Re: [asa] Continued Manipulation of the IPCC Reports

On 4/9/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> 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.
>

I have had it with the tail wagging the dog. If the "edits" consisted of
removing the lower confidence science then this would all be well and good.
The problem for the so-called critics with this last report is that if you
remove all the medium confidence conclusions and kept the high ones, then
all the positive effects of global warming go away. The edits I am concerned
is removing the reference to high confidence (or in this case very high
confidence) conclusions.

There is no convincing the so-called critics. Even when pushed into a corner
they will manipulate the science beyond all recognition instead of acceding
to the truth. This gets us back to the purpose of the IPCC SPM's. The
documents are to give responsible policy makers information so that they can
make good decisions. In this case, the responsible policy makers won't know
that certain things were very high confidence in order to appease the
unappeasable and is politically unnecessary because the deniers are losing
big time. There is now a critical mass that believe what the scientists are
saying. It's taken decades but slowly but surely the case has been made. As
you can see, I don't have a real problem with conservatism in science. I do
have a problem with deliberate manipulation of that conservatism even when
it is so clumsy and ineffective as it is now. So, I don't worry about the
political debate. The debate over the science is over and the debate over
policy will not include the deniers because they have totally shot all their
credibility. No need for a scientific coup here or Toccata and Fugue in D
Minor.

Here's what we should be worrying about. The credibility of Christians is
hitting an all-time low with scientists because many tied their reputations
to the deniers after tying their reputations to YEC. (I find the causality
between these two things unclear but there is definitely a correlation.)
You will recall the latest issue with a poster that questioned how
semiconductor were manufactured. Information from the Internet trumps that I
have twenty five years of experience in the industry and Randy Isaac was a
VP of systems, science and technology at IBM's TJ Watson Research Center.
It's that kind of megalomania that gives a low view of Christians by
scientists. Expertise is built by years of hard work and not from an
Internet connection. We respect the confidence built by the former but we
disrespect the empty egotism of the latter.

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 16:34:01 2007