Good sense on warming
Wouldn’t you know that Vincent Carroll would be the one to see and expose the trivial silliness of Time’s “global warming” issue (“No. 1: Don’t exhale,” On Point, April 5).
I laughed my way through the magazine’s list of Things You Can Do To Make A Difference, and I confess I left half the eyeball-glazing article unread.
Certainly, we need to seriously investigate the possible consequences of global warming and do everything we can to forestall them, control air pollution, etc. But we can’t ignore the equally persuasive evidence that these warmings and coolings have been happening for many thousands of years without the depredations of humans and their technologies.
Despite Al Gore, I refuse to get hysterical about the predicted disasters.
Please give Carroll a medal for his perennial good sense.
Lucy Beckstead, Wheat Ridge
"Certainly, we need to seriously investigate the possible consequences of global warming and do everything we can to forestall them, control air pollution, etc."
So, despite Carroll's "good sense", you realize that global warming is a problem and that we need to take steps to reduce the problem. Good. You and Al Gore should get along nicely. But best not to bring Carroll along.
Posted by Truth on May 2, 2007 07:59 AMIt's amazing to see people like Lucy who become unhinged at the thought that maybe, just maybe all those tailpipe and smokestack emissions are not benign and that we might have to suffer some inconvenient and more expensive options to deal with all the pollution our lifestyles spew. Sad.
Posted by Liam on May 2, 2007 08:13 AMActually, Lucy is correct. Liam, what you folks are talking about is not pollution, but CO2. It is something that is necessary for life.
There was an article yesterday on the web about a new study that shows for the past 10,000 years we have had a seesaw between global warming and cooling. It seems when the northern hemisphere gets warm, the southern hemisphere gets cold and vice versa.
I would also question Truth's statement that global warming is a problem that we need to take steps to reduce. It isn't a problem. What you are talking about is it might become a problem in the future.
If things are seesawing back and forth, warming is a lot less serious problem than cooling is.
Besides, the culprit to the warming we are seeing now (as is Mars, Jupiter, Pluto) is solar activity. Lots of spots, hotter temperatures (less cloud formation). We are currently in a very active period. By 2020, we should be in a very low level activity and we will see much cooler temperatures.
Posted by Jim on May 2, 2007 08:46 AMIf man is so much the cause of global warming, when will we be told to turn in our barbeque grills? They put out as much heat and polution as a typical new car. I'm with Jim, I think that solar activity is much more the cause than man. We give ourselves too much credit for good and too much blame for bad.
Posted by Jay on May 2, 2007 08:52 AMJim - CO2 is a vital constituent to life as we know it when it is in its stable equilibrium (280 ppm over the madern age). It becomes noxious (i.e. a pollutant) when it suddenly goes out of established equilibrium bounds - that is the case we find ourselves in. Think how your body needs sodium, otherwise you die, but too much sodium = high blood pressure = stroke = death. So too with CO2 and probably anything you can name. We are currently at about 360 ppm CO2, a 30% increase in a few decades - the chance that this is benign is negligible - the predictions of scientists on the effects of this avalanche of CO2 may in fact be far understated, and in no way alarmist as the "don't worry, bee happy" crowd would have us believe.
For me CO2 is but one issue - the main problem is our funding of OPEC which uses some of the $$ we send them ($10 trillion since 1960) to fund IEDs, flight training on 767's, purchases of box-cutters, American-hating madrassas and mosques world wide, etc. You can poo-poo that too if you wish, but it is a reality that is becoming more and more lethal and ominous every day.
Finally - I work in aerospace engineering and we have to shield delicate space-borne electronic components against the harmful effects of solar radiation. NASA has not changed this specification in the decades I have been involved - the sun's radiation is stable. Stop getting your misinformation from Limbaugh and other GED scholars.
Posted by Liam on May 2, 2007 08:58 AMIt is not really a matter of what Jim or I or any other layperson thinks. We are hardly in a position to have a well-grounded personal opinion of such a complicated scientific issue, any more that we would be in a position to have a well-grounded personal opinion on how to treat cancer. I would expect people not to put any weight on my personal opinion about the issue, just as I think the same for Jim's personal opinion. If an opinion is based on what others say, then that should be made clear, and it would be quite helpful to know what others and exactly what they say. It is one thing to say, "I think you have cancer" and quite another to say "Dr. so-and-so thinks you have cancer".
