IPCC: No longer credible
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Did anyone catch the article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.
Frederick Seitz, former president of both the National Academy of Sciences
and the American Physical Society wrote an op-ed exposing the IPCC as the
scam it is. What has been widely acclaimed as a consensus of 2,500
experts turns out to be a consensus of two. To clarify the IPCC process
there were two types of authors, lead authors and contributing authors.
There were between 3 and 5 lead authors for each chapter of the report who
actually wrote and bear responsibility for the contents. The contributing
authors participated by contributing papers that they thought important to
the report. Some of this information was used and some was not. Many of
the contributing authors were not experts on global climate change. In
fact a relatively small number of the participants have had peer reviewed
articles published in the last five years on global warming.
The IPCC went through extensive peer review and was approved by those
participating in the process. So far so good. Later, the summary for
policy makers was written and approved in a plenary session of the U.N.
The summary is a negotiated political document and does not
reflect the views of the scientists. It is purely a political document.
The approval of the summary was a formal declaration that the summary
reflects the views of the report.
This is where it gets good. After the original report was approved there
were significant changes made in chapter 8 -- the chapter which set out
the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over the
climate. Here are some of the changes:
The original report stated:
"Finally, we come to the most difficult question of all: 'When will the
detection of unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change
occur?' In light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties
discussed in this chapter, it is not surprising that the best answer to
this question is, 'We do not know.'"
The revised chapter states:
"Finally, we come to the difficult question of when the detection and
attribution of human-induced climate change is likely to occur. The
answer to this question must be subjective, particularly in the light of
the large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this chapter."
Referring to the attribution of global climate change to human emissions
the original chapter stated:
"A major difficulty with such studies is in associating cause and effect
with a high degree of confidence.
Attribution of an observed climate change to a particular mechanism can be
established only by testing competing hypotheses. Thus, unique
attribution of a 'significant' observed change requires specifying the
signals of all likely alternative explanations and statistical
determination that none of these mechanisms is a satisfactory explanation
for the observed change. This is a difficult task, and one that detection
studies to date have not addressed in a rigorous statistical way."
It continues:
"Pattern-based detection studies are probably of greater relevance for the
attribution issue than studies of global mean change.... Detection of a
significant change...in a pattern-based study would give some scientists
more confidence in the attribution of observed changes to a specific
cause or causes, even without rigorous statistical testing of alternative
explanations."
Continuing later:
"While some of the pattern-based studies discussed here have claimed
detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively
attributed all or part of that change to anthropogenic causes. Nor has
any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse-gas effect or aerosol
effect in the observed data -- an issue that is of primary relevance to
policy-makers."
The revised chapter states:
"Viewed as a whole, these results indicate that the observed trend in
global mean temperature over the past 100 years is unlikely to be entirely
natural in origin. More importantly, there is evidence of an emerging
pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulphate
aerosols in the observed climate record. This evidence comes from the
geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change. Taken
together, these results point towards a human influence on global
climate."
Where did this revised language come from? As it turns out it was lifted
from the politically negotiated summary for policy-makers. Who did the
rewriting? Benjamin Santer and T.M.L Wigley. This raises serious doubts
about the credibility of the published IPCC report. And the claim that
the report concludes that there is a detectable human impact on the global
climate is fiction.
Not everything written here was taken from the Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Much of it I learned from people (scientists included) who were involved
with the IPCC process.
Paul Georgia
The views expressed are my own
Stewart Rowe
Solicited and planted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, no
doubt. Or did the Heritage Foundation or the Petroleum Institute
beat you to it?
Stewart Rowe sr...@tso.cin.ix.net
tomgray
af...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Stewart Rowe) wrote:
>
>
>Solicited and planted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, no
>doubt. Or did the Heritage Foundation or the Petroleum Institute
>beat you to it?
Yeah. I noticed there did not seem to be a whole lot of science in what
was cited, too, but rather just allegations of political manipulation.
I'd be more impressed by an argument about why the science is wrong, but
those seem to be getting fewer these days . . .
