Previous Next Index Thread
Previous Next Index Thread
In article <31d44b42.749836@news.iprolink.co.nz>, stevense@iprolink.co.nz wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 1996 13:35:23 +0900, Richard Easther
> <easther@cfi.waseda.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>
> >PS Eric - does anything here remind you of the opinions I expressed in
> >connection with global warming, about people who claim that there is some
> >sort of conspiracy (in the broad sense of the word) within academia to
> >hush up the "truth"?
>
> I answered this vert briefly yesterday in great haste but have decided
> it needs a better response.
>
> Snip snip
> 4. In the case of climate change, and the IPCC report in particular,
> the opinions of the experts are far from unanimous and the best
> that the IPCC has been able to do is produce a report which is
> described as 'a consensus of the majority'. There are in fact,
> and quite unarguably so, very many experts in the field of
> climate change, global warming etc who do not entirely share the
> general views or particular conclusions of the IPCC. There are
> those who have spent a lifetime of study and research in the
> field of climate change, and who are undoubted experts in their
> field, who make comments not unlike those I have made in
> paragraph 2 above. To attempt to put them in the same category as
> the wishful thinkers of the Kaimanawa wall is neither fair nor
> accurate.
>
> We have been round this argument several times already and I, for one,
> am getting tired of it. If you have something new to add and wish to
> start another thread, I may consider joining it.
> Eric Stevens
I think the following adds something useful to Eric's paragraph 4 above,
because the final policy document does not fairly reflect the consensus
actually reached, as Mr Seitz explains below:
"Mr Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and Chairman of
the George C Marshall Institute has this to say of the IPCC policy report:
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.
In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community,
including service as President of both the National Academy of Sciences
and the American Physical Society I have never witnessed a more disturbing
corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this
IPCC report. ...key changes were made after the scientists had met and
accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version.
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 abave 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 anthrophogenic [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"
He goes on:
"Whatever the intent was of those who made these signficant changes,
their effect is to decieve policy makers and the public into
believeing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing
global warming."