[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.]