Tom Gray
Director of Communications
American Wind Energy Association
PS Support renewable energy! Visit the Electronic Lobbyist For
Renewable Energy Web Site:
John McCarthy
I see Stuart Rowe has no arguments, only innuendoes.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
James G. Acker
Competitive Enterprise Institute (c...@access.digex.net) wrote:
: The original report stated:
:
: "Finally, we come to the most difficult question of all: 'When will the
: detection of unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change
: occur?' In light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties
: discussed in this chapter, it is not surprising that the best answer to
: this question is, 'We do not know.'"
:
: The revised chapter states:
:
: "Finally, we come to the difficult question of when the detection and
: attribution of human-induced climate change is likely to occur. The
: answer to this question must be subjective, particularly in the light of
: the large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this chapter."
Not a significant difference. The first paragraph uses
colloquial language, the second is more formal. The uncertainties
are clearly mentioned in the final sentence.
NEXT:
: Referring to the attribution of global climate change to human emissions
: the original chapter stated:
:
: "A major difficulty with such studies is in associating cause and effect
: with a high degree of confidence.
Correct. I.e., to say "Increased emissions of CO2 to
the atmosphere will definitely cause global warming" is too strong.
: Attribution of an observed climate change to a particular mechanism can be
: established only by testing competing hypotheses. Thus, unique
: attribution of a 'significant' observed change requires specifying the
: signals of all likely alternative explanations and statistical
: determination that none of these mechanisms is a satisfactory explanation
: for the observed change. This is a difficult task, and one that detection
: studies to date have not addressed in a rigorous statistical way."
I.e., the detection studies have detected changes, and it's
harder to assign causes to the observed changes. Reflected in the
statement below.
: It continues:
:
: "Pattern-based detection studies are probably of greater relevance for the
: attribution issue than studies of global mean change.... Detection of a
: significant change...in a pattern-based study would give some scientists
: more confidence in the attribution of observed changes to a specific
: cause or causes, even without rigorous statistical testing of alternative
: explanations."
:
: Continuing later:
:
: "While some of the pattern-based studies discussed here have claimed
: detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively
Such as changes in seasonal commencement.
: attributed all or part of that change to anthropogenic causes. Nor has
Much of the meaning of that sentence hinges on one word --
"positively". It has certainly been suggested that the change is due
to anthropogenic causes.
: any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse-gas effect or aerosol
: effect in the observed data -- an issue that is of primary relevance to
: policy-makers."
This final paragraph strikes me as eminently accurate. Let's
see how bad the revision is:
: The revised chapter states:
:
: "Viewed as a whole, these results indicate that the observed trend in
: global mean temperature over the past 100 years is unlikely to be entirely
: natural in origin. More importantly, there is evidence of an emerging
: pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulphate
: aerosols in the observed climate record. This evidence comes from the
: geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change. Taken
: together, these results point towards a human influence on global
: climate."
O.K., here's what I see happened. In a number of separate studies,
climate change was apparently observed. None of the authors of these
studies would individually claim that their study showed a change
directly attributable to anthropogenic cause, but I'd guess that virtually
all of them stated something to the effect of "the observed results are
consistent with what one would expect due to an anthropogenic cause."
You take all of those studies together, the suggestion of anthropogenic
causality becomes much stronger. The above paragraph is a synthesis.
: Where did this revised language come from? As it turns out it was lifted
: from the politically negotiated summary for policy-makers. Who did the
Yes. Exactly. A synthesis is required for there to be any
guide for policy-making.
: rewriting? Benjamin Santer and T.M.L Wigley. This raises serious doubts
: about the credibility of the published IPCC report. And the claim that
: the report concludes that there is a detectable human impact on the global
: climate is fiction.
The final conclusion is doubtful. What the skeptics want is a
single result that says A=B, i.e. human influence = climate change.
Otherwise they will always claim there is no "proof". But this is
an incremental research program. A+B+C+D+E+... = an increasing likelihood.
And that's what the report concludes.
I'd definitely like to have more information about Dr. Seitz.
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
Jan Schloerer
Sounds like nit-picking by people who feel that it's getting
tough to argue against what is known :)
In <Pine.SUN.3.93.96061...@access2.digex.net>
Paul Georgia <c...@access.digex.net> included:
> The original report [by IPCC Working Group I, JS] stated:
>
> "Finally, we come to the most difficult question of all: 'When
> will the detection of unambiguous attribution of human-induced
^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
> climate change occur?' In light of the very large signal and noise
> uncertainties discussed in this chapter, it is not surprising that
> the best answer to this question is, 'We do not know.'"
