On 2/16/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> But none of the above has much to do with the recent paper on the water
> flows under the Antarctic ice sheet. I don't see the IPCC suddenly saying
> "uh-oh!" about this at all. From what I've seen, this sort of thing
> justifies the IPCC's caution about making strong predictions relating to ice
> melt. Curiously, it's the folks who like to natter on about the
> independence of the IPCC and the authority of consensus who are now
> suggesting the IPCC faced political pressure to dull its warnings!
>
They didn't say uh-oh. I did. You're right. Both extremes are complaining
about the IPCC. Maybe they are doing something right. :-) BTW, I agree with
you that it is altogether appropriate to not include this in the IPCC report
because they should only include established science and this is far from
established. It speaks well of the IPCC that they did precisely that despite
all of us natterers on the sidelines. I do find it amusing that Janice
considers conclusions from the suspect glacier and sea level models
authorative while more proven models are suspect. To hear what the
researchers said in their own words listen to this. I think you will agree
that they are more dispassionate about the science than I have been so far.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7445126
Rich,
The Uh-oh Guy
That's my job: find problems and break things
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 16 15:23:21 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 16 2007 - 15:23:21 EST