Friday
Mar182011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill How to get to the top
Mar 18, 2011 Climate: IPCC Donna Laframboise has uncovered the remarkable story of the IPCC lead author, Sari Kovats, who was appointed a lead author on the IPCC report before publication of her first scientific paper and years before she had completed her PhD. In the meantime she appears to occupy the position of senior lecturer at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, desite the fact she was only awarded a PhD last year.
It stinks.
Reader Comments (96)
So who has Ms Kovats displaced?
That's a perfectly relevant question because Ms Laframboise admits "If we had not been advised for those same 16 years that the IPCC is comprised of the world's top scientists and best experts, there'd be no story here."
Either Ms Laframboise can point to one of the world's top scientists deprived of their seat on the IPCC by the talented Dr Kovats or there's no story here.
@ Hengist McStone
Hold those straws tight!
Hengist
Further upthread, where you clearly haven't bothered to read, Richard Tol demonstrates that you are asking the wrong question:
I'm going to take the risky step of assuming that you know something - ie who Richard Tol is.
This is the... third ...fourth? time you have pitched up in comments here wasting everybody's time.
Up your game.
Richard Tol, I see nothing wrong with the IPCC putting you in that position at that time. Did your effort find its way to print without review?
I suppose this is about how stuffy the IPCC has been about the credentials of its authors and authorities. Maybe we're talking about hypocrisy by the IPCC, saying that only the finest hops are part of their brew and not quite delivering - at least by credential.
I continue to sense great doubt about the capabilities of someone that no-one here admits to knowing.
Are there really readers of this thread who have never performed well beyond their credentials?
Lastly, if we don't require relevant credentials of the best and brightest here, why hold the IPCC's feet to the fire? Is it because we're afraid the politicians will be misled? Oh silly me. Of course that's what it is.
@BBD
Sorry for interrupting the Groupthink .
I will email Ms Laframboise with my concerns.
@J Ferguson
A good team has the right mix of freshness and experience, energy and calm, enthusiasm and cynicism. There is nothing wrong with involving young and promising people in the IPCC, if mentoring and supervision are in place. (It is wrong, though, to put a 26-year-old in charge of defending an IPCC chapter to seasoned diplomats of 192 countries.) That's not the issue, though. The IPCC denies that those young people are there -- but they are.
Hengist
Dodging the point, as usual. Which was your misapprehension that Dr Kovats has in fact 'displaced' anyone.
See above.
I've just remembered the word for what Hengist does. It is 'pettifogging'.
The problem is, how grateful are those young and promising people going to be in the future if those young people are being mentored by the next Corleone Family.
Over the past year, the pillars of the IPCC's claims to "authority" and greatness seem to be crumbling before our very eyes (as well they should!) But on the matter of the IPCC's (presumed) credibility and collective expertise, there's an additional "heads I win, tails you lose" at play here.
Remember that infamous PNAS "study" the esteemed authors of which contend that quantity (of publications) trumps quality in determining the “credibility” and “expertise” of those whose voices should be heard on the subject of “climate change”?!
What this seems to boil down to is that they would like the public to believe that it's perfectly OK to have one ... uh ... "standard" for IPCC authorship, and another for critics.
Like grey literature we also have grey academics being involved in IPCC reports.
How much does or did the normal routine of academic life affect nominating or volunteering delegates to work on the IPCC process?
As I understand it, delegates aren't paid to work on IPCC reports so if costs have to come out of department funding, then presumably that can create issues. I'm guessing other resource constraints may also create problems. If you're an academic with research funding to do X, or just need to keep publishing then you may not have the time to spend doing IPCC work. If that work isn't seen as a priority and doesn't have much obvious kudos attached to it, then it might be sensible to volunteer someone junior to do the grunt work.
I've heard similar comments made about the peer review process, ie who pays for it, or who has the time to do a decent job of peer review.
Seems a lot of posters need to read the work by Donna so they can evaluate the POSSIBILITY of her being correct. Seems to me she nailed this one. Looking into Michael Mann's sudden ascension to PaleoClimate expert has a similar, if not identical, smell.
This case is perfectly consistant with Paul Reiter's account (to the House oh Lords, and the US Congress) of his IPCC experience where as a world class malaria expert he was put in a minority position by twenty non-experts who never published anything substantial on malaria and similar deseases.
Richard Toll' post is perfect.
Didnt Mann have a similar issue as this woman...being a newly "qualified" phd holder when he got his big break with the IPCC?
Mailman
It seems yes is the answer...something under the table did, or could have, taken place;
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5700
Mailman
"Either Ms Laframboise can point to one of the world's top scientists deprived of their seat on the IPCC by the talented Dr Kovats or there's no story here."
Mar 18, 2011 at 7:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterHengist McStone
The IPCC phrase "Gold Standard" comes to mind but I guess you will move the shells and peanuts again!