True. Except that it presumably should run "and", not "of".
Detection means showing that an observed climatic change is highly
unusual. Detection doesn't provide a reason for the change.
Attribution means establishing a cause and effect relation.
Unambiguous is a strong word. Unambiguous attribution of
climatic changes to specific causes is currently asking for
too much. In some cases, it may be next to impossible.
Take clouds. During the past decades, cloud cover has increased
over at least some land areas [1]. Some possible causes:
- Rising levels of greenhouse gases (human-made)
- The so-called indirect effect of tropospheric sulfate
aerosols and biomass smoke (human-made)
- Natural climatic variability
Perhaps stratospheric ozone depletion (human-made) will join
this list [2,3]. Sorting out such a maze requires modeling.
Models will never be perfect, thus unambiguous attribution
of "guilt percentages" may be elusive.
(Ambiguous) attribution of a change, in part and without precise
quantification, to human influence is something else again.
> The revised chapter states:
>
> "Finally, we come to the difficult question of when the detection and
> attribution of human-induced climate change is likely to occur. The
> answer to this question must be subjective, particularly in the light
> of the large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this chapter."
I fail to see a contradiction to the original text. Unambiguous
attribution is currently not feasible. It may turn out to be
elusive in some cases, see above. Each individual study has its
potholes. Yet, taking together the clues from various studies,
it seems unlikely that the observed climatic changes are entirely
natural. Just what the following quote says:
> The revised chapter states:
>
> "Viewed as a whole, these results indicate that the observed trend
> in global mean temperature over the past 100 years is unlikely to be
> entirely natural in origin. More importantly, there is evidence
> of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse
> gases and sulphate aerosols in the observed climate record. This
> evidence comes from the geographical, seasonal and vertical
> patterns of temperature change. Taken together, these results
> point towards a human influence on global climate."
Paul Georgia then expressed "serious doubts about the credibility
of the published IPCC report".
Fine, let's start with the above quote. If I get you correctly,
you believe that the observed climatic changes are likely "to be
entirely natural in origin." I'd appreciate to learn your reasons.
To be specific, I'd like to know why you feel that entirely natural
causes are the best explanation for the results mentioned in [2, 4-9].
[1] Thomas R. Karl, Philip D. Jones, 8 more authors, A new
perspective on recent global warming: asymmetric trends of daily
maximum and minimum temperature. Bulletin American Meteorol.
Society 74 (1993), 1007-1023
[2] L. D. Danny Harvey, Warm days, hot nights.
Nature 377 (1995), 15-16
[3] Ralf Toumi, Silmane Bekki & Kathy S. Law, Indirect influence
of ozone depletion on climate forcing by clouds. Nature 372
(1994), 348-351
[4] Thomas R. Karl, Richard W.Knight & Neil Plummer,
Trends in high-frequency climate variability in the twentieth
century. Nature 377 (1995), 217-220
[5] Richard A. Kerr, Study unveils climate cooling caused
by pollutant haze. Science 268 (1995), 802
[6] Richard A. Kerr, It's official: first glimmer of greenhouse
warming seen. Science 270 (8 Dec 1995), 1565+1567
[7] Michael C. MacCracken, The evidence mounts up.
Nature 376 (1995), 645-646
[8] David J. Thomson, The seasons, global temperature,
and precession. Science 268 (1995), 59-68
[9] K.E. Trenberth, T.J. Hoar, The 1990-1995 El Nino-Southern
Oscillation event: longest on record. Geophysical Research
Letters 23 (1 January 1996), 57-60. Abstract:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu:80/cas/abstracts/
Jan Schloerer jsch...@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de
Uni Ulm Klinische Dokumentation D-89070 Ulm Germany
Mark A. Friesel
On 14 Jun 1996, John McCarthy wrote:
> I see Stuart Rowe has no arguments, only innuendoes.
You should feel right at home.
Competitive Enterprise Institute
On 13 Jun 1996, Stewart Rowe wrote:
>
>
> Solicited and planted by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, no
> doubt. Or did the Heritage Foundation or the Petroleum Institute
> beat you to it?
