Re: [asa] Continued Manipulation of the IPCC Reports

Faced with overwhelming evidence and consensus, the few remaining
global warming deniers have gone into a personal attack mode. For
instance Gray is accusing Al Gore of being an alarmist.

However, as the evidence suggests
(http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/links/hurricanes.htm) there seem to
indeed be links between global warming and hurricanes.

<quote>
Hurricanes & Climate Change

Hurricane Isabel, Infrared Satellite Closeup

What the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says (from
Working Group I Report, Summary for Policy Makers [PDF] (2007):

      About the past: "There is observational evidence for an increase
of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about
1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures.
There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone
activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are
greater. Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical
cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970
complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone
activity. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical
cyclones."

About the future: "Based on a range of models, it is likely that
future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more
intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation
associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs. There is less
confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical
cyclones. The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense
storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated by
current models for that period."

</quote>

Gore has awakened a nation to the impending dangers of global warming.
For that he surely deserves some recognition and perhaps even a Nobel
Prize.

On 4/9/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know about ARN, but what I've observed on UD is that there is one
> very vocal editor there who is exceeding skeptical not only of global
> warming but of anything else relating to the scientific "establishment" and
> who is on top of that so far politically libertarian-right that he almost
> comes back out on the left again. The anti-scientific-establishment angle
> seems to draw lots of things out of the woodwork, including perhaps more
> YEC-leaning readers, and fits in with the whole
> ID-as-persecuted-band-of-brothers feeling. But this is
> just my observation based on limited interactions on UD, and might be
> completely off base.
>
>
> On 4/9/07, Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Can anyone explain to me why ARN and Uncommon Descent seem to be so
> negative to global warming?
> >
> > Does one have to be anti-environment to be ID?
> >
> > This is a matter of very serious concern when we consider the stuff
> peddled by Beisner et al
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Rich Blinne
> > To: David Opderbeck
> > Cc: asa
> > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 9:33 PM
> > Subject: 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 Tue Apr 10 00:45:10 2007