The IPCC Should Leave Science to Scientists
Bawana
The IPCC Should Leave Science to Scientists
By Marc Sheppard
Of the countless flaws inherent to Pop Science, by far the most
pernicious is that, contrary to accepted scientific method, the
conclusion precedes any supporting research. Special interests whose
agendas may be furthered by the junk premise then incite the media to
amplify their positions and ignore both the science and protesting
contrarian scientists. Nowhere is this abuse more prevalent and
dangerous than in fields of environmental science.
But a more ominous practice has arisen which empowers these special
interests to adapt and summarize already compromised research to
further fit the desired "consensus" before presenting it as fact to an
eager media. This travesty of methodology is brought to you by the
folks at the United Nations.
Back in 2001, the U.N's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) submitted its Summary for Policy Makers as a precursor to its
Third Assessment Report. Based solely on that summary, left wing
environmentalists and their media confederates immediately exhumed
their mankind stinks mantras and declared a victory in the
anthropogenic global warming debate. Some scientists associated with
the report, however, challenged both its bias and the summary's
oblique politically correct representation of its conclusions. It
appeared that rumors of the debate's demise may have been greatly
exaggerated.
Now, nearly 6 years later, it's IPCC report time again and both the
methodology and reaction are following the same predictable course of
the forerunner. As before, the hot Paris debut of the Fourth
Assessment Report policy summary sparked an immediate "case closed"
media frenzy. Also as before, the bearers were less than
dispassionate. In presenting the February 2nd abstract, Achim Steiner,
the head of the UN Environment Program which commissioned the panel,
minced no misrepresentative words:
"Ladies and gentlemen, the 2nd of February 2007, here in Paris
will perhaps one day be remembered as the day where the question mark
was removed behind the debate about whether climate change had
anything to do with human activity on this planet."
And, given that the actual report's release was still months away, the
reaction was as preposterous as the proclamation.
French clown-President Jacques Chirac called for an economic and
political "revolution" to save the planet and warned that:
"We are on the historic threshold of the irreversible."
South Africa's Environmental Affairs Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk
called the report "a wake-up call to the world's largest emitter, the
United States."
And the Bush Administration must have heard the South African's call.
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman actually told reporters at a press
conference in Washington that,
"Human activity is contributing to changes in the Earth's climate.
That issue is no longer up for debate.''
Et tu, Bodman? And, of course, U.S newspapers churned out their
predictably joyous headlines:
* Report: Humans to blame for climate
* Case closed: We're causing global warming. Now, what will we do
about it?
* Global warming a human creation, scientists confirm
* Climate report faults humans for warming
Meanwhile, faster than you can say "Milankovitch cycles," TV sets of
various definitions across the warming globe screamed that the world's
leading scientists had reached a "consensus" that human behavior was
directly responsible for global warming. Of course, anytime the MSM
claims unanimous accord by anyone on anything, a well maintained Bravo
Sierra alarm should sound immediately and quite loudly. Truth be
told, once stripped of the hyperbole, version number 4 didn't end the
anthropogenia debate any more than its older brother did. Furthermore,
all of this impassioned reaction was to a summary created by men not
of science, but of strategy.
A Sane Voice in a Crazy Chorus
In an article last summer which focused largely on the tactics of eco-
maniac Al Gore, I explored the depths to which the GW attack machine
will delve to silence its detractors. Gore target and former IPCC
member, Dr. Richard Lindzen said that alarmism dissenters have,
"seen grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves
libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse."
Lindzen has been quite vocal about "global-warming alarmists
intimidat[ing] dissenting scientists into silence" and, unlike many of
his brethren, has steadfastly refused to succumb. Not surprisingly,
the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology in the Department of
Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT is now an outspoken
critic of the IPCC.
In fact, it was Lindzen who blew the whistle on irregularities in both
the 2001 summary and report when he testified before the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee in May of that year. After
stating that the IPCC was created to support negotiations concerning
CO2 emission reductions, he gave an astonishing account of the
pressure placed upon the scientists who drafted the report.
"...throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC 'coordinators' would go
around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that
"motherhood" statements be inserted to the effect that models might
still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally
met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced
to assert their "green" credentials in defense of their statements."
He then avowed that the vast majority of scientists contributing to
the full report played virtually no role in preparing the summary, nor
were they given the opportunity to review and approve its contents.
Furthermore, it is this unscientific version only, often written to
further political agendas, which becomes the basis of media hype and
public understanding:
"Note that almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is
restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers which
are written by representatives from governments, NGO's and business;
the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely
ignored."
