Re: [asa] Continued Manipulation of the IPCC Reports

My Suggestions come from what I read on ARN UD and DI stuff. Also there is the link with YEC eg comments on AIG and ICR websites.

As for Beisner I had not heard of him until a year ago and am frankly appalled.

There is also the linkage of evolution and junk science.

However the stance of several in NAE eg Cizik is very encouraging and I think Haggard was both YEC and convinced of global warming.

Perhaps it would be good to get more YEC and ID types concerned for the environment, even if they don't accept our junk science!

Michael

PS I took a funeral at a crematorium in Blackpool today of a total non-church member. My "sermon" was a basic explanation of the hymns chosen The Lords my shepherd and How great thou art. There's a lot there.
In the car park was a 1953/4 Cadillac in excellent condition

----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: Michael Roberts
  Cc: Rich Blinne ; asa
  Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 10:33 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Continued Manipulation of the IPCC Reports

  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 18:01:29 2007