There is indeed a split in the scientific community on the issue. But I do have the opinion that the overwhelming weight of the scientific community is that man does contribute significantly to global warming, that it is a crisis that is upon us, and that there are steps man can take to reduce its contribution.
Posted by Truth on May 2, 2007 08:58 AMWhat, its not a problem? Polar bear habitat disappearing, glaciers melting before our eyes - water much of the Asian subcontinent depends on - species loss, etc. Yes, the Earth has gone through many periods of cooling & heating, but keep in mind it took many thousands of years for this to occur. What we're experiencing is on a scale that the Earth has NOT seen in its 4.5 billion year history.
Jim, do you have an advanced degree in climatology, geophysics, or any related field? Do you have peer reviewed empirical evidence or a concensus of thousands of scientists to support your claims?
Posted by Pam on May 2, 2007 08:59 AMJim & Jay - On solar activity & global warming, you might want to read this:
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml
“Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness,” says Wigley."
Or go right to the source:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html
"Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present."
Yes, the earth has warmed and cooled in cycles since its beginning. It will do so again. I think the bigger, more significant issue is that humans are making the current warming cycle occur more quickly than previous cycles. Species around the globe are not able to adapt fast enough to compensate (think of the polar bears drowning for like of ice to cross). From a human perspective the question is what will we do in ten, twenty or fifty years. There are hundreds of million people living in areas that will be inundated with the rising sea levels. The balance of power between peoples will shift as the weather patterns shift and water and growing regions shift. What will we humans do to adapt? Mass migration away from the encroaching waters will occur over a relatively short period of time. The potential social unrest as all this occurs is surreal to think about because not only will it be between nations but within nations. Think about the US and the fact that the bulk of our population lives along coastal and inland waters. Where will they go? As we heat up and dry up will there be enough water? Water fights are already on-going here in the West? Multiply that across the entire country, possibly the continent. As it gets warmer here it likely makes Canada a better agricultural area? Maple syrup production is already shifting north. What will Americans do when they have to rely on their neighbors to the north for products? Global warming is occuring. It's part of the earth's natural cycle? Likely we humans have accelerated the current cycle. Does it really matter though in the great scheme of things? The real questions to ask and to address (which we do not seem to be doing yet) is how will we adapt without self-destructing our societies in the process?
Posted by Karen on May 2, 2007 09:20 AMYes, the earth has warmed and cooled in cycles since its beginning. It will do so again. I think the bigger, more significant issue is that humans are making the current warming cycle occur more quickly than previous cycles. Species around the globe are not able to adapt fast enough to compensate (think of the polar bears drowning for like of ice to cross). From a human perspective the question is what will we do in ten, twenty or fifty years. There are hundreds of million people living in areas that will be inundated with the rising sea levels. The balance of power between peoples will shift as the weather patterns shift and water and growing regions shift. What will we humans do to adapt? Mass migration away from the encroaching waters will occur over a relatively short period of time. The potential social unrest as all this occurs is surreal to think about because not only will it be between nations but within nations. Think about the US and the fact that the bulk of our population lives along coastal and inland waters. Where will they go? As we heat up and dry up will there be enough water? Water fights are already on-going here in the West? Multiply that across the entire country, possibly the continent. As it gets warmer here it likely makes Canada a better agricultural area? Maple syrup production is already shifting north. What will Americans do when they have to rely on their neighbors to the north for products? Global warming is occuring. It's part of the earth's natural cycle? Likely we humans have accelerated the current cycle. Does it really matter though in the great scheme of things? The real questions to ask and to address (which we do not seem to be doing yet) is how will we adapt without self-destructing our societies in the process?
Posted by Karen on May 2, 2007 09:21 AMGreat post Karen.
Rember that CO2 bonds with other elements easily to create pollution. CO2 is llike a happy hooker that will take up with anyone.