Lindzen also questioned the postponement of the full report and cited
numerous factual misrepresentations in the Summary, including one from
a chapter he knew a little about:
'The summary does not reflect the full document (which still has
not been released although it was basically completed last August).
For example, I worked on Chapter 7, Physical Processes. This chapter
dealt with the nature of the basic processes which determine the
response of climate, and found numerous problems with model treatments
especially with clouds and water vapor. The chapter was summarized
with the following sentence: "Understanding of climate processes and
their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water
vapour, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean heat transport."'
Indeed, there was much speculation regarding the delay in issuing the
final report in 2001. It came neither from the media nor for the last
time.
Pseudo-Science from the Pseudo-Media
Lindzen then addressed the media's frequent misleading references to
the participants as the "world's leading climate scientists." He
explained that the best science students generally moved into physics,
math, and computer science -- not climate science. Furthermore, as
with all UN projects, the participation of hundreds of countries (many
with no climate research experience) supersedes any requirements for
best-of-breed contributor selection. This often gains participants
previously unavailable prestige; perhaps leaving them somewhat biased
toward the not-so-tacit goals of the IPCC.
"Thus, speaking of 'thousands' of the world's leading climate
scientists is not especially meaningful. Even within climate science,
most of the top researchers (at least in the US) avoid the IPCC
because it is extremely time consuming and non-productive."
That same year, Lindzen also participated in a White House
commissioned National Academy of Sciences panel to review the IPCC
summaries. The media's claim that the NAS report depicted a
"consensus" which supported the Kyoto treaty so misrepresented the
findings of the panel that Lindzen felt compelled to write an article
to set the record straight. According to the Doctor:
"Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and
agreement, the science is by no means settled."
Indeed, these exact words were used in the findings reported to
Congress in June of 2001:
"Because there is considerable uncertainty in current
understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to
emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the
magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and
subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)."
Yet, Michelle Mitchell of CNN best exemplified the media miscoverage
when she declared that the report represented,
"a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting
worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."
And in a recent appearance on Larry King Live, Lindzen discredited
media claims that the current IPCC summary was any less compromised
than its predecessor of 6 years, reiterating that its non-scientist
authors write exclusively for their own benefit.
Appearing with Lindzen on the show was Bill Nye (aka TV's "The Science
Guy"), who had suggested that thaw-induced fresh water might shut down
the Gulf Stream. When Lindzen informed the UCS shill that such an
action would require either stopping the Earth's rotation or shutting
down the wind, it was Nye's ridiculous postulate that was shut down.
And so, we have a supposedly unbiased media injecting gross
exaggeration, childishly irresponsible horror stories, and outright
lies. Is it any wonder that we now live in a society where so many
have chosen to accept and preach this speculative pablum?
Singer's Solar Machine
Among the countless other contrarian scientists, Dr. S. Fred Singer's
unique wit and position alongside Dr. Lindzen on Al Gore's hit list
have earned him a similar place here. In a recent article, the
professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of
Virginia explained that the May release of the complete IPCC document
is deliberately timed. The delay, writes the scientist, allows them
to "adjust" the scientific report in order to be more consistent with
the politically correct summary.
This is an amazing assertion, as it suggests a U.N no longer feeling
the need to hide the fact that science is being modified to support
conclusions, rather than the accepted and expected opposite sequence.
And, as with Dr. Lindzen's questions regarding the similar delay in
2001, the interest this dynamite sparked would hardly light a
firecracker.
Singer then took on the report's typical mistake of confusing cause
and effect. And he did so in his characteristic good humored fashion:
"Some cite the fact that the climate is currently warming and the
level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. This is true,
but correlation is never proof of causation. In Europe, the birth rate
is decreasing and so is the number of storks. Does this correlation
prove that storks bring babies? Besides, the climate cooled for much
of the 20th century, between 1940 and 1975, even while carbon dioxide
was increasing rapidly."
Singer also dismissed the true value of "consensus," were one to
actually exist on the subject:
"But even if a majority of scientists had voted for human-caused
global warming, that's not how science works. Unlike in politics, the
majority does not rule. Rather, every advance in science has come from
a minority that found that observed facts contradicted the prevailing
hypothesis. Sometimes it took only one scientist; think of Galileo or
Einstein."
The Galileo example is spot on the mark. Although he might have added
that in Galileo's day, the debate had supposedly ended over the
Earth's placement in the heavens. Yet, in 1616, Galileo was forced to
recant his Copernican beliefs that the Earth was not the center of the
universe, but rather revolved around the Sun. Obviously, that debate
was not quite over either.