>
> Stewart Rowe sr...@tso.cin.ix.net
>
Actually Seitz's tagline says he is working for the George C. Marshall
Institute.
I've read all of the reply posts and will try to answer them here. Or at
least I will clarify my reasons for posting this story. Doesn't anyone
(regardless of your views on global warming) find it strange that a report
that underwent extensive peer review was changed by two scientists after
the process was completed. Especially after this report has been touted
as a "consensus of 2,500 scientists."
Doesn't it raise some doubts about the credibility of the report that the
peer review process was corrupted? Many have analyzed in minute detail
the differences in an attempt to downplay the significance of what
occurred, but the fact remains that the report as it now stands does not
say what the approved report said. How did it go from
> > "...no study to date has positively
> > attributed all or part of that change to anthropogenic causes."
to
> > "Taken together, these results point towards a human influence on
> > global climate."
This is a major difference. The first was endorsed by those whose names
appear on the report the second was not. My point is that the claim (made
ad nauseum on this newsgroup) that there is now a consensus among
scientists on global warming and that the IPCC report proves it is no
longer a valid claim.
Paul Georgia
The views expressed are my own.
Donald L. Libby
It's disturbing to find how fickle the process of consensus building can be,
and it would be especially troubling to know the built consensus has been
undermined by capricious rogue editors. I can't conclude from the
contrasting out-of-context snippets below whether the intended meaning of
the document has been changed by the indicated change of wording - if the
corruption is as bad as you make it seem, I suspect that a few of the 2,500
who were misrepresented by the two would make a statement to that effect.
I have some doubts about the credibility of the critics.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I have to ask what difference it
would make if the IPCC "consensus statement of anthropgenic GCC" were
incredible. It would reduce the leverage of legitimacy for those who wish
to enact controls on GHG emissions. As a political strategem, it would be
in conservatives' interest to cast dispersion on the most visible public
document in support of emission control. But would such a ploy defeat the
truth of the "pre-adulterated" consensus statement that definitive proof of
anthropogenic GCC is impossible at this time but that the body of evidence
supports the case for human influence? For conservatives to win
politically it may be sufficient to cast doubts about the credibility of the
scientific community's consensus statement without debating the validity
of the underlying science, since I doubt that many citizens will bother
to try to understand the science.
In either case, I still have to wonder if failure to enact controls over
GHG emissions would be all that bad in the long run. The oceans died 250
million years ago, the dinosaurs died 65 milion years ago, and despite all
those extinctions, life is pretty good today, if you ask me. True, I'd like
to keep it that way for a few more generations at least, but that's just a
moral value. Will reason triumph over passion in this morality play - will
science pursuade us to restrict the growth of GHG emissions? I doubt that
knowledge will penetrate the emotional rhetoric of spin doctors, whether
they're from CEI, the George Marshall Institute, the Hoover Institute, or
IPCC. So yes, I have to admit, this post raises some doubts.
-dl
In article <Pine.SUN.3.93.960614...@access2.digex.net> Competitive Enterprise Institute <c...@access.digex.net> writes:
>From: Competitive Enterprise Institute <c...@access.digex.net>
>Subject: Re: IPCC: No longer credible
>Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 14:15:18 -0400
snip
>Doesn't it raise some doubts about the credibility of the report that the
>peer review process was corrupted? Many have analyzed in minute detail
>the differences in an attempt to downplay the significance of what
>occurred, but the fact remains that the report as it now stands does not
>say what the approved report said. How did it go from
>> > "...no study to date has positively
>> > attributed all or part of that change to anthropogenic causes."
>to
>> > "Taken together, these results point towards a human influence on
>> > global climate."
>This is a major difference. The first was endorsed by those whose names
>appear on the report the second was not. My point is that the claim (made
>ad nauseum on this newsgroup) that there is now a consensus among
>scientists on global warming and that the IPCC report proves it is no
>longer a valid claim.
>Paul Georgia
>The views expressed are my own.
Bruce Hamilton
In article <4prsm9$t...@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>
jga...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
[ all gone...]
> The final conclusion is doubtful. What the skeptics want is a
>single result that says A=B, i.e. human influence = climate change.
>Otherwise they will always claim there is no "proof". But this is
>an incremental research program. A+B+C+D+E+... = an increasing likelihood.
>And that's what the report concludes.