If the ice in the Northern Atlantic melts, the water will be less salty and the sodium dump will change, possibly stopping the warm water that flows up to Great Britian. Look at how far north GB is compared to cities in Russia.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 2, 2007 11:33 AMPam"What, its not a problem? Polar bear habitat disappearing"
Are people still repeating that fake story about the polar bears drowning? That was debunked a long time ago as propaganda from the global warming alarmists.
Posted by KW on May 2, 2007 12:04 PMKW - debunked by whom? Rush Limbaugh?
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Petition Finding and Proposed Rule to List the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) as Threatened Throughout Its Range
ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of 12-month finding.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 12-month finding on a petition to list the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) as threatened with critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of all available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the polar bear as a threatened species under the Act is warranted. Accordingly, we herein propose to list the polar bear as threatened throughout its range pursuant to the Act. This proposed rule, if made final, would extend the Act’s protections to this species. Critical habitat for the polar bear is not determinable at this time. The Service seeks data and comments from the public on this proposed listing rule....
Posted by Pam on May 2, 2007 01:17 PMA poor choice of photos by a single publication does not in any way "debunk" the massive evidence for rapid decline of polar bear habitat. Your post does show how thoroughly brainwashed you are, though. Try reading some scientific publications rather than right-wing blog crap.
Posted by B. Drunk on May 2, 2007 01:25 PMPam - Just because the global warming bandwagon has insisted the polar bears are dying doesn't mean it's true. Yes, they have petitioned for adding them to the endangered list but they haven't been added.
The reason is they're finding polar bear numbers aren't shrinking, they're actually increasing as reported here by the National Post in Canada:
The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s. Another six areas are listed as having stable counts, three experienced reduced numbers and two have seen their bears increase.
So out of 11 areas - 8 are stable or increasing in numbers while only 2 areas show any decline.
The report goes on to say that evidence of endangerment collected by the US Fish and Wildlife so far has been insufficient.
And 1:25 - That was the photo the alarmists borrowed so it was fitting that I linked it. Your having to resort to insults tells me you have zero knowledge on this subject other than what the alarmists spoon feed you.
bon appetite
PS-KW
I have been trying to steer KW into good research techniques, but sadly he has been unable to avoid relapsing.
His view is that researchers are all corrupt and yield only what their paymasters prefer to hear, and as such he feels this is what he should do.
So he browses the net looking for articles that agree what he already thinks, and unsurprisingly he never finds anything that contradicts what he already believes.
Sad really, but so it goes.
If any of you have cable or satellite television and can get CNN Headline News, you might want to tune in tonight (May 2, 2007) for a special featuring the global warming issue. It will be on at 5 PM, 7 PM and 10 PM Mountain Daylight Time.
Liam wrote: “Stop getting your misinformation from Limbaugh and other GED scholars.”
Pam wrote: “Jim, do you have an advanced degree in climatology, geophysics, or any related field? Do you have peer reviewed empirical evidence or a concensus of thousands of scientists to support your claims?”
Liam and Pam, long ago I grew tired of hearing or reading people’s response in a debate which are like the ones you two have posted. Liam, if someone has a difference of opinion from yours that does not mean they got their information from Rush Limbaugh. And Pam, I don’t have an advanced degree in any field of science, not even any rudimentary training in that area of expertise. Neither do you, I’m guessing. But I am able to read and comprehend English that is written by people who do. And not all of what is written on this matter agrees with what you believe.
Resorting to those types of comments and questions tells me that you have run out of rebuttals. When someone has some proven facts that you refuse to concede, or if you are not able to debate the issue with proven facts, then it’s just easier to dismiss what they said with snide remarks about where they got their information and condescending questions about their level of education. What a cheap debating tactic.
It may well be that polar bears have been suffering through an abnormally cold habitat for several centuries and the climate might well be righting itself at this time in geological history. We don’t know and the polar bears refuse to talk about it.
Global climate changes like the one we are currently experiencing do not take thousands of years to occur. History shows that from the late 1880’s until about 1940 there was a very significant increase in average temperatures around the world. Then from 1940 to about 1975 the Earth went through a fairly significant cooling trend. All that is happening now is cycling back toward what it was in the early to mid 20th Century.
