Re: [asa] Why the opposition to global warming

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Feb 06 2007 - 09:26:06 EST

On 2/5/07, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/5/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Rich, generally I think I hear what you're saying, but is this: Have said
> document approved by the same policymakers, proving that they "get it" by
> approving the summary which addresses them line by line -- really a fair
> summary of the IPCC process?
> >
> > From what I've been able to read and understand of the process, the line
> between what the scientists and policymakers are saying through IPCC seems
> much more fluid and dynamic to me. It hardly seems that the IPCC process is
> led by purely disinterested people of science without political inclinations
> or overtones. This isn't to suggest in any way that the scientists involved
> are corrupt or part of a conspiracy, or that the science is wrong. But
> let's be honest -- the IPCC reports necessarily are hybrid political /
> scientific documents. It just isn't credible to claim otherwise.

This comment got me looking to see what actually happened at AR4. Sure
enough, as you thought I did find political manipulation, but it
wasn't the U.S. delegation -- which was almost universally praised as
being constructive. Note the following from a reporter from New
Scientist:

<quote>Yet that seems to have been the approach of the Chinese
delegation at last week's 5-day deliberations on the summary of the
IPCC report.

Talking to the scientists who contributed to the report, I found that
not just one, but several used words like "cooperative" and even
"constructive" when referring to the US delegation's work during the
week prior to the release. They were only a little more hesitant to
say that as much as the US had been helpful, the Chinese had not.

One delegate told me they spent 10 hours discussing one sentence,
which was eventually dropped from the report on request of the Chinese
delegation. The dropped sentence noted that the warming effect of
man-made greenhouse gasses was five times that of solar irradiance a
fact that climate sceptics have used in the past to argue that changes
in the climate are due to natural factors. A bar graph, still in the
report (see left) [RDB Note: SPM Figure SPM-2 page 16. Solar forcing
was cited as 0.12 W m-2, with a one sigma range of .06 to .30. CO2 was
1.66 W m-2 with a one sigma range of 1.49 to 1.83. So, the report's
description below of 10X was accurate.], suggests human factors may in
fact be 10 times more important than solar activity.

Another bone of contention was the sentence saying that human
activities were "very likely" responsible for warming global
temperatures. China and Saudi Arabia asked that "very likely" (90%
probability) be replaced by "likely" (66%) - effectively keeping the
same conclusion as the last IPCC report, in 2001.

The suggestion was resisted by New Zealand, UK, Norway, Switzerland,
Argentina, US, France, Canada, Australia, Germany, Austria, Japan,
Kenya, Sweden, *and* the scientists. Not much of a chance of winning
there, then. As a consolation prize, a footnote was added:
"consideration of remaining uncertainty is based on current
methodologies." (I leave it to you to decide what that means.)
[emphasis in the original]</quote>

So, Janice was right. The socialists were trying manipulate the
science! I am a little hazy on my geography but doesn't Saudi Arabia
have a certain natural resource? It escapes me this morning. Let's sum
up the leftist political manipulation of the science:

1. Deny that solar irradiance is less than five times smaller than the
human component.
2. Deny that we are 90% sure that global warming is caused by humans.

So, Janice, do we have common ground here in opposing this political
manipulation of science by the leftists?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 6 09:27:01 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 06 2007 - 09:27:01 EST