>
> I'd definitely like to have more information about Dr. Seitz.
Well, you shall know them by the company they keep ( or some
such expression ), incidentally at the site below there is a
response one of your letters.... I'm surprised others didn't
mention the connection sooner - I would have thought John may
regularly check the site to receive nutrition....
Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
President: S.Fred Singer, PhD.
Board of Directors: Frederick Seitz, Ph.D., Chmn.
Charles Gelman, M.S. (Public Health)
David L. Hill, Ph.D.
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.
http://www.his.com/~chyden/SEPP/
For a really entertaining perpective on the global warming issue,
try out their global warming section... Tragic really, but funny for
anyone routinely scanning Nature or Science....
http://www.his.com/~chyden/SEPP/glwarm.htm
The Science & Environmental Policy Project was founded by atmospheric
physicist, Dr. S. Fred Singer, then Professor of Environmental Sciences
at the University of Virginia, on the premise that sound science
should form the basis for environmental decisions. Otherwise,
millions of people will be (and have been) adversely affected by
environmental policies that are wasting tens of billions of
dollars.
Keep up with what's happening. Learn the facts about global
warming, ozone depletion, acid rain, urban smog, and chemical risks
to health. Your tax-exempt contribution may be sent to:
The Science & Environmental Policy Project
4084 University Drive, Suite 101 Fairfax, VA 22030-6812
Tel: (703)934-6940; Fax: (703)352-7535
(a non-profit 501(c)3 Virginia corporation)
Scientific questions may be sent to: Dr. S. Fred Singer
You are the 353rd visitor to this site since we started
counting in late November.
Oh dear, that probably helps explain the need to keep writing
all those letters etc., nobody visits their home page - I hope some
of the denizens of sci.environment will help boost their readership,
perhaps Rich or John should add pointers :-).
Note that Bruce Ames is amongst their scientific advisors.
Anyway, for those not wanting to vist the site - in case they
catch something, here are their position statements on issues
related to sci.environment. Note also that a brief tour of the site
indicates they may not have participated in any recent global
warming research, just critiqued the work of others, but there
may be some hidden away in various nooks and crannies...
SEPP'S POSITION ON KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
GLOBAL WARMING
There is no evidence, other than from computer model calculations,
that appreciable global warming will occur as a result of human
activities, or that its consequences would be harmful. It is
therefore prudent to pursue a "no regrets" policy of improving energy
efficiency and conservation through market-based measures.
OZONE DEPLETION
There is insufficient evidence to conclude that anthropogenic emissions
will cause ozone depletion over populated areas or that if they do the
consequences would be harmful. One should avoid or postpone expensive
and potentially harmful disruptions of freon-based air-conditioning and
refrigeration systems and the phase-out of other important chemicals
until better scientific evidence is available.
CHEMICAL RISK
The Delaney Amendment assumes that exposure to infinitesimal quantities
of any chemical suspected of being a toxin, mutagen, teratogen or
carcinogen is hazardous. Scientific studies have shown this premise to
be false. Delaney should be replaced by comparative risk assessment,
cost-benefit analysis and peer review of scientific data.
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Use of a renewable resource should generally be limited to its
long-term sustainable yield. Lack of ownership creates disincentives to
conservation. Creation of property rights allows market forces to operate
and is the most efficient means of achieving sustainable development.
Gosh, this might even divert attention away from some other threads.
Bruce Hamilton
Bruce Hamilton
Competitive Enterprise Institute <c...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>Actually Seitz's tagline says he is working for the George C. Marshall
>Institute.
From what I've just posted, that is only one organisation, although
it may be the bread and butter one.
The question is - ( undoubtably not very polite, but them I'm not in a
position to detect his huge contributions to the science of climate
change ) - what credence does he have that enables him to assess
the merits and motives of the IPCC panel members and lead authors?.
>I've read all of the reply posts and will try to answer them here. Or at
>least I will clarify my reasons for posting this story. Doesn't anyone
>(regardless of your views on global warming) find it strange that a report
>that underwent extensive peer review was changed by two scientists after
>the process was completed.
These aren't just "two scientists", they may well be the lead authors-
The questions ( as I perceive them ) are ;-
1. Were they entitled to?
2. Were they qualified to?
3. Were they required to? ( by IPCC requirements? )
4. Should they?.
I await your response.
