IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray Calls IPCC To Be Abolished?

Question

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/157%20evt.sci.fraud.pdf

So why does IPCC allow non-expert to become reviewers?

Answer 1

"Vincent Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. Vincent Gray has published peer-reviewed scientific work on coal with the last article being published 17 years ago."

Some "expert".

Answer 2

This "expert reviewer" starts by comparing all of the computer models of environmental data accumulated by different universities, centers of oceanography, governments, etc. to the Neilsen Ratings.

That's a good unbiased start to his rant.
----------------
"Climate 'projections' and even 'predictions' are always so far ahead that nobody can check on them; so they get away with false claims."

All of these different .orgs, .edus and .govs have data and historical evidence (which doesn't have to be directly measured, science can look back into history as well as forward into the future) from which they develop environmental models, the models aren't new, they have been developed over many years. In an UNBIASED fashion they provide the best and worst case scenarios based on a variety of models knowing the best likelihood is that the conditions will be somwhere in the middle.

How exactly can he prove they are false claims if his data and models are no better than anyone else's?
---------------
"It is just not possible to obtain a representative sample of the earth's surface as the beginning of an attempt to discover average temperature. So what do they do? They take the measurements made by meteorological stations and get an
average from them. But these are nearly all near cities and do not include most of the earth's surface. Such an average is worthless, and there is no way it can be 'corrected'."

That is just a bold faced lie. Maybe when he was involved directly in any science that was the way things are done; today there are enough weather satellites to cover the globe as well as remote weather stations everywhere from the tops of mountains to the middle of the oceans. Being near cities (Urban Heat Islands) is not applicable to those locations.

It is possible to obtain a representative sample of the earth's surface.
-------------
"Then, surely, if you wanted a 'global average' you must start with some sort of 'local average'. NO actual measurement of a local average temperature has ever been made; or at least published."

That is his second and third lies (easy to tell, he is using the word "surely", a person only uses that word when they AREN'T sure at all, just giving an opinion; this is an opinion piece, not a serious scientific review).

You can calculate global averages by averaging 'local averages' or by taking all the global data and calculating the 'global average'. There are numerous examples of towns, cities, meteorologists, weather stations, weather balloons etc. collecting localized data and calculating the average. That data is readily available.
---------------
"The IPCC have taken full advantage of the ignorance of the public, and of many scientists of the extent to which correlation can establish causation."

I find it interesting that the only person calling the public stupid enough to believe the data from hundreds of varified sources is the person who has provided no real evidence to the contrary. The only evidence is from "the theys and thems, the pollsters and many scientists". WHO ARE "THEY", the experts that exist only in his mind. Provide your sources Dr. Gray!

I am convinced that this is the one truth in the article: he DOES believe the public is stupid enough to believe anything, even him.

And anyone can call themslves a reviewer, it is not the IPCCs mandate to stifle free speech. But "responsible

Answer 3

Dr. Gray claims to have "published over 100 scientific papers on energy and materials, plus a dozen in climate science."
http://www.nrsp.com/people-vincent-gray.html

He is a long time global warming skeptic. His paper mentions a couple of unethical actions by climate scientists (Michael Mann and Wei-Chyang Wang) but this is not enough to get the IPCC to disband... yet.

The IPCC will not disband until the science clearly shows that global warming will not be catastrophic. In my opinion, this could happen in as little as two years. Gray mentions the need for quality control on weather stations but he did not mention by name the man in charge of the effort, Anthony Watts. See http://surfacestations.org

Once Watts and his team complete the global survey, it will not take long to analyze the data. So far it appears the warming has been overstated by double. If this is confirmed, global warming will be seen by everyone to be a non-problem.

Gray does not even mention the latest papers by Roy Spencer on the negative feedback over the tropics or the Stephen Schwartz paper on climate sensitivity. When these new findings are confirmed, global warming will not be seen as a threat.

Answer 4

Many specialists interior the fields of meteorology and climatology additionally dispute the findings of the IPCC. Many scientists are afraid to talk out for worry of their jobs. Others in all danger agree that international warming isn't the disaster this is made out to be, yet without a disaster, the investment for international warming could be shifted to a diverse disaster du jour. i'm holding copies of many of the "sky is falling" articles approximately international warming so as that 10 years from now, i will tutor my little ones how scientific inquiry is going to hell as quickly as an argument has grow to be politicized. My father constantly jogs my memory that interior the 70's anyone became into doom and gloom with regard to the earth cooling and the sunrise of a sparkling ice age.

Answer 5

This is nothing new. Gray has always been a global warming "skeptic". He's just a meteorologist, who testified in front of congress alongside sci-fi writer Crichton. Meteorologists study weather, not climate. If you read his arguments in your link, they're simply absurd, to put it politely. To put it bluntly, they're ignorant.

Meteorology is not irrelevant to the IPCC report. For example, it's relevant to the discussion about hurricane strength and frequency. But being an "expert" on one minor aspect of the report does not make Gray an expert reviewer. Not by a long shot.

Answer 6

Wow! Those that want to destroy other peoples reputations can't even get the mans identity correct. They are confusing Dr. Vincent Gray with Dr. William Gray. Probably not the first time they confused facts, or facts with fiction.

Notice how the "believers" have to destroy others rather than to discus science, as there is no science to support so called "man made global warming".

Now that a consensus of scientist believe that man cannot cause any change to the climate, they know that they are a dying bread and their days are numbered.

Answer 7

IPCC is doing a good job and Nobel Prize confirms it along with Al Gore's commitment for a better world.