Will The British Coal Industry Get A Portion Of Nobel Prize Money?

Tim Ball's latest anti-Global Warming screed takes a bizarre turn when he starts speculating as to how the IPCC's share of the Nobel Peace Prize prize-money will get distributed:

Where is the IPCC prize money going? As an intergovernmental body, one would expect that money must be distributed between governments, or IPCC personnel, or both. Will the taxpayers who fund the IPCC receive their share?

If the money is going to the participating governments, then which ones: all of them or only those who are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol? If all of them get it, that will likely upset several ENGOs if the US received their share. And if only ‘Kyoto signatories’ then taxpayers of large IPCC contributors that are not a signatory, such as the US, have every right to be upset, especially, as much of the money comes from the US through the Department of State. Many Americans are already upset about paying the lion’s share of UN funding.

If the money is going to some IPCC personnel, then which ones and who decides the distribution? Does anybody who has worked for IPCC at any level or at any time since its inception in 1988 receive some portion? The public thinks the IPCC is “thousands of UN climate scientists” and would probably be upset if they knew that a few bureaucrats had shared the money among themselves. Please note that the bureaucrats get paid for their IPCC work--but most “UN climate scientists”, including the expert reviewers don’t, and the public don’t know that.

Do scientists who have served on the IPCC in the past get a portion or is it only those involved in the 2007 report? What about those who quit because of disagreements with the procedures, politics and methodologies? Does a larger share go to the lead authors? Is the amount received proportional to the contribution? For example, if you submit a review and it was not used, do you get paid?

The choices of the Peace Prize Committee have nothing to do with peace despite their strained intellectual claims. They could not qualify for any science category. They have pushed climate science further into the political arena where it wallows as billions are wasted. They have created bizarre circumstances for identifying and rewarding recipients, which, in a twist of fate will expose the political basis of both Mr. Gore and the IPCC, both of which masquerade as being consensus and science-driven. One expert peer reviewer in the UK is asking his Member of Parliament to determine where the prize money has gone, saying he has not had his share. You can help speed the exposure by writing to your national politician asking for your country’s share.

As a patron of the Denier's Cafe, I often have the privilege of watching Tim Ball's missives as they are being put together. The expert peer reviewer Mr. Ball refers to is none other than Richard S. Courtney, Technical Editor for CoalTrans International, and once PR. Guy for British Coal. In fact, Ball's article was directly inspired by Mr. Courtney's letter, which was e-mailed several days ago to the climate skeptic list. Excerpts follow:

Dear Ms Goldsworthy:

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday. I am your constituent (I live at 88 Longfield, Falmouth) and I share the Nobel Peace Prize with all others who have participated in production of the IPCC scientific reports.

I am writing to you, my Member of Parliament, to request that you determine how the Nobel Peace Prize money is to be or has been distributed.

[...]

If the money is going to some IPCC personnel then which ones and who decides the distribution?

The public thinks the IPCC is "thousands of UN climate scientists" and would probably be upset if they knew that a few beaurocrats had shared the money among themselves. Please note that the beaurocrats get paid for their IPCC work but most "UN climate scientists" (e.g. expert peer reviewers) don't.

In fact, Mr. Courtney DID work as an "expert peer reviewer" for the IPCC though, as Tim Lambert pointed out, so could anyone. As a matter of fact, it would be interesting to scroll through the entire Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report Review Comments to get an idea of Mr. Courtney's contributions. Many deniers who served in this capacity used the opportunity to flood the report with negative comments (often over 100 per denier), so as to give the impression of significant dissent from the consensus.

And it would be hilarious, though twisted, if some of the IPCC prize money went to keep Mr. Courtney's magazine, the journal of the international coal trading industry, stocked in paper-clips and ink.

Still Waiting, Tom

Dear Tom Harris,

I see you have had time to fire off a letter asking that the Senate block Bill C-288 (the Kyoto Implementation Act), but you still haven't answered my challenge.

Specifically, you claimed that:

The vast majority of the [600 scientists involved in the IPCC report]...would not have...endorsed, the executive summary.

And I have asked you to produce at least names, or even better, statements from this "vast majority" of doubters. You have not thus far replied.