In 1991, senior scientists of the Danish meteorological institute decided to compile a record of sun spots during the 20th Century and compare that data to temperature records. What they found was an incredibly close relation between what the sun was doing and temperatures on Earth. They noted that solar activity rose sharply until 1940, fell back for a few decades until the 1970’s, and then rose again after that. Skeptics called this a coincidence. So they went back further in time to produce a much bigger time series. They looked at 400 years of astronomical records to compare sun spot activity to temperature ranges, and found again that Earth’s temperature variations were intimately linked to variations in the activity of the sun.
When comparing the graphs showing solar activity and its relationship with Earth’s climate from the 19th Century up to 1940, from 1940 until 1975, and from 1975 to the present along with graphs showing the comparison of Co2 levels during those very same time frames, it certainly looks very obvious that solar activity drives temperature changes and Co2 levels do not. The Co2 graphs do not correlate with the changes in temperature, but the graphs of solar activity do.
The “peer review empirical evidence or a concensus of thousands of scientists” that Pam mentioned must be in reference to the United Nation’s IPCC report. A consensus does not equate to scientific fact. Long ago the consensus among scientists was that the Sun orbited around the Earth and that the Earth was flat. People literally lost their lives disputing that. Numerous members of the IPCC were brought on board because they were considered among the “top scientists of the world” until their findings did not fit the assertion that human produced emissions are the major cause of global warming. Their findings were not well received by others on the IPCC. Message runners were sent from the sitting IPCC members to the authoring scientists time and time again requiring them to change their statements to fit the political process mandated by the IPCC – a mandate to show that man causes global warming. If their statements were not revised then they were deleted from the final report even though it still included their names as authors of it. Then when the IPCC made their public statement about the report they claimed it was the findings of “90% of the world’s top scientists.” It turned out to be about 2,600 scientists and that is hardly a number adding up to 90% of the world’s top scientists.
Tune in to watch CNN Headline News Wednesday night at 5 PM, 7 PM and 10 PM Mountain Time.
Regarding Liam’s comment about getting misinformation from Limbaugh, I meant to mention this: The June 24, 1974 issue of Time had a report titled “Another Ice Age” in which it in part blamed the cooling on human causes. “Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin’s Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.” Today, the “world’s leading climatologists” say those same fuel burning particles are trapping heat from escaping from the surface of the earth. Newsweek and Time magazine promptly parrots that, and people who rely upon such reports published in a journal like Time or Newsweek take it as gospel and solid proof.
Posted by Pat on May 2, 2007 02:17 PMThanks Spud. Unfortunately your opinion doesn't change the facts regarding the polar bear propaganda which is what I was addressing. I guess you just felt the need to throw needless insults at me. Must be your frustration with so many people understanding that the hysteria surrounding climate change is just that, hysteria. Maybe someday you too can understand.
Posted by KW on May 2, 2007 02:32 PMKW, sorry that you thought my insults were needless - I actually regard them as necessary and timely since you keep blathering.
It really is time that you paid attention to what I am telling you and started treading the righteous path as far as research techniques go.
As for hysteria, I do know what that is, and I certainly see a lot of it going on on both sides of this debate. You yourself are pretty hysterical about making out that salaried scientists are corrupt, slandering respected scientists, and selecting the really off the wall texts, and when it comes to anything Gore does, you froth up like a bulldog eating shaving cream.
I do not regard the AAAS, NAS, or the American Meteorological Society for example, as being particularly prone to hysteria, so I tend to give credence to the claim that the surface temperature is climbing, and that human activities are a driving reason for it.
Not because I prefer that position, but because that is the consensus of the bodies that represent the relevant sciences.
On the other hand, you do not like that position, so you hunt for alternative views and support for the opposite claim.
This is bad research technique and it is why you keep coming up wobbly in these discussions.
Posted by Spud on May 2, 2007 03:22 PMSpud - What does your attack on me have to do with the polar bear propaganda I was addressing?
BTW, your insults may seem "necessary" to you but are more a product of your frustration, thereby revealing the shallow nature of your theories. You are unable argue my points and have to resort to insults.
I'm fairly certain you didn't learn that from your journals, did you?
Posted by KW on May 2, 2007 03:35 PMAnd so why, uh, are the glaciers on Mars melting?
Posted by GH23 on May 2, 2007 04:09 PMKW,
No, not from a journal but from an instrumentation Sgt. Major, and from the Jewish didactic tradition of pilpul.