So, what are Dr. Singer's own GW theories? In his latest book,
Unstoppable Global Warming-Every 1500 Years, coauthored by Hudson
Institute Senior Fellow Dennis T Avery, physical evidence is outlined
which supports fluctuations in solar energy causing the title. The
book describes how the frequency of the cycle originally emerged from
a 1983 study of ice cores in Greenland. That figure was then verified
by analysis of an ice core from Antarctica's Vostok Glacier - at the
other end of the world, which showed the same 1,500-year cycle through
its 400,000-year length. These 1,500 year cycles analyzed include the
Little Ice Age of 1300-1850 and the modern warming period which
started around 1850 and we experience to this day.
The book, widely dismissed by the eco-maniacs, is must reading for
anyone looking to base opinion on science rather than science on
opinion. Not surprisingly, Sol, the primary source of our Atmospheric
heat, plays a major role in non-alarmist theories only. And, of
course, their sheer numbers refute any reasonable claim of
"consensus."
The Lore of Unintended Consequences
So, we're faced with an organization which not only intimidates its
experts into skewing data, but then forsakes them entirely when
summarizing their results. Then, after feeding those tainted tidbits
to a hungrily awaiting media, they can patiently measure the reaction
of the globe they claim to care so much for. This gives them a few
months to "cleanse" the report to meet the accepted precepts of the
summary. Furthermore, having withheld the contents of the full
report, they can always change both if any part of the summary proves
too hot-to-handle, citing an error or omission in the digestive
process.
Their goal is likely to create a storm of outcry against those nations
not bowing to their beloved Kyoto Accords, with one in mind
particularly. Perhaps they even believe that the anticipated
acquiescence of these enviro-rogue states might just pass stewardship
of all things environmental to their dwindling international
organization.
To meet that objective, they easily fool the media into promoting
laughably nonsensical theories while dismissing or demonizing those of
detached science. And, of course, they depend upon that same foolish
media to dutifully echo their battle-cries of "consensus" and human
guilt where there exists neither.
Unfortunately, they and their ilk have managed to convince their
indoctrinated legions that as was once said of war and generals,
environmental science is too important to be left to scientists. This
is a perilous road, indeed. In 1972, environmentalist thugs
demagogued the insecticide DDT right out of use on unproven charges of
egregious harm to humans and animals. The result may well have been
millions of third-world malaria deaths caused by the failure of the
banned chemical's "enviro-friendlier" replacement to control the
mosquitoes which spread the disease.
The great Mark Twain once quipped,
"Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about
it."
Such, indeed, is as it should be.
Marc Sheppard is a technology consultant, software engineer, writer,
and political and systems analyst. He is a regular contributor to
American Thinker. He welcomes your feedback.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/the_ipcc_should_leave_science.html
at February 08, 2007 - 11:11:38 AM EST
Beelzebub
> Bawana wrote:
> > February 08, 2007
> > The IPCC Should Leave Science to Scientists
> > By Marc Sheppard
> > Marc Sheppard is a technology consultant, software engineer, writer,
> > and political and systems analyst. He is a regular contributor to
> > American Thinker.
>
>
I have more than 1 Mark Sheppard Immortal Souls on my books, but this
nevertheless includes "that" one. Got just the one Bawana I/S, though
Bawana
Only when 4-wheeling in close vicinity of your well greased,
unobstructed, cavernous ass, tardboy.
aloha.kakuikanu
> Lindzen then addressed the media's frequent misleading references to
> the participants as the "world's leading climate scientists." He
> explained that the best science students generally moved into physics,
> math, and computer science -- not climate science.
Couldn't say it better -- natural selection at work. Those who are
unable to achieve anything in math are drifted to other, less
demanding fields. Physics is arguably is considered little bit less
difficult field. Computer science and chemistry are no doubt less
difficult than math. Climate research is somewhere at the bottom of
the science pyramid. And those unable to do any science become science
journalists. This is why GW media coverage is so frustrating.
Beelzebub
> Word Analyzing Newsgroup Algorithm even qualifies as a soul.
Hmmm.... I see I have no chance with an offer for your I/S. You're
too smart for my current ploy of offering presidency in a third world
country. (USA P and VP booked-up in perpetuity, I'm afraid)
kT
> On 8 Feb, 19:28, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>> Beelzebub wrote:
>>> On 8 Feb, 18:56, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>>>> Bawana wrote:
>>>>> February 08, 2007
>>>>> The IPCC Should Leave Science to Scientists
>>>>> By Marc Sheppard
>>>>> Marc Sheppard
>>>>> Marc Sheppard is a technology consultant, software engineer, writer,
>>>>> and political and systems analyst. He is a regular contributor to
>>>>> American Thinker.
>>>> Ah. That Marc Sheppard.