>Especially after this report has been touted as a "consensus of 2,500
>scientists."
Maybe by some, most would say that that a large number of the
leading climate scientists provided imput. I'd be stunned if 100
scientists could agree on the time of day, much less some technical
agreements. The best that can be hoped for - from 2,500 of such petulant
beasties - is a majority consensus, and I believe that was all that most
observers and reviewers expected. Science is seldom unambiguous.
>Doesn't it raise some doubts about the credibility of the report that the
>peer review process was corrupted?
....
>This is a major difference. The first was endorsed by those whose names
>appear on the report the second was not.
Are you claiming that the lead authors ( who may or may-not have modified the
report ) names were not on the first report. As lead authoprs surely their
names appear on the second report - please explain why those lead authors
names were not also on the first report.?.
>My point is that the claim (made ad nauseum on this newsgroup) that there is
>now a consensus among scientists on global warming and that the IPCC report
>proves it is no longer a valid claim.
Perhaps you should consider improving your nausea threshold?
You know, as well as I, that there is a distinct difference between a
consensus and a majority consensus. The majority knows there are
a vocal minority who disagree - such an event neither validates nor
invalidates the majority consensus view.
Bruce Hamilton
Jan Schloerer
Nature addressed this matter in an editorial and two newspieces:
[1] [Editorial] Climate debate must not overheat.
Nature 381 (13 June 1996), 539
[2] Ehsan Masood, Climate report `subject to scientific
cleansing'. Nature 381 (13 June 1996), 546
[3] Ehasan Masood, Head of climate group rejects claims
of political influence. Nature 381 (6 June 1996), 455
These give roughly the following picture:
* The recent campaign against the IPCC appears to be orchestrated
by the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), "a group whose description
as `an organization of business trade associations and private
companies' disguises the extent to which it acts, in particular,
as the voice of fossil-fuel producers, primarily in the oil, coal
and petroleum industry." [1].
* The campaign was timed to match the publication of the 1995
IPCC Report. The IPCC Report was published on June 5 [3].
In the same week, "the GCC published a strongly worded criti-
cism of the IPCC's latest report which, it claimed, had been
subject to an institutionalized `scientific cleansing'." [1]
* The complaints primarily address revisions in the text of the
chapter on detecting climate change and attributing causes.
These revisions "did result in a subtle shift in the relative
weight given to different types of arguments ... this shift
tended to favour arguments that aligned with the report's broad
conclusions. Conversely, some phrases that might have been
(mis)interpreted as undermining these conclusions, particularly
if, as IPCC officials feared, they were taken out of context,
have disappeared." [1]
* The GCC attacks the revisions on procedural grounds [1,2], com-
plaining that the final draft of the detection and attribution
chapter, after having been approved, was revised by its lead
authors. Current IPCC rules, however, do permit late revisions
to chapter texts. Policymakers' summaries must be approved by
governments, usually line by line. The chapter text proper is
"not to be approved in detail" but only "in principle" by the
full working groups. Details remain the responsibility of the
lead authors. [1,2. James P. Bruce, Nature 379 (1996), 108-109]
It's another question whether late modifications are wise for
"a topic where political sensitivities run high". [1]
* Ben Santer, an atmospheric scientist and a lead author of
the chapter who carried out the revisions, "describes as a
`supreme irony' of the criticism the fact that `he fought very
hard during drafting sessions to include sections on signal and
noise uncertainties'. He points out that many of his co-authors
advocated removing these sections, on the grounds that the
issues were partially covered in other chapters." [2]
* "Despite continued dissent from a dwindling band of sceptics,
there is growing support within the scientific community for the
view" expressed in the IPCC report that "the balance of evidence
suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." [1]
A statement to this effect was already contained in the draft
report, and was approved [2]. (Ok, the GCC tried hard to
prevent this :)
The Global Climate Coalition does not address the question
whether the criticized revisions are scientifically sound.
While not directly accusing the GCC of intending this, Nature
warns that "the GCC's attack on the IPCC allows direct
consideration of the science involved to be overshadowed
by semantic argments that risk losing the wood in the trees." [1]
As I said: sounds like nit-picking by people who feel that
it's getting tough to argue against what is known :)
I'm looking forward to *factual* arguments which suggest
that the various climatic oddities observed over the past
decades [4-10] are likely to be entirely natural in origin.
