FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Posted on 08/05/2007 5:38:22 PM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Almost from the beginning, critics have attacked the Bush administration for the way it has dealt with science. In many areas - and emblematically in the case of climate change - well-qualified accusers have complained that the White House and its political appointees across the federal government have interfered with the work of scientists, misrepresented their findings and censored their public statements. Many of these cases are shocking - or at least they were, until people became inured to them. The administration's record on managing the government's own scientific efforts, and on respect for science more broadly, is awful.
(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...
The link is dead...
Links don’t work.
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
How about a paragraph?
All the links worked for me.
I get the links to work. I use firefox though.
Most if not all of the “scientists” complaining about the Bush science policy either have been caught fudging their numbers (when not making them up), or writing left wing policy recommendations into their science papers.
Here’s the next couple of paragraphs. I don’t want to cut and paste too much for copyright considerations. That is, paragraph 1 is at post 1, this is 2, 3, and 4.
So when the White House disagrees with most other governments in the world and expresses doubts about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that view is contemptuously dismissed as one more instance. To be sure, the administration has destroyed its own credibility on scientific integrity and has nobody to blame but itself.
For the rest of us, however, this is a pity - because to put it bluntly the IPCC deserves the administration’s disdain. It is a seriously flawed enterprise and unworthy of the slavish respect accorded to it by most governments and the media. In the decisions which have already been made on climate-change mitigation, to say nothing of future decisions, the stakes are enormous. In guiding these momentous judgments, the flawed IPCC process has been granted, in effect, a monopoly of official wisdom. That needs to change and the IPCC itself must be reformed.
For a fully documented indictment, read the article by David Henderson in the current issue of World Economics. Mr Henderson, a distinguished academic economist and former head of economics at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, has been tangling with the IPCC for some time. Five years ago, he and Ian Castles (a former chief of the Australian Bureau of Statistics) first drew attention to a straightforward error in the way emissions scenarios were being calculated. The projections had used long-range cross-country projections of gross domestic product that were based on exchange rates unadjusted for purchasing power. This mistake yielded projections for individual countries that were in some cases patently absurd. Far from acknowledging the point and correcting the projections, the IPCC treated these eminent former civil servants as uncredentialed troublemakers. Its head, Rajendra Pachauri, issued a prickly statement complaining about the spread of disinformation.
The link worked for me, but I was taken aback by the next to last paragraph in an otherwise pretty fair article:
“The IPCC may be right: climate change may indeed be mankind’s biggest and most urgent challenge. It would be wrong to demand certainty before doing more. The scientific consensus, though not quite as strong as usually claimed, is surely strong enough to warrant a carbon tax or equivalent.”
Wow - in essence, never mind how flawed the reports are, grant their major objective! IMHO, trash.
You could also google up the title.
Or try googling up the paragraph I used at the original post.
Yeah, I’m also currently using firefox.
Nobody cares except people selling something and nobody is buying.
save
Another denialist heard from; me and cogitator are gonna rule - before it’s over.
It started out well but the author got scared and said that the IPCC is horribly flawed but maybe we better get in line anyway. That and the start of the article mark the writer as a typical timid journalist-—their version of a “conservative.”
The Hockey stick was a perfect example of the IPCC cooking the data.
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.