Jiminy Cricket, do not for one minute think that I missed the "You are not worthy" comment on the other thread! Cut me to the bone that did but I will get ya! ;-)
Daniel hits the nail on the head.
It is easy for an outsider to prove that, in the cases of Bouwer, Klein, Kovats, Mann and Tol, the IPCC, in contrast to its claims, did not appoint leading experts -- by virtue of their age, lack of formal qualifications, and lack of publications.
Insiders like Reiter will tell you that there is more to expertise than gray hair and a doctorate, and that the five people above are only the tip of iceberg.
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
Richard Tol,
Perhaps you could provide some insight into the internal machinations of the IPCC process to those of us who are looking in from the outside.
I would presume at such a young age that you would have been offered guidance on your work perhaps from a mentor?
Kristie L Ebi is a straight-up PhD who determines 'health' effects of 'climate change' for the entire world through her IPCC chapter authorships and US Congressional testimonies. She is a free-lance researcher. In other words - answerable to no one. In other words - her career, most likely, is simply supported by the IPCC services and other governmental services that she has provided, and nothing else.
For the resistant like Hengist etc: Does the above, in any way question her personal ability? No.
However
Does the above support the contention that the IPCC chooses the 'world's best climate experts'? No.
The 'world's best experts' are not those whose 'expertise' has been garnered mainly by writing chapters for the IPCC.
Come on everybody. You're not thinking like the IPCC.
1. The IPCC claim they only use the world's top scientists.
2. Unfortunately, this lady wasn't one of the world's top scientists.
3. However, she was hired by the IPCC.
4. Therefore, this automatically makes her one of the world's top scientists.
Simples.
She is rather pretty though. Not that that has ANYTHING to do with it..
I'm beginning to think that Donna's work on the origins and structure of the IPCC may turn out to be at least as important to AGW's eventual demise as Steve M's and our own Bish's forensic examination of the "science".
Maybe I'm just a hysterical old cynic, but I can't help suspecting that Donna's revelations about the extreme youth and inexperience of key IPCC authors may be related to her other point about the early involvement of seasoned activists in the IPCC.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/peer-into-the-heart-of-the-ipcc-find-greenpeace/
In all branches of political activism, seasoned hardliners like Hare know that their most fertile ground lies in the idealism and enthusiasm (+ lack of experience?) of the very young.
I think Donna is gradually exposing the fact that IPCC was never (and never intended to be) anything other than a sophisticated and disguised pressure group.
Maybe someone with a foot on both camps, like Richard Tol, could disabuse me of my paranoia?
From a Sari Kovats editorial in International Journal of Public Health, 2010.
Cartoon is here
www.cartoonsbyjosh.com
It may well be a blatant and insupportable conflation, or even a red herring but given Ms Kovats address at Tavistock Place and her evident involvement with the medical profession, , I wonder if there is any connection to Tavistock and Portman Mental Health trust - who were running "professional training courses" not that long ago - on identifying the newly defined mental disease of "Global Warming Scepticism"?
Yup - the clear voice of "activist science".
Sort of on/off topic
17-year-old on shortlist for eco-campaign
The 17-year-old has already helped prepare a report for the Government on the options for the future of the country's energy policy, and led his school's Environmental Action Group for three years.
Last year, he was appointed as a member of Mr Huhne's department's Youth Advisory Panel, helping to prepare the report assessing the energy options from the standpoint of the young people who will have to live with the consequences.
http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/news/17-year-old-shortlist-eco-campaign/article-3338424-detail/article.html
Josh
That's a great cartoon.
And interesting read -- While I agree with j ferguson that she may well be qualified, I disagree that it was a cheap shot. There is a very serious question being raised which was well debated above.
I do wish to point out that this is nothing new. All new scientists must one day face the economic realities of following their career. I had mine when as a Physiological Psychologist with new Ph.D. in hand I was interview at Ciba to conduct research on psychotrophic drugs -- aka -- tranquilizers. At diner, I learned that the marketing department would have a large say in my annual review and any raises. I went into computers instead. This was in the early 1970s.
However, not all follow this ethical path. Here is just the latest example lies damned lies and medical science
Donna Laframboise's investigations of the IPCC's origins prompted me to do a little reading on the subject myself.
There's an interesting site, based on Spencer Weart's book "The Discovery of Global Warming", which is clearly committed to the AGW agenda but has an interesting sub-page on the political development of the "movement":-
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/internat.htm
Reading it makes it absolutely clear IMHO that the IPCC was never set up to determine the "impartial truth" of anything - it was simply the logical continuation of a global political movement which had been gathering steam ever since the end of WW2.
Here's a flavour:-
And
Well worth a read, bearing in mind that most the history precedes the foundation of the IPCC by years.
As I've always said; it's not what you know, it's who you know.
Cronyism alive at the IPCC and in the British government.
She may be competent, who was it that deemed she was competent enough to warrant the award of a PHD?
What is she doing at the heart of the IPCC when her expertise is not relevant to the central thrust of IPCC investigation, would not, an earth sciences degree be expected at the very least, if she is going to pass and provide opinion to the main reports............but then again - NAH.