[4] L. D. Danny Harvey, Warm days, hot nights.
Nature 377 (1995), 15-16
[5] Thomas R. Karl, Richard W.Knight & Neil Plummer,
Trends in high-frequency climate variability in the twentieth
century. Nature 377 (1995), 217-220
[6] Richard A. Kerr, Study unveils climate cooling caused
by pollutant haze. Science 268 (1995), 802
[7] Richard A. Kerr, It's official: first glimmer of greenhouse
warming seen. Science 270 (8 Dec 1995), 1565+1567
[8] Michael C. MacCracken, The evidence mounts up.
Nature 376 (1995), 645-646
[9] David J. Thomson, The seasons, global temperature,
and precession. Science 268 (1995), 59-68
[10] K.E. Trenberth, T.J. Hoar, The 1990-1995 El Nino-Southern
Oscillation event: longest on record. Geophysical Research
Letters 23 (1 January 1996), 57-60. Abstract:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu:80/cas/abstracts/
Apologies for reposting these refs, but I thought I'd make
this one self-contained.
John McCarthy
1930s. He was President of the National Academy of Sciences and then
President of Rockefeller University. He is long retired from these
positions and is in his 80s. He devotes his time to public service
activities, for which I doubt he is paid. I should think he gets
enough retirement pay from having been President of Rockefeller
University so that he doesn't need pay from the Marshall Institute or
that other organization.
His criticism of the IPCC report was based on discrepancies between
the draft submitted by the working scientists and the final report.
It is common that political considerations affect final versions of
reports.
Leonard Evens
John McCarthy wrote:
>
> Seitz is famous for his work in solid state physics starting in the
> 1930s. He was President of the National Academy of Sciences and then
> President of Rockefeller University. He is long retired from these
> positions and is in his 80s. He devotes his time to public service
> activities, for which I doubt he is paid. I should think he gets
> enough retirement pay from having been President of Rockefeller
> University so that he doesn't need pay from the Marshall Institute or
> that other organization.
>
> His criticism of the IPCC report was based on discrepancies between
> the draft submitted by the working scientists and the final report.
> It is common that political considerations affect final versions of
> reports.
> --
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> *
> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
And of course it is unheard of for people like Seitz who does not
work in this area, has no special expertise in it, and is associated
with a group which comes to clearly explicit ideological
conclusions, to be influenced by political factors?
See the posting which appeared previously to this one by Jan
Schloerer. There really is no issue here which has any scientific
merit. The IPCC concluded that the evidence that human activity
in the past 150 years has affected climate but explicitly does not
claim to be able to quantify this effect. Given the results of
Thomson, Karl, etc., this seems to me to be a quite conservative
conclusion.
Leonard Evens l...@math.nwu.edu 491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois
John McCarthy
Len Evens includes:
And of course it is unheard of for people like Seitz who
does not work in this area, has no special expertise in it,
and is associated with a group which comes to clearly
explicit ideological conclusions, to be influenced by
political factors?
I suspect Len is applying harsher criteria to Seitz than he would to
someone he agrees with. Even Schloerer does not work in the area his
excellent FAQ is about - as he makes clear. How does Len know what
reading Seitz has done?
Seitz is one of the founders of the Marshall Institute which claims
that it is fighting other people's ideologically motivated distortions
of science. Arguments about ideological distortions of facts go on
all the time, and sometimes they are correct.
Scott Nudds
(John McCarthy) wrote:
: I see Stuart Rowe has no arguments, only innuendoes.
I see John McCarthy has no arguments, only sound bits.
---
Let me repeat that 25,000 reactors was computed on the basis of
(1) all countries reaching American energy usage levels
(2) all energy, including for transportation, being nuclear.
- John McCarthy 1996/02/05
The U.S. has about 1/20 of the world population, so it would seem that
40,000 reactors would be required to meet the world's energy requirement
at American usage levels. American energy usage levels will only be
required at an American standard of living. - John McCarthies web page
/04/96
The arithmetic suggests 120,000 reactors - in say 6,000 power plants.