I have used it quite successfully on students in cases where their pigheadedness was an impediment to learning. The neurological basis for the technique is that getting the limbic system highly activated causes some of the normal Model-I defenses to break down and increases retention of new ideas.
The Buddhists also use the technique, although they tend to add sudden noises, a slap, or other environmental shocks to elicit insight. Likewise the Marines adopted a similar but more culturally fitting approach.
Since patient explanations didn’t work on you, and I can’t clout you across the head and scream in your ear like a drill sergeant, the best I can do is a suitable insult and hope that at some point the penny drops.
Posted by Spud on May 2, 2007 04:20 PMI get it Spud, stifle the dissenters with any means possible... Including violence. As long as I see where you're coming from I can always defend against your kind.
Do you think will we see you at the global cooling picnic reunion coming up in a few years? We'll need a pretty big fire to battle that crisis when it returns.
Posted by KW on May 2, 2007 04:35 PMKW, as usual you got the wrong end of the stick.
I understand how you want to believe that conspiracy and stifling of dissent is what is going on, and I also know how attractive that is to you.
Furthermore I even understand that there is in fact some grounds for you seeing things this way.
It is just that your way of seeing this is retrograde, impoverished, and self-sealing.
Of course Pat should provide some source for her information about the IPCC, particularly since what she claims to be the case is denied by the IPCC.
She makes a claim about "numerous scientists". There has been considerable publicity about the resignation of Christopher Landsea, allegedly "because of Kevin Trenberth's public contention that global warming was contributing to recent hurricane activity". I haven't found any evidence to support Pat's claim of "numerous scientists".
Pat erroneously refers to the IPCC report as "a mandate to show that man causes global warming." It is quite clear that the question is the extent to which man "contributes" to global warming.
Pat: "Then when the IPCC made their public statement about the report they claimed it was the findings of “90% of the world’s top scientists."
I can't find any evidence in google that Pat's statement is accurate. I don't think she can either.
Statements like this from Pat: "Message runners were sent from the sitting IPCC members to the authoring scientists time and time again requiring them to change their statements to fit the political process mandated by the IPCC" obviously call for a reference source since the IPCC denies anything like this happened. When an issue is very controversial, and a poster posts only one side of the controversy as though it is gospel, that is poor posting.
My speculation is that Pat gets her information from a website or other source dedicated to criticizing the IPCC report and simply accepts its statements as gospel.
Posted by Truth on May 2, 2007 05:53 PM
This leftist global warming "religion" mandates that the IPCC report couldn't possibly be distorted, now can it? It is, after all, the left's favorite organization that sponsored it - the UN. That anti-American organization and the EU countries have been trying for decades to weaken the U.S. economy, with which their socialist economies can't compete.
Truth - in this day and age, if you believe everything the MSM in this country says, then I feel sorry for you. Same with websites. That is not to say that truth may be found in either. There are many websites that contain more truth and good investigation than the MSM.
It is up to each individual to read, digest, question and decide which sources you believe to be credible. Flatly dismissing Pat's assertions because you believe that the viewpoint is from a website shows your lack of discernment between investigative reporting and propaganda put out by the religion of "Global Warming is Caused by Humans."
I have read the same types of assertions about scientists whose opinions have been edited out because their viewpoints don't fit the template.
Believe what you want.
Spud - beating up on students for their"pigheadedness" as an impediment to learning (refusing to be brainwashed) really makes you an expert, doesn't it? What credentials do you bring to this fight?
Posted by on May 2, 2007 06:17 PMaww ya poor little tenderhearted darling, did a nasty teacher holler at you and make your bottom lip all wobbly?
Get off it man!
Sometimes a good yell is what a lazy and sluggish student needs to get them thinking.
Weird, isn't that the rightwing line?
Posted by Spud on May 2, 2007 09:28 PM"Sometimes a good yell is what a lazy and sluggish student needs to get them thinking."
I heard Alec Baldwin say that same thing just the other day.
Posted by KW on May 3, 2007 08:42 AMTruth, first of all, I am not a she. I am a guy. At least I use my real name. If I were to use a fake one I wouldn’t use one which conveys such arrogance as “Truth.”
