Didn't hear about this? Well, how could you? Nobody reported it!There's a frikkin' surprise!
Posted on 06/30/2007 7:42:57 AM PDT by DEEP_e
IPCC Scientists Challenge Al Gore’s View of Global Warming Consensus Posted by Noel Sheppard on June 29, 2007 - 13:36.
The chinks in the armor that is a supposed scientific consensus regarding man’s role in global warming continued to grow this week when it was identified that many of the folks involved in the most recent report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were not in agreement with the study’s findings.
Didn't hear about this? Well, how could you? Nobody reported it!
In fact, what you also didn't hear or read due to the media's universal eschewing of this information was that many of the views expressed in the IPCC’s report go quite contrary to assertions regularly being made by the very press outlets not covering this new revelation and the Global Warmingist-in-Chief, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore.
Think maybe that's why it's not being reported?
Regardless of the answer, the Heartland Institute, a non-partisan social and economic think tank, issued the following press release concerning this matter Friday (emphasis added throughout):
On June 28, in an historic move the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released the expert review comments and responses to its latest assessment of the science of climate change. The IPCC report is the primary source of data for Al Gore's movie and book titled "An Inconvenient Truth."
Many of the comments by the reviewers are strongly critical of claims contained in the final report, and they are directly at odds with the so-called "scientific consensus" touted by Gore and others calling for immediate government action. For example, the following comment by Eric Steig appears in Second Order Draft Comments, Chapter 6; section 6-42:
In general, the certainty with which this chapter presents our understanding of abrupt climate change is overstated. There is confusion between hypothesis and evidence throughout the chapter, and a great deal of confusion on the differences between an abrupt "climate change" and possible, hypothetical causes of such climate changes.
"It is now abundantly clear why Al Gore will not accept our debate challenge. The supposed scientific consensus on global warming is pure fiction. Hopefully, the public release of comments and responses will enable the debate over global warming to turn to facts and less fiction," stated Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit think tank based in Chicago.
The Heartland Institute has been running ads in national newspapers calling on Al Gore to debate Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent global warming "skeptic." Starting today, the institute says it is now including Dennis Avery, an economist and coauthor of a book on global warming that is on the New York Times nonfiction best seller list, who Gore has also refused to debate.
Gore has also not responded to a debate challenge from Wharton Business School Professor Scott Armstrong, or a similar challenge from Czech President Vaclav Klaus.
Makes one wonder how the media can continue to support a man who isn’t willing to debate anyone concerning this matter. Furthermore, given the press focus on the IPCC any time it releases a new report, one also has to question why this new information which actually came out on Wednesday went totally ignored.
In fact, according to LexisNexis and Google News searches, not one American press outlet covered this new revelation out of the IPCC. And, though the Heartland Institute's press release was first published by the U.S. Newswire at 5:15 PM EST Thursday, nobody reported it either.
It appears that information from the IPCC is only newsworthy when it supports anthropogenic global warming theories. How disgraceful.
Gore, what a snake oil salesman.
A more ghastly sight is the line up of dupes tripping-joyful to lend Gore some heaps of verisimilitude.
Now that’s a positive vision. In the tradition of real American spirit.
You just said it all.
If you’re a liberal and you disagree with conservative talk radio, you MUST BE afforded a soapbox at public expense.
But if you’re a scientist who disagrees with AlGore and the Environazis, you must be SILENCED.
Puzzling.
I envision a day when Washington DC becomes so polluted, corrupted and eventually so irrelevant that Americans just simply ignore them and we take power back though their state legislations.
We can start voting "the empty suit" on our write in ballots for national congressional elections
Anybody wanna wade thru all those comments and add up
the negative comments concerning possible over atatement
of agw and postive comments of not enough.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html
*statement
bump
An Economist's Perspective on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol,
by Ross McKitrick. November 2003
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/McKitrick.pdfThe 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defined "climate change" as follows:
- "Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
( http://unfccc.int/index.html )The recent Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defined it differently ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ ):
- Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.
This is a very important difference: The IPCC is looking for signs of any change, whereas the policy instruments prescribed by the UNFCCC are not triggered unless it is a particular kind of change: that attributable to human activity. When IPCC officials declare that "climate change" is for real, this is about as informative as announcing that the passage of time is for real. Of course the climate changes: if it didn't Winnipeg would still be under a glacier. But the fact that the last ice age ended doesn't imply that the policy mechanisms of the UNFCCC should kick in. That's the problem with the ambiguity over the term "climate change"-and it seems to trip up a lot of people-accepting the reality of "climate change" does not mean accepting the need for policy interventions. And denying that global warming is a problem requiring costly policy measures is not the same as denying "climate change."
Mix UN/IPCC consensus driven politics with science the animal you get is anything but science.
The genesis of the UN/IPCC's current uncertainty guidance paper comes from the concepts expressed in this paper authored by Steven Schneider (one of the historical heavy lifters in the anthropogenic global warming crew) on the subject of how uncertainty should be expressed in IPCC papers:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/UncertaintiesGuidanceFinal2.pdf
"A final note before turning to the specific recommendations themselves-the paper assumes that for most instances in the TAR, a "Bayesian" or "subjective" characterization of probability will be the most appropriate (see, e.g., Edwards, 1992, for a philosophical basis for Baysian methods; for applications of Bayesian methods, see e.g., Anderson, 1998; Howard et al., 1972). The Bayesian paradigm is a formal and rigorous language to communicate uncertainty. In it, a "prior" belief about a probability distribution (typically based on existing evidence) can be updated by new evidence, which causes a revision of the prior, producing a so-called "posterior" probability. Applying the paradigm in the assessment process involves combining individual authors' (and reviewers') Bayesian assessments of probability distributions and would lead to the following interpretation of probability statements: the probability of an event is the degree of belief that exists among lead authors and reviewers that the event will occur, given the observations, modeling results, and theory currently available. When complex systems are the topic, both prior and updated probability distributions usually contain a high degree of (informed) subjectivity. Thus in the TAR, we expect Bayesian approaches to be what is most often meant when probabilities are attached to outcomes with an inherent component of subjectivity or to an assessment of the state of the science from which confidence characterisations are offered."
And the intent of the use of such terms:
"It is certainly true that "science" itself strives for objective empirical information to test theory and models. But at the same time "science for policy" must be recognized as a different enterprise than "science" itself, since science for policy (e.g., Ravetz, 1986) involves being responsive to policymakers' needs for expert judgment at a particular time, given the information currently available, even if those judgments involve a considerable degree of subjectivity. "
The same Steven Schneider responsible for this quote:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
(Steven Schneider, Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989; and (American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996).
They are well postured to do just that. Cunning and conniving are they.
Didn't hear about this? Well, how could you? Nobody reported it!I’m not so sure that the level of dissent is so important in this particular case, as compared to the responsiveness to the critcisms often being no more substantial than “nuh-uh”. Also much more common than dissent is the high-schoolish sycophantism. A lesser, but also amusing event are reviewers recommendation that the chapter authors include papers authored by the reviewer making the comment.
Thanks I learn something every day at FR - today a new word
Al Gore invented the Internet! It's true! He said so himself! Just listen...
Al Bore invented the Internet.
Putfile Version (Higher quality)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.