>>> I have more than 1 Mark Sheppard Immortal Souls on my books, but this
>>> nevertheless includes "that" one. Got just the one Bawana I/S, though
>> I'm pretty sure Bawana the kid who is afraid of losing his pickup truck
>> is an immortal soul, but I'm not quite sure if BAWANA the Binary Active
>> Word Analyzing Newsgroup Algorithm even qualifies as a soul.
>
> Hmmm.... I see I have no chance with an offer for your I/S.
I don't want Bawana's truck, I already have an rusty old beat up Ford
Ranger sitting in the garage I can hardly afford to drive once a month.
> You're too smart for my current ploy of offering presidency in a
> third world country. (USA P and VP booked-up in perpetuity, I'm afraid)
Sorry, I'm not the evil dictator type. You'd have to throw in all of
South America and the West Indies, to get me to even consider an
unsolicited offer of the sell your soul to the devil nature.
Even then I'd probably pass. Too much trouble.
The human condition seems to demand an all or nothing approach. Sorry,
but I'm just going to have to go with the laws of physics, empirical
methods and large hydrogen rockets with deployable solar panels and
thermal radiators with this one. It's the only way I can make it work.
If I could only get South America to help with this. Venezuela, Brazil
and Argentina, I'm talking to you. Malaysia, Indonesia, South Korea,
Japan and India, do you hear me? Are you listening? Gimme some help.
Russia, China, EU, what the fuck is wrong with you people?
C'mon, people, we live on a fucking planet, in space.
--
The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org
My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
Beelzebub
> Beelzebub wrote:
> > On 8 Feb, 19:28, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> >> Beelzebub wrote:
> >>> On 8 Feb, 18:56, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> >>>> Bawana wrote:
> >>>>> February 08, 2007
> >>>>> The IPCC Should Leave Science to Scientists
> >>>>> By Marc Sheppard
> >>>>> Marc Sheppard
> >>>>> Marc Sheppard is a technology consultant, software engineer, writer,
> >>>>> and political and systems analyst. He is a regular contributor to
> >>>>> American Thinker.
> >>>> Ah. That Marc Sheppard.
> >>> I have more than 1 Mark Sheppard Immortal Souls on my books, but this
> >>> nevertheless includes "that" one. Got just the one Bawana I/S, though
> >> I'm pretty sure Bawana the kid who is afraid of losing his pickup truck
> >> is an immortal soul, but I'm not quite sure if BAWANA the Binary Active
> >> Word Analyzing Newsgroup Algorithm even qualifies as a soul.
>
> > Hmmm.... I see I have no chance with an offer for your I/S.
>
> I don't want Bawana's truck, I already have an rusty old beat up Ford
> Ranger sitting in the garage I can hardly afford to drive once a month
Buy a couple of Hummers, declare that global warming needs to be dealt
with, and I'll up my present offer(see below) to include all of W.
Africa. That way you can throw up loads of pollution and affect the
rate of hurricane formation.
> > You're too smart for my current ploy of offering presidency in a
> > third world country. (USA P and VP booked-up in perpetuity, I'm afraid)
>
> Sorry, I'm not the evil dictator type. You'd have to throw in all of
> South America and the West Indies, to get me to even consider an
> unsolicited offer of the sell your soul to the devil nature.
>
> Even then I'd probably pass. Too much trouble.
How about Liberia? The present incumbent has been getting up my nose
just lately -she's trying to be nice to people for Badness! sake - so
I think we're due another replacement. There's just not enough dead
bodies on the streets for my liking.
> The human condition seems to demand an all or nothing approach. Sorry,
> but I'm just going to have to go with the laws of physics, empirical
> methods and large hydrogen rockets with deployable solar panels and
> thermal radiators with this one. It's the only way I can make it work.
> If I could only get South America to help with this. Venezuela, Brazil
> and Argentina, I'm talking to you. Malaysia, Indonesia, South Korea,
> Japan and India, do you hear me? Are you listening? Gimme some help.
>
> Russia, China, EU, what the fuck is wrong with you people?
They need to have someone like Stalin, or Ghengis Khan, or Hitler, or
Saddam Hussein or Margate Thrascher, or Attila the Great and Worthy
Hun ,or Busch/Chainy/Rumpsfelt/Riyse, in charge.
>
> C'mon, people, we live on a fucking planet, in space.
I don't. I have a nice warm (for my taste) place in the offices of
Hell Inc.
Philip H. Hart
. What? You mean like Marc Sheppard? Bwahahaha.........
>This is why GW media coverage is so frustrating.
Like posting denialist crap here, eh? Bwahahahaha........
Bawana
You seem to be at the top of your game, phart.