Now, some of the folks at FreeDominion.ca have suggested Chris Landsea and Roger Pielke on your behalf, and it is true these two men have in the past had difficulties with the process of writing the IPCC report. However, neither questions the IPCC consensus and, more importantly, neither has been involved with the organization for over a year.

So they don't count and we are still stuck at zero.

I truly hope that you are using all this time to marshal your evidence, for it seems to me that neither the Canadian Senate nor the 1,300 media figures you claim to have sent your release to will be impressed if all your doubting scientists turn out to be invisible scientists who will speak only with you.

So come on, Tom, present your case or retract your statement! Are you a Man of Science, or a Girly-Man of Science?

Tom Harris Questions The Concensus

The NRSP is an Alberta-based anti-global warming astroturf group. Their leader, Tom Harris, hangs out occasionally at Free Dominion, where he fundraises and throws raw meat to the Trogs. Yesterday, he wrote:

Only 600 scientists (of the tens of thousands of climate and climate related scientists who COULD have been involved) were involved in writing parts of the technical report (namely the 1500 page main science document), a document we will not see until May. Among those 600, only 30 were involved in writing the draft of the executive summary, the final version of which (i.e. the SPM released on Feb 2) being assembled by government bureaucrats and representatives of industry and environmental organizations. The vast majority of those 600, many of whom disagree with each other on various significant science elements of the issue (as we will see for sure in May but as we have seen in all past technical reports), would not have seen, let alone endorsed, the executive summary. Among the thousands of scientists who reviewed the IPCC documents, many disagree with them entirely (let alone the summary which would be even more flawed in their opinion, I am sure).

From all I can tell, there is no consensus about the causes of the past century’s modest warming or future climate change, cooling and warming, either within the small fraction of world climate-related scientists who actually take part in the IPCC’s work, or in the general body of scientists who work in the field. The IPCC is an exclusive club that pre-selects its participants and then screens the input these participants give. The notion of consensus in this field is a myth.

So lets end the speculation, shall we Tom? I challenge you to produce names and/or, even better, statements by any among the group of 600 scientists involved in writing the technical report, or the 30 involved in writing its executive summary, who would be willing to challenge the overall conclusions in either.

Yours (anxiously waiting),

BigCityLib

Another Species Of Denial

As part of the official U.S. response to the IPCC report on Global Warming, the Bush administration is demanding that scientists scientists to develop technology to create a "global parasol" and block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming. Ideas include injecting sulphur particles into the atmosphere and launching a giant reflecting mirror. In yesterday's U.K. Gaurdian, George Monbiot dissects these proposals (bolding is mine):

Every scheme that could give us a chance of preventing runaway climate change should be considered on its merits. But the proposals for building a global parasol don't have very many. A group of nuclear weapons scientists at the Lawrence Livermore laboratory in California, apparently bored of experimenting with only one kind of mass death, have proposed launching into the atmosphere a million tonnes of tiny aluminium balloons, filled with hydrogen, every year. One unfortunate side-effect would be to eliminate the ozone layer.

Another proposal, from a scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, Colorado, suggests spraying billions of tonnes of sea-water into the air. Regrettably, the production of small salt particles, while generating obscuring mists, could cause droughts in the countries downwind. Another scheme would inject sulphate particles into the stratosphere. It is perhaps less dangerous than the others, but still carries a risk of causing changes in rainfall patterns. As for flipping a giant mirror into orbit, the necessary technologies are probably a century away. All these fixes appear more expensive than cutting the amount of energy we consume. None reduces the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which threatens to acidify the oceans, with grave consequences for the food chain.

[...]

Instead of trying to persuade us that man-made global warming is a myth,[the Bush administration and the oil companies] are seeking to divert us into doing everything except the one thing that has to happen: reducing our consumption of fuel. It is another species of denial.

George Bush's purpose - to insulate these companies from the need to cut production - is unchanged. He has simply found a new way of framing the argument.

I fear that in the Canadian context, specifically in the context of employing nuclear power to clean up the tar sands, the Harper government is engaged in a similar diversionary campaign, since under the most favorable circumstances ( a smooth approvals process; no local opposition to the plan in Fort McMurray or surrounding towns ), construction would not likely begin for another decade.

That's ten years of sitting around and doing nothing but pollute.