[asa] Continued Manipulation of the IPCC Reports

On Apr 8, 2007, at 6:13 PM, PvM wrote:

> Global warming's effects seem to be
> worse than expected, and even worse than reported by the IPCC, whose
> reports look pretty bleak.

There is a reason why warming is worse than the IPCC reports because
last week, yet again, there is manipulation of the science by the
politicians. The original authors of the report said prior to the
politicians getting ahold of it:

>
>
> These studies have allowed a broader and more confident assessment
> of the relationship between observed
> warming and impacts than was made in the Third Assessment. That
> Assessment concluded that “there is
> high confidence that recent regional changes in temperature have
> had discernible impacts on many physical
> and biological systems”.
>
> From the current Assessment we conclude the following.
>
> Based on observed evidence there is very high confidence from all
> continents and most oceans that many
> natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes,
> particularly
> temperature increases.

This was changed due to manipulation of the science by the U.S. and
China. China was more culpable here and wanting the word "very"
struck. The U.S. proposed the following compromise language that was
adopted:

> Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows
> that many
> natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes,
> particularly
> temperature increases.

Yet, the WH Office of Science and Technology said the following about
the confidence statements:

> And in this summary document there was a lot of care taken by all
> of the nations involved in the discussion to make sure that the
> certainty statements in this document - whether scientists felt
> they had medium certainty or high certainty or very high certainty
> about different projected impacts - were accurately reflected.
How can it be accurately reflected if removed altogether? This is at
the same time as the Pres. said the following:

> We could pass any number of measures that are now being discussed
> in the Congress, but unless there is an accord with China, China
> will produce greenhouse gases that will offset anything we do.
We are really holding their feet to the fire there. The U.S. also got
the second sentence in the following passage struck, again allowing
China to weasel out. The administration makes it sound likes it is us
versus China but we seem to be real cozy with them here.

> However, adaptation alone is not expected to cope with all the
> projected effects of climate change, and especially not over the
> long run as most impacts increase in magnitude. Mitigation measures
> will therefore also be required .
This underscores what Jim Hansen has been saying all along. It's not
Jim Hansen vs. the scientists. It's Jim Hansen vs. the politicians of
China, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. The AP reported it this way:

> In the past, scientists at these meetings felt that their warnings
> were conveyed, albeit slightly edited down. But several of them
> left Friday with the sense that they had lost control of their
> document.
>
> At one point, NASA’s Cynthia Rosenzweig filed a formal protest and
> left the building, only to return, make peace and talk in positive
> tones. Others talked about abandoning the process altogether.
>
> “There was no split in the science — they were all mad,” said John
> Coequyt, who observed the closed-door negotiations.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 8 23:35:38 2007