I do have to admit that didn’t I get the 90% figure from a reliable source. I got it from people like you who have said that 90% of the world’s top scientists believe that global warming is man-made. That’s what I have heard from my very liberal sisters, from the media, from Democrats in Congress, and from environmentalists who have been quoted.
You are the type who gets hung up on semantics. I said that the IPCC had a mandate to show that man causes global warming. Your comeback was that the question is the extent to which man "contributes" to global warming.
What you have failed to research is that any sections of the first approved IPCC report which contained any skepticism that humans contribute to global warming was later changed with different wording to convey a different meaning or was totally deleted all together. You also had a heart ache with my use of the term “numerous scientists.” You don’t have to take my word for it. My sources are the very scientists who were contributors to the IPCC report and said that about the actions of the IPCC review board. Professor John Christy, lead author, IPCC: “I’ve often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue that humans are causing a cataclysmic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that that is not true.”
Here is another: Professor Frederick Seitz, former IPCC contributor and former president of the National Academy of Sciences and president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute. In an op-ed to the Wall Street Journal on June 12, 1996 he revealed a great deal of deception in their official reporting of the findings of many scientists on the panel. IPCC officials had censored the comments of specialists in the fields of climate. In the op-ed Seitz wrote, “But this report is not what it appears to be – it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page.” At least 15 key sections of the science chapter had been deleted. He wrote, “The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
• "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
• "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."
• "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
Professor Seitz continues, “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report. When I resigned from the IPCC I thought that was the end of it. But when I saw the final draft my name was still there. So, I asked for it to be removed. Well, they told me that I had contributed so it would remain there. So, I said, ‘No, I hadn’t contributed because they haven’t listened to anything I’ve said.’ So, in the end it was quite a battle, but finally I threatened legal action against them and they removed my name. And I think this happens a great deal. Those people who are specialists [the contributing scientists] but don’t agree to the pandemic have resigned, and there have been a number of them that I know of, uh, they are simply put on the author list and become part of this 2,500 of the world’s top scientists.”
Professor Seitz also said, “According to a comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules--a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC.
“The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.
“Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.
“IPCC reports are often called the "consensus" view. If they lead to carbon taxes and restraints on economic growth, they will have a major and almost certainly destructive impact on the economies of the world. Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming.
The last paragraph by Seitz says, “If the IPCC is incapable of following its most basic procedures, it would be best to abandon the entire IPCC process, or at least that part that is concerned with the scientific evidence on climate change, and look for more reliable sources of advice to governments on this important question.”
Dr. S. Fred Singer, director of the SEPP, the decision to undertake an analysis of the IPCC documents grew out of a 1991 SEPP survey of U.S. participants (contributors and reviewers) in the 1990 IPCC Report. A major finding was their surprising lack of support for the conclusions expressed in the Policymakers Summary. There was certainly no scientific consensus backing the IPCC conclusions, as so often claimed. "The concerns raised by that first survey appear to have been borne out," said Singer. "The IPCC Policymakers Summary is essentially a political document, not a scientific document. It was prepared for and agreed to by the government representatives to the International Panel on Climate Change, and influenced by accredited delegates from other organizations, including environmental pressure groups.”
"While energy conservation usually makes economic sense, the proposed climate treaty could lead to costly regulations and controls on energy use and economic development, unsupported by any scientific evidence," Singer continued. "Such drastic policies would put a heavy economic burden on everyone, but have tragic consequences for the poor, both here and abroad.
There is a misconception that the IPCC report was written by 2,500 scientists. That’s not how it was written. The IPCC is not a panel of scientists, but truly rather a panel of political officials; a group of policymakers. What they did was review the analysis written by the scientists and then decided what to put into the report. By the time they got the first analysis reports from scientists the IPCC review team had already begun constructing their report. Then when a scientist sent them something that did not fit the political statements of the report they were urged to revise their findings. If that didn’t work, the reviewers simply made the changes they wanted. I didn’t commit it to memory for the comfort of Mr. Truth, but one of the former scientific contributors who had resigned from the IPCC was being interviewed on television last Monday night and he was the one that said runners were used in part of the process to deliver messages between the review board and the scientists.