> The IPCC and their stance are definitely not equateable with the
> mainstream. They are the same crowd who announced a few months ago
> that the North Pole is missing. You yourself wrote at the time that
> it was "dramatic new evidence" that "could be exploited to create a
> sense of urgency about global warming". This is an agenda, not science.
Actually, I personally believed the press coverage when it suggested that
this was a dramatic new occurrence. Then, it turned out that scientists who
study the arctic have long known that there are occasional breaks in the ice
coverage, and so this is not new. Hence, while the media may have had an
agenda (which I, credulously bought into), I don't believe you can paint the
scientific community with the same brush.
As well, I tihnk the burden of proof rests on you to show that the scientist
who was aboard the vessel that reported the ice breakages is also a member
of one or more IPCC committees. Then, if you were to show this, you would
have to demonstrate that this lone scientist was a significant opinion
leader in the IPCC, before you could claim that it is "the same crowd" that
did both.
> The crack at the North Pole will probably close again soon if it
> hasn't already (and other ones will open elsewhere as they always
> have). But I guess that this dramatic new evidence of global cooling
> won't get such prominent reporting in the New York Times.
Actually, it is my recollection that the media also covered the story that
this wasn't as big a deal as you might think.
> Here is an extract from the Wall Street Journal on one of the IPCC's
> reports:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> A Major Deception on Global Warming
> Op-Ed by Frederick Seitz
> June 12, 1996
>
> [...]
>
> This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely
> because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read,
> discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts.
> These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. 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. 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.
Since 1996, the pendulum has been swinging in only one direction: towards
more evidence that global warming is real, and will have larger effects in
the next 100-200 years than were previously predicted. Since these
predictions are quite falsifiable, we will definitely know for sure in about
20-30 years. At which time the cost of doing something about the CO2 will
be much, much greater, and the human cost will be much greater.
So, people can continue to shoot the messenger, or we can start doing
something constructive about this issue.
- Jim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:14:12 PDT