Notes From A Proud Global Warming Skeptic (part 5)
[posted by Justin Levine]
I am admittedly confused about one thing: Why is ‘compromise‘ over language necessary when there is supposedly ‘consensus’? That’s ok. Whatever the ultimate outcome is – we can rest assured knowing that it is ‘science’. They just apparently need to meet behind closed doors and warn their people ‘not to divulge details of the negotiations’ in order to determine what the ‘science’ is. Obviously. Doesn’t seem political at all.
More global warming ‘science’ being reported here.
Hundreds of scientists struggled to find compromise wording Thursday on a landmark report set to declare that climate change is already discernible and could wreak devastation to human settlement and wildlife this century.
Grouped in national delegations, the climate specialists remained huddled in a European Commission conference room late into the night, hammering out the document’s all-important summary for policy makers — a guideline for government action — only hours before its scheduled release Friday morning.
Several sharp disagreements impeded progress, one Western delegate said.
Whereas Europeans sought to include stronger language and hard numbers warning about the dangers of global warming, the United States favored general statements about trends, he said.
“The Europeans want to send a strong signal. The US does not want as much quantification,” he said during a break in the negotiations, which have been underway since Monday.
China and Russia, he continued, have sought to excise some passages from the summary asserting that climate change had already had negative effects around the globe, arguing that the data in the 1,400 word main study is not solid enough to be included in the key policy document.
Now that sounds exactly like the kind of science I learned about in school – free from political considerations and biases…Can’t wait to read this ‘scientific’ report.
As the AP noted in the first link above –
The entire final draft report, obtained last week by The Associated Press, has 20 chapters, supplements, two summaries and totals 1,572 pages. This week’s wrangling is just over the 21-page summary for policymakers.
That reminds me – This all has to do with the WG2 section of the IPCC report. Did the final draft report ever come out on the WG1 section of the IPCC report? I can find the (“scientific”) ‘summary for policymakers’ that was written by political elements, but I have never found the actual report from the scientists themselves. Can anyone point me in the right direction here? Has it even come out??
Also from the AP account –
There is little dispute about the science, although some disagree about their confidence in the research.
I’ll admit that I have absolutely no idea what this sentence even means. There is ‘disagreement about the confidence in the research’ but at the same time there is ‘little dispute about the science’??? I guess I’m a scientific idiot in this regard. Would somebody like to attempt to enlighten me here?
[As is often the case – I can’t guarantee that I will always have the time to respond to all comments (even those worth responding to). But I will make a serious attempt to read them all and welcome them as further proof of the evolving ‘consensus’ over this issue.]
Um… because this is a government document, not a scientific one? If you are looking for a lie, try finding the obvious one.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 4/5/2007 @ 11:40 pmJustin, let me assure you, there is a scientific idiot involved with this report, but it ain’t you.
papertiger (b56000) — 4/6/2007 @ 12:55 amKevin Murphy –
I’m admittedly looking for the ‘scientific’ document from the IPCC as opposed to the ‘political’ one. Can you link to it? I have never been able to find it.
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 4/6/2007 @ 12:59 amScientific Consensus…
As noted by Justin Levine over at Patterico and as reported by the BBC, and others, the “scientific consensus” on global warming is being held up by political haggling. As Justin comments sarcastically:
Now that sounds exactly like the kind of sci…
L'Ombre de l'Olivier (59ce3a) — 4/6/2007 @ 1:06 amThe reports on global warming coming out of IPCC and other bodies are like that scene in “Alice In Wonderland”: conclusions first; facts later.
The climate militants are determined to control society and the economy using global warmism as the key. Marxism didn’t work, so instead of making people afraid of capitalism, they seek to make us afraid of the planet itself.
barry in co (f397dc) — 4/6/2007 @ 2:17 amThat’s why they’re called watermelons: Green on the outside, Red on the inside.
SDN (1d2568) — 4/6/2007 @ 3:54 amJustin,
It hasn’t been released yet. They’re still revising it to match the political statement. No, I’m not kidding.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 4/6/2007 @ 3:56 amPlease explain to me the politics as you see them of those who are worried about global warming and of those who are not. Please explain why I should trust flacks for the Petroleum Institute any more than scientists from the Tobacco Institute?
In your opinion does smoking cause cancer?
AF (c319c8) — 4/6/2007 @ 5:36 amWeb Reconnaissance for 04/06/2007…
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention….
The Thunder Run (59ce3a) — 4/6/2007 @ 6:18 amThe FACTS are not important. What we want the MEAN is the important thing here.
Facts tainted by their source are, of course, discarded – as long as the source is center-right. Allegations brought forth by the left are, of course, equal to facts.
steve miller (18030e) — 4/6/2007 @ 6:31 amthe MEAN == them to MEAN
my pardons…either not enough coffee or too much
steve miller (18030e) — 4/6/2007 @ 6:32 amJustin,
I have not watched that GW documentary yet, but will this weekend. And I’ll get back to you once I’ve seen it.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 4/6/2007 @ 7:21 amScientific commentary by a lawyer. What’s next, a commentary on nuclear fusion by massage therapists?
