You may ask what qualifies Dave to be an IPCC "Expert Reviewer"? Turns out, he doesn't need any qualification, just enough interest to sign up with the IPCC. As Tim Lambert explained “Expert reviewer for the IPCC” doesn't mean that they asked him to review material – all it means is that he asked to see the draft report. The only real requirement to be a reviewer is to sign an agreement not to publicly comment on the draft.” (see http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/09/you-too-can-be-a-leading-clima/) - or to be formal:
1. First Order Draft: Expert Review
… Experts who have not received an invitation but would like to review the draft are able to advise the Working Group Technical Support Units of this. Expert reviewers are issued with a username and password to access the first order drafts online.- See more at: https://www.nzclimatechangecentre.org/ipcc/expert_review#sthash.lMdGC94d.dpuf
N. Scafetta, “Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications”. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72, 951–970 (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015 http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
Then come the Lists.
Dave has put together one of those lists of scientific papers that purport to show that sea level rise is a myth. But, it includes such familiar red flags as Morner and Scafetta. It also included studies where the authors don't imply what Dave claims they do, more on that in another post.
Then he recommends good ol' Poptech's list of confusion. Obviously, Dave has a very low opinion of scientists and the state of science, going so far as to quote John Christy:“What passes for science includes opinion, arguments-from-authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by preselected groups. This is not science.” (Sept. 20, 2012). The irony is that from looking over Sealevel.info, this is a perfect assessment of what it offers up, self-certain arguments from assumed authority, dramatic rhetoric, and a display of faux science in an echo-chamber that ignores tons of available information.
I figure it's only right that I share this list of papers that will link folks to detailed reviews and critiques of such boilerplate arguments that folks like Dave Burton aka ncdave4life bandy about. Reviews by genuine experts who understand the science and who are into learning - rather that hell bent on preserving a political persuasion. Although you can find a simpler, yet substantive, review of science contrarian myths at: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy