I'm a Nobel Prize Winner

[kgrandia]

Someone just commented on the site I manage that a notorious climate skeptic (who has no background in climate science) is now saying that he is a Nobel Prize winner and shares the prize with Al Gore and the IPCC scientists. He makes the claim because he was a reviewer on the latest IPCC report. Wow.

Here's the guy and his article: http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22430.

His name is Christopher Monckton.

Here's the punchline - almost anyone can be a reviewer of the IPCC documents. I was a reviewer, I was nominated by the chair of the IPCC. I spent about 10 hours reviewing the documents from a communications point of view - sent in a few comments and was done with it. To call myself a Nobel Laureate would be ABSOLUTELY INSANE. It also would show a total lack of respect for the scientists who have dedicated their lives to figuring out how to avoid the climate crisis our planet is facing.

[XemaSab]

1. Wow... congratulations!

So the next time I'm having a stupid argument with a friend, can I, like, PM you and get you to take my side of it?

That'd be great! Thanks!

[kgrandia]

5. Sure

But it probably won't help much!!

[XemaSab]

6. Cool!

:bounce:

[hvn_nbr_2]

2. Put his Nobel statue on the mantel beside O'Loofa's Pulitzer. nt

[Nederland]

3. Almost anyone can be a reviewer of the IPCC documents?

That doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy...

(BTW, I agree, the claim is ridiculous, regardless of how easy it is)

[kgrandia]

4. Its not that easy

Might have overstated - but at the same time the UN is all about inclusion, sometimes to a fault.

[Howzit]

9. Is this what they mean by "peer reviewed"? N/T

[JohnWxy]

7. I think his intension may be to diminish Al Gore's recognition. He's a shmuck.

[Indenturedebtor]

8. I served dinner to a multi-millionaire once

He didn't tip, but by extension am I rich now and just haven't noticed all this time? :wow:

[Howzit]

10. He sounds like another rocket scientist

In the 8th paragraph of http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId... Monckton states:

"At the very heart of the IPCC’s calculations lurks an error more serious than any of these. The IPCC says: “The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005).” Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5percent higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold."

I hope he is lying about this too?