Re: [asa] Continued Manipulation of the IPCC Reports

Rich, I'm not really getting where you're going with the meme that
politicians are manipulating the IPCC reports. It seems counterproductive
to your cause. One of the glories of the IPCC reports is supposed to be
that they reflect such a very broad consensus --- both scientifically and
politically. Critics of the IPCC reports argue that the science is biased
towards alarmism because of the internal politics of the scientific
community. For the scientists to be able to say, "yeah, but even after you
run our stuff through the meat grinder of international politics, you end up
with something pretty alarming," is a powerful response to that criticism.
But for the scientists instead to complain that their strongest language was
toned down in the political process sounds rather like whining. Worse than
that, it starts to sound like a bit of megalomania -- sweep the politicians
out of office and let the mad scientists rule the world -- bwaahahahaha (cue
lightning and ominous Bach organ sounds)! Ok, that last bit is a tad silly,
but in my mind this does start to call into question the objectivity of the
science in the first instance.

The glory of a broad consensus-seeking political process is precisely that
extremes tend to get toned down and precipitous action tends to get tabled.
Lead with a strength -- the IPCC reports, even after the influence of
skeptical regimes such as the U.S. and China, demand firm action to combat
warming -- and even skeptics have to give some ground. Lead with whines
about the fact that the political process you agreed to participate in isn't
giving you all the results you want, and you give the skeptics and cynics
ammunition.

On 4/8/07, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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 Mon Apr 9 09:21:22 2007