Comments on: The Spoiled Child http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/16/the-spoiled-child/ by Steve McIntyre Sat, 18 May 2013 19:12:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: willard http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/16/the-spoiled-child/#comment-307613 Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:52:37 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=14743#comment-307613 > [T]his is about the discrepancy between the IPCC’s claims that its authors are the world’s top scientists, yet many of them on inspection turn out to be underqualified activists[.]

The concept of “activist” is taken for granted. It’s at least half of the what “this is about”. It is yet underspecified.

Describing what is to be an activist deserves due diligence.

]]> By: Jeff Alberts http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/16/the-spoiled-child/#comment-307556 Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:03:04 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=14743#comment-307556 I find it funny that Gleick says Watts prevents him from posting there. The only way that would happen is if Gleick posted under a pseudonym and went on a profanity-laced rant, and/or failed to use a valid email address when posting.

Countless people post views diametrically opposed to Anthony’s on WUWT every day.

]]> By: Jeff Alberts http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/16/the-spoiled-child/#comment-307555 Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:52:23 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=14743#comment-307555 The complaint has been that McIntyre isn’t a Climate Scientist(tm), therefore he isn’t qualified. I haven’t seen anything about him not having a PhD as being the issue.

]]> By: David Weisman http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/16/the-spoiled-child/#comment-307542 Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:32:21 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=14743#comment-307542 I am perfectly clear that the chapter was claiming they were underqualified because they didn’t have doctorates at the time they did the writing. Why do you think I might have missed that point, just because I criticize the evidence used to support it? Why is it wrong for team members to make a big thing that Steve doesn’t have a doctorate, but reasonable to use the lack of doctorates to prove that other people are underqualified? Because that chapter talks mostly about lack of doctorates, and sometimes about youth, these two factors aren’t used to support other evidence that these people are unqualified.

]]> By: Political Junkie http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/16/the-spoiled-child/#comment-307491 Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:58:22 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=14743#comment-307491 Catch Donna’s TV interview at WUWT!

]]> By: Ross McKitrick http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/16/the-spoiled-child/#comment-307484 Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:36:31 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=14743#comment-307484 I don’t recall which chapters the IPCC invited Steve to serve as Lead Author on- care to list any? Or did you actually miss the whole point here, namely that this is about the discrepancy between the IPCC’s claims that its authors are the world’s top scientists, yet many of them on inspection turn out to be underqualified activists?

]]> By: Stacey http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/16/the-spoiled-child/#comment-307483 Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:25:15 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=14743#comment-307483 The point you make is not well made. The book highlights the fact that vested interests are in control of the IPCC against its own rules/guidance.

Steve states this as follows:-
“Donna’s book builds on her own line of issues about IPCC (which are related to, but, in many respects, distinct from issues discussed here) – the presence of WWF and Greenpeace sympathizers and fellow travelers as IPCC authors, the use of gray environmentalist literature in IPCC (especially WG2, where activist influence is most pronounced).”

The reason your point is not well made is that she is not insulting the people involved she is just making the obvious point about conflict of interest and the rules of the IPPC not being abided by.

Steve openly admits he is not a Climate Scientist and that his expertise is in statistics among other things. The insults rained upon him are in effect a huge compliment, simply because the Team our Gav and their mates are incapable of taking him on intellectually.

]]> By: David Weisman http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/16/the-spoiled-child/#comment-307361 Mon, 24 Oct 2011 01:12:15 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=14743#comment-307361 An entire chapter of this book is devoted to complaining that people didn’t have doctorates at the time they did the work. I think Steve will remember that argument – from the other side.

]]> By: thefordprefect http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/16/the-spoiled-child/#comment-307191 Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:15:00 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=14743#comment-307191 StuartR Posted Oct 20, 2011 at 6:56 AM

WHO policy on DDT was in place long before 2006:

http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html
Note for the Press No 15 28 November 2000,
DDT USE IN MALARIA PREVENTION AND CONTROL
http://www.malaria.org/whopressreleaseddt1100.html
DDT still has an important role to play in saving lives and reducing the burden of malaria in some of the world’s poorest countries, states the World Health Organisation (WHO) as the international community considers phasing it out.

Its use on bed nets is still effective (some mosquitoes are resistant) because mossies do not like it avoid the net

]]> By: Jeff Norman http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/16/the-spoiled-child/#comment-307128 Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:43:56 +0000 http://climateaudit.org/?p=14743#comment-307128 According to Pierre Berton, the largest cause of death amongst those building the first Trans-Canada railway was malaria.

]]>