Another one bites the dust

"Vincent Gray, RIP: On May 14, we lost...", says SEPP at WUWT (forgive me for slumming). I did wonder if I'd not been paying attention but no, this is simple incompetence: his real date of death is June the 14th. Ken Happala has clearly been smokin' the wacky baccy, claiming Gray singularly fought the IPCC for using the term predictions... Gray won. The IPCC uses the term “projections.”. The IPCC does indeed use the word "projections", but that's f*ck all to do with Gray.

But as with previous advances in science, the sad point is all that is missing. Gray's career, his science if any? No-one gives a toss, certainly not SEPP: Born in London in 1922, Gray received his PhD from the University of Cambridge in Chemistry. He later moved to New Zealand where he became Chief Chemist of the Coal Research Association, publishing many articles and reports. After retirement, he and his wife lived in China for four years. Upon return to New Zealand, Gray became a critic of the view that carbon dioxide emissions are causing harmful global warming... "publishing many articles and reports" - ha. Just what were those articles and reports? Absolutely no-one cares.

Looking back, I can't see that I had much cause to comment on Gray other than some incredulity at the incompetence of his denialism.


* I've used the title before.



The utilitarian question is whether he's still good to go as a burnt offfering to the fire goddess ?


Andy Mitchell said...

I'm still trying to figure out why "projections" rather than "predictions" is a singular victory. Mystic Meg makes predictions too.

William M. Connolley said...

The IPCC used to be keen on only saying "projections" because they disclaimed the idea that they were predicting anything. Here's me caring about the distinction but only a little bit.

For example the IPCC glossary sez

Climate projection A projection of the response of the climate system to emission or concentration scenarios of greenhouse gases and aerosols, or radiative forcing scenarios, often based upon simulations by climate models. Climate projections are distinguished from climate predictions in order to emphasize that climate projections depend upon the emission/concentration/ radiative forcing scenario used, which are based on assumptions
concerning, for example, future socioeconomic and technological developments that may or may not be realised and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty.


Since models are not things, the Metaphysically Correct term may be 'prognostications'.

dave said...

Russell, re burnt offering.....
"Cannibals Whose Superstitious Fear Caused Them to Offer Human Sacrifice to the God of "Smoking Mountain" " – 

is that a reference to Big Tobacco and the Climate Wars?


It's a two pipe question, Dave , as we are friends to superstitious fears everywhere , but guardians only of our own.