Hth (49e27a) — 4/6/2007 @ 7:35 amI’m admittedly looking for the ’scientific’ document from the IPCC as opposed to the ‘political’ one. Can you link to it? I have never been able to find it.
You are wildly missing my point. The lie is where they call their report scientific. You accept that whopper, then hang scientists with the result. Why not just note politicians are liars and end it there?
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 4/6/2007 @ 8:05 amA four year old could smash holes in the IPCC reports.
Taltos (c99804) — 4/6/2007 @ 12:47 pmwho you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?
assistant devil's advocate (c19179) — 4/6/2007 @ 1:26 pmDoes smoking cause cancer?
AF (c319c8) — 4/6/2007 @ 4:06 pmYes or No
Justin:
You can find a leaked version of the full (draft) report here:
http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/
Keep in mind that the IPCC procedures document says, “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.”
There is truly frightening stuff in it. Randomly selecting a chapter, in the first paragraph I find that there has been “an average warming of the upper 3000m of the world ocean by 0.037 degrees C” (~0.06 degrees F) in the period 1955-1998. (And remember 1955 was in a cooling trend and 1998 was an unusually hot year.)
Curt (7e48cc) — 4/6/2007 @ 4:37 pmNo actually, but certain carcinogens found in processed tobbacco do.
There are many things you can smoke with no real risk of cancer.
Taltos (c99804) — 4/6/2007 @ 8:42 pmKevin Murphy:
Regarding comment # 14 – The reason I find it perfectly reasonable to hang scientists with the political report is because the scientists are WILLINGLY ALLOWING politicians to speak for them when it comes to climate change. At the same time, they have REFUSED to release their full reports thus far. That’s why. Why on earth do they even need this political process? Why do they even need a ‘summary for policy makers’? Why not just release the full report and let it speak for itself? If there is disagrement on the science itself – why not release a report that states all points of view (with a ‘minority report’ etc.). Many scientists are clearly enjoying and encouraging the recent hysterical press accounts of climate change. So I don’t feel that you can honestly seperate the science from the politics at this point – and the scientists have only themselves to blame in this instance.
Justin Levine (15239d) — 4/7/2007 @ 12:10 amCurt –
Thanks very much for comment # 18 and the corresponding link. Very useful.
“[A]n average warming of the upper 3000m of the world ocean by 0.037 degrees C” (~0.06 degrees F) in the period 1955-1998.” 6/100ths of a degree increase over 43 years…Scary stuff indeed!
Justin Levine (15239d) — 4/7/2007 @ 12:14 amSteven Milloy of JunkScience.com:
“When the Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970, air pollution in the U.S. was more of an aesthetic than a public health problem.”
Criticizing reports on second hand smoke while being a paid flack for R.J. Reynolds.
Also employed by the Petroleum Institute.
“Fox News was unaware of Milloy’s connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed.”
Follow that last link. It’s a hoot.
AF (c319c8) — 4/7/2007 @ 6:28 amAL GORE the blabbering pathetic hypotcrit and know nothing this blabbering nit wit produces more HOT AIR just by keeping his big fat piehole flapping
krazy kagu (79fc72) — 4/7/2007 @ 6:41 amAF #22:
When somebody as bad as Milloy is acting better than the IPCC — that is, publishing the underlying report that the released summary is based on, so people can see what is behind the assertions — what does that say about the IPCC?
Curt (5433b1) — 4/7/2007 @ 7:08 amkrazy i think you would be amused by the a tobacco institute’s attempt to use their “science” versus Gore’s entertainment to talk about climate change.
attempt to use their science
Trevor (7e874b) — 4/7/2007 @ 10:06 am“Why is ‘compromise‘ over language necessary when there is supposedly ‘consensus’?”
Because countries want to protect their financial interests. Shouldn’t someone have written that in a comment by now? I’m too lazy.
AF (c319c8) — 4/7/2007 @ 7:47 pmglobal warming is becoming such a obvious problem that someone somewhere other than Al Gore needs to step up to help drive the bus!
global warming (c1135b) — 8/19/2007 @ 5:46 amI have the book ECO-FREAKS its got a lot of truth the fact is BIRDS HAVE DIED BECUASE RACHEAL CARSON LIED and TREES CUASE POLUTION so STOP POLUTION DO MORE LOGGING and SCREW TREE HUGGERS and AL GORE IS A HYPOTCRIT I AM KRAZY KAGU IM LIVING IN NEW CALADONEA AND THE ECO-WACKOS ARE DRIVING ME NUTS SQUAWK SQUAWK TREE HUGGERS GO HOME SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK
Krazy Kagu (809aa7) — 9/5/2008 @ 8:30 am