The world’s most influential climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri speaks

Did I really write that headline above? I'm quoting Crikey "IPCC chief calls for ‘sane voices’ in local climate debate". Can I take it that other climate scientists are less influential, perhaps even less qualified than Rajendra "in 35 years" Pachauri? I should point out here that no climate scientist is less qualified than R35P, I'm certainly not less qualified than R35P, even Barack Obama isn't less qualified on climate than R35P. The latter (I prefer to call him that), is, or rather was, a railway engineer, and he's been active in derailing climate science since he sold his tools on eBay. He might have a view on climate, or sea-level, or why NY subway managers decided to park most of their trains on low-lying land close to the wet stuff just before Sandy did what storms do best. BUT he's not the one to consult on climate, or sea-level, and most certainly not on glaciers. I was going to include Crikey's charming pic of the "world’s most influential climate scientist" but just couldn't force myself to upload it to Picasa. Crikey says

As The Australian claims sea level rise is not linked to global warming, the world’s most influential climate scientist has called on “sane and rational voices” to speak out and correct the record.

More than 250 scientists have gathered in Hobart today for a summit of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN’s climate science body. The Oz marked the summit’s opening with a front-page “exclusive” story which claimed there was “no link” between sea level rises and global warming.

I used to have a (relatively) high opinion of John Church, despite his employment by Australia's CSIRO but now he's gone full denial on his co-authored paper I quoted from recently.

The Australian has long run a sceptical line on climate change, particularly in its opinion pages. Today’s story, written by environment editor Graham Lloyd, relied on a paper co-authored by Australian scientist Dr John Church. The paper apparently “said it could not link climate change and the rate of sea level rises in the 20th century”.

But Church, a sea level expert with the CSIRO, told a media conference today that was not an accurate description of the paper.

“So sea level clearly is linked to climate change, it is clearly linked to increases in greenhouse gases, and that’s actually in the paper which was quoted by The Australian. So the quote is, I’m sorry, inaccurate,” said Church, a co-ordinating lead author with the IPCC.

(Sigh) I just have to quote the last sentence from the paper's abstract again. This is getting tedious.

Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.

There's more -

While The Australian claimed the paper had found no increase in the rate of sea level rise, Church said the paper showed the rate of sea level rise had increased between the 18th and 19th centuries, and research showed a further acceleration of the rate during the 20th century.

OTOH, the abstract plainly states

The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing.

So we now have "further acceleration" meaning "greater than that in the 18th and 19th centuries", and "small or no acceleration" to reconcile also.

If Church is to be believed, he is therefore co-author of a paper, the abstract of which is at odds with the content on two key findings. Perhaps the abstract (summary) was written well before the paper (IPCC-style). Perhaps the author of the abstract wasn't present at team meetings (IPCC-style). Perhaps the journal editor is a closet sceptic, altered the abstract, and is now gleefully rubbing his hands as he plans his next derailment. Perhaps someone is being economical with the truth.