I'm sure she's is a very affable lass but, what's that got to do with AGW, more importantly who does she know and who opened the door for her????
Nice salaried work, if you can swing it and first class hotels in exotic locations - mmm nice!
I've always thought the IPCC is full of placemen and women, it's part of the UN [for God's sake!!] - the home of corruption, so no real surprise and explains execrable Stern Report too.
The IPCC may as well drop into my local, we'll give the new report a review by my peers.
@j ferguson,
Cheap shot?
I don't think so, we are not talking about some little local spat in academe here.
The IPCC reports are the bible of our dumb politicians and many of the alarmists on this and many other blogs oft quote IPCC reports, from local councils in Britain to the DoE&CC, they all assume and take the IPCC reports at face value.
These IPCC reports are relevant to us all because they impact directly upon our lives, through taxation and government energy policy. We have the right to demand the utmost integrity, honesty and clarity, none of which have been forthcoming from the IPCC.
Previous IPCC reports have been riddled with errors and gross over estimations ie, Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035.
Obviously there is much wrong in the IPCC, if Kovats was even a part of this corrupt process, then everybody has a right to question her qualifications, functions and relevance.
Cheap shot? I'm again reminded of how difficult it is to understand one's own discomfort with something read and then communicate it unequivocally. I likely failed on both points.
Of course I agree with the diminution of IPCC credibility by its inclusion of tyros and duffers among its authors. I'm not impressed that the array of authors in Edition 4 is as authoritative or even among the better of class claimed by the IPCC.
More specific knowledge of an individual, however, should be a requirement when it comes down to naming names.
Some of us seemed to suppose it impossible that this young woman could possibly do the job assigned credibly. It was this supposition, and this alone, that I was nervous about.
Even were she the "true believer" I imagine she might be, does not preclude her from competently discharging a duty which might put her name in print.
Richard Tol's observation that a 26 year-old's insight and knowledge might not be insufficient to the defense of a significant part of the IPCC pitch is clearly likely, but again, not impossible.
I assume most here would agree that speculation about alternative explanations about how she might have found her way so suddenly to the top are "cheap shots." Are they not?
"might BE insufficient" Akkkk.
J ferguson, I take your point - but an IPCC lead author is a public figure. We're entitled to question her credentials, IMHO.
To be clear there is not a thing wrong with questioning her credentials. What's wrong is the assumption that they are insufficient or she is incapable without some consideration of what her abilities actually are so far as they can be discovered. Maybe a small point.
j ferguson
What's wrong is the assumption that they are insufficient
Here I disagree with you. She had no credentials. She had published nothing, she did not have a degree. It is like a lawyer going into court who is actually not a member of the bar. In Academia, the degree is your credential. And if you happen to be a brilliant bloke who discovers something, a paper that is well received will do. What great discovery did she write about before getting her degree?
And from what I have seen from her since, she is little more than a political apparatchik.
J ferguson, there's plenty of evidence that she was not qualified enough to be a contributing then lead author. In the sense that there's a patent lack of evidence that she was. That's reason enough for people to want to speculate as to how she ended up in the role. Any other public role of this importance would attract serious scrutiny in this way.
As Richard Tol has written, this is not directly about Ms. Kovats' skills, and certainly not her gender. There were other contributing and lead IPCC authors - male and female - who were not clearly leading scientists. And who appear to have backgrounds that hint they may be activists rather than world class scientists. See Donna L's webpage. This is the issue here.
This is the core issue as pointed out by Donna:
IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri says this about how IPCC authors are selected:
There is a very careful process of selection…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 are people who are at the top of their profession as far as research is concerned in a particular aspect of climate change…you can’t think of a better set of qualified people than what we have in the IPCC.
Whatever Ms Kovats was when she was appointed as an IPPC author she did not come anywhere near these criteria.
On Pachauri: " A proven liar lies, and having lied, moves on."
Hoi Polloi
I'm a mediocre mind, but I loathe political correctness and groupthink.
Somehow I doubt it. You may not have the formal education that many of us have, but you can think for yourself. There are many with advanced degrees who don't have the intelligence to come in out of the rain or see the obvious. They are the ones with mediocre minds, not you.
It stinks like rotting fish.
http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/Suzuki+fish+story/4439810/story.html
Donna Laframboise highlights an example of Sari Kovats being referred to as "Dr Sari Kovats" before she had earned the title. Donna says "this was no doubt an innocent mistake on the part of the conference organizers".
A quick Google search reveals that there were many such innocent mistakes. A small sample:
http://www.iied.org/climate-change/key-issues/economics-and-equity-adaptation/costs-adapting-climate-change-significantly-under-estimated
http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/health-expert-impact-climate-change-needs-considered-broadly/article-167327
http://ensembles-eu.metoffice.com/RT_coordinators.html
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_27-8-2009-14-13-15