy.” [bold added]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Summary_for_Policymakers

    “Negotiations occur over wording” – wrangling with politicians is not exactly the scientific method?

  3. Gamecock says:

    Policymakers needn’t understand the details before setting policy. I presume ignorant policymakers are the best.

  4. oldbrew says:

    laughably described by the Media as “The World’s Leading Climate Scientists”

    Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?

    Enter the ‘argument from authority’ fallacy.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

  5. Curious George says:

    Impression: If your arguments are weak, speak loudly and pound the table.

    Have a better year 2019.

  6. Jerome says:

    In his figure, Bates points out the divergence of climate models from the satellite record
    of global temperature. There is a more important difference.

    On time scales of years to a decade, the models are entirely uncorrelated.
    The only thing they share is gradual but systematic warming to higher temperature.
    For whatever reason, the models evolve in lock step with CO2, which increased
    in the same fashion. However, the satellite record (the only real observation of global temperature) presents no systematic warming. In fact, Salby and Harde have shown
    that the warmer temperature which has now prevailed for nearly two decades
    was produced by random warming during only a couple of years.

    It is the same form of warming for which the models are entirely uncorrelated.
    Hence, for warming that was actually responsible for today’s warmer temperature,
    the models have zero predictive skill. It is on the basis of this defect that climate activists
    (including authors of SR1.5) rely to allegedly limit future global temperature.

  7. stpaulchuck says:

    I love how they usually pick “the beginning of the Industrial Age” for their charts and graphs. We’re talking about roughly 1850 onwards, which coincidentally is about the end of the Little Ice Age. Hmmmm,.. ice age cold, not ice age warmer. I think I see the issue.

    —————
    “Meanwhile, conservatives are said to have rejected science if they won’t believe that taxes control the weather.” from moonbattery.com
    ————
    fraudulant temperature data in the climate assessment – https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=qVdcWHxPhIg

  8. oldbrew says:

    New Science: A Main Tenet Of Anthropogenic Global Warming Has Been Falsified By Observations
    By Kenneth Richard on 31. December 2018

    Climate models postulate that increasing CO2 concentrations will intensify the Earth’s water cycle. This intensification is believed to eventually result in dangerous (3°C and up) global warming. Observational evidence has thus far falsified these IPCC-endorsed claims.

    http://notrickszone.com/2018/12/31/new-science-a-main-tenet-of-anthropogenic-global-warming-has-been-falsified-by-observations/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s