The "Bwahahahaha........s" were,
like, I mean, like,
pure brilliance.
"You mean like..."
Jump back jack.
"Like posting denialist crap..."
Dude, a thing of beauty.
Your best so far, phart.
You AlGore kinda rock knarley.
.
kdt...@yahoo.com
wrote:
At least when Moses came down off the mount to deliver the word, he
had his stuff written down on rock. Suppose if he had said, " I'll
just give you a synopsis now, so everyone can begin developing their
economic policies. The full text will come out in a few months"?
The IPCC has closed door meetings in order to refine their community
lie, then comes out with general policy synopsis which can make claims
without the direct criticism of their science, and then will release
the scientific reports in May or so, when there is not so much direct
attention, and they can evade direct scientific criticism.
Meteorologists have a pretty demanding science. Even the first
principles of this, climatologists ignore, such as the fact that when
a gas absorbs energy, it expands in volume and becomes bouyant causing
convection. Grenhouse theory has some perverted idea from QM of a
fabric of waves of the earth's energy system, that is static, that can
gain energy without input energy (runaway effect), and retains a value
for the waves of it's vibration despite the fact that the atmosphere
loses most of it's energy at night and it's nighttime warmth is from
the quantity of heat transfering from the earth.
Their favorite claim is that the atmosphere radiates 324Wm-2 and the
sun radiates 170Wm-2. These are actually grown men, not a group of
junior high kids making this stuff up and believing it. This is pretty
dumb. Anyone that has ever been outside knows that it is very hot in
the sunlight. Shade is awful nice in this heat. But the brilliant
idiots of AGW and the IPCC have greater insight. It is the atmosphere
that radiates all the heat.
Do they have any real scientists on retainer at their closed door
meetings?? Or does their smoking gun, no debate consensus, come from
like just a full blown composium of those rejects from science, the
brilliant climatologists who actually just enjoy programing their
computers to give themelses the result they want?? And compose their
science for the end result that they want?? There is no physics
employed in these computer programs. Just statistics of temperatures
which don't even account for Stefans law in determination of averages.
If there were any rational people in climatology, the fanatics of the
CO2Phobiacs drive them out. They do no climatology without the
integration of the grenhouse theory of earth's temperature.
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
Exxon Creams on Hanson
Yes, we got it!
http://ScienceCop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheSunBetrayed
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=TheCarbonWar
http://sciencecop.info/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Cartel+Solar+Patents
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation
Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16
Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
Beelzebub
> On Feb 9, 4:21 am, "Philip H. Hart" <auldph...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On 8 Feb, 21:47, "aloha.kakuikanu" <aloha.kakuik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 8, 8:13 am, "Bawana" <mrbawan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Lindzen then addressed the media's frequent misleading references to
> > > > the participants as the "world's leading climate scientists." He
> > > > explained that the best science students generally moved into physics,
> > > > math, and computer science -- not climate science.
>
> > > Couldn't say it better -- natural selection at work. Those who are
> > > unable to achieve anything in math are drifted to other, less
> > > demanding fields. Physics is arguably is considered little bit less
> > > difficult field. Computer science and chemistry are no doubt less
> > > difficult than math. Climate research is somewhere at the bottom of
> > > the science pyramid. And those unable to do any science become
> > > science journalists
>
> > . What? You mean like Marc Sheppard? Bwahahaha.........
>
> > >This is why GW media coverage is so frustrating.
>
> > Like posting denialist crap here, eh? Bwahahahaha........
>
> You seem to be at the top of your game, phart.
Unlike you. Do better or we'll call in the equity on your contract -
you know what that means. Eazaz says he's really looking forward to
poo-jabbing you with his pork sword. I s'pose after two years he's
getting tired of pumping Daley's rump.
> The "Bwahahahaha........s" were,
> like, I mean, like,
> pure brilliance.
>
> "You mean like..."
> Jump back jack.
>
> "Like posting denialist crap..."
> Dude, a thing of beauty.
>
> Your best so far, phart.
>
> You AlGore kinda rock knarley.
Useless. Eazaz says you'd better start putting the Vaseline up your
ass.
Bawana
> <rts>
Beelzebub
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bawana
> <rts>
Beelzebub
Exxon Creams on Death-Rag
> a gas absorbs energy, it expands in volume and becomes bouyant causing
> convection. Grenhouse theory has some perverted idea from QM of a
> the quantity of heat transfering from the earth.
> like just a full blown composium of those rejects from science, the
> computers to give themelses the result they want?? And compose their
> integration of the grenhouse theory of earth's temperature.
>
> Deatherage
Death-Rag said: Grenhouse theory transfering composium themelses
grenhouse