--
<---->
Competitive Enterprise Institute
On Sun, 16 Jun 1996, Bruce Hamilton wrote:
> Competitive Enterprise Institute <c...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>
> >Actually Seitz's tagline says he is working for the George C. Marshall
> >Institute.
>
> From what I've just posted, that is only one organisation, although
> it may be the bread and butter one.
>
> The question is - ( undoubtably not very polite, but them I'm not in a
> position to detect his huge contributions to the science of climate
> change ) - what credence does he have that enables him to assess
> the merits and motives of the IPCC panel members and lead authors?.
He didn't assess their merits or motives. He simply exposed the fact that
they changed the conclusions after the report was peer reviewed.
>
> >I've read all of the reply posts and will try to answer them here. Or at
> >least I will clarify my reasons for posting this story. Doesn't anyone
> >(regardless of your views on global warming) find it strange that a report
> >that underwent extensive peer review was changed by two scientists after
> >the process was completed.
>
> These aren't just "two scientists", they may well be the lead authors-
> The questions ( as I perceive them ) are ;-
> 1. Were they entitled to?
> 2. Were they qualified to?
> 3. Were they required to? ( by IPCC requirements? )
> 4. Should they?.
>
> I await your response.
>
Wigley and Santer were two of the four lead authors. No scientist is
entitled to change the conclusions of a peer reviewed document and then
continue to claim that it is peer reviewed.
> >Especially after this report has been touted as a "consensus of 2,500
> >scientists."
>
> Maybe by some, most would say that that a large number of the
> leading climate scientists provided imput. I'd be stunned if 100
> scientists could agree on the time of day, much less some technical
> agreements. The best that can be hoped for - from 2,500 of such petulant
> beasties - is a majority consensus, and I believe that was all that most
> observers and reviewers expected. Science is seldom unambiguous.
>
> >Doesn't it raise some doubts about the credibility of the report that the
> >peer review process was corrupted?
> ....
> >This is a major difference. The first was endorsed by those whose names
> >appear on the report the second was not.
>
> Are you claiming that the lead authors ( who may or may-not have modified the
> report ) names were not on the first report. As lead authoprs surely their
> names appear on the second report - please explain why those lead authors
> names were not also on the first report.?.
Their names were on the the first report. As were the names of all
scientists who contributed to the report. Those whose names appear on
the published version thought the were endorsing the peer reviewed report.
It is my understanding that only a handful of the contributing scientists
are aware of the changes. I know of at least one who asked to have his
name removed from the report when he learned of the changes.
>
>
> Bruce Hamilton
>
>
>
>
Paul Georgia
The views expressed are my own.
James G. Acker
Competitive Enterprise Institute (c...@access.digex.net) wrote:
: Doesn't it raise some doubts about the credibility of the report that the
: peer review process was corrupted? Many have analyzed in minute detail
: the differences in an attempt to downplay the significance of what
: occurred, but the fact remains that the report as it now stands does not
: say what the approved report said. How did it go from
I analyzed the statements in an attempt to determine if
the peer-review process was corrupted, as that would be a serious
concern. I concluded that there were no changes significant to
indicate the process was corrupted.
: > > "...no study to date has positively
: > > attributed all or part of that change to anthropogenic causes."
:
: to
:
: > > "Taken together, these results point towards a human influence on
: > > global climate."
As I said before, the meaning of "positively" must be
determined, or the first statement is ambiguous. If Tom Karl says
(1) "the results are consistent with what would be expected from
warming forced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases", is that "positive"?
Or does Karl have to say (2) "25% of the warming is attributable solely to
anthropogenic greenhouse emissions". Now that's a big difference.
And note, more importantly, that the first statement focuses
on studies taken one at a time -- the second pulls the results
together. If 10 studies contain a statement similar to (1)
above, at what point does someone conclude "hmm, since all 10 results
are consistent with what would expect from warming induced by
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, it seems reasonable
that the observed changes might be attributable to some anthropogenic
influence."
The IPCC report basically says that point has been reached.
: This is a major difference. The first was endorsed by those whose names
: appear on the report the second was not. My point is that the claim (made
: ad nauseum on this newsgroup) that there is now a consensus among
: scientists on global warming and that the IPCC report proves it is no
: longer a valid claim.
How many dissenters does it take to reduce a "consensus" to
an "agreement"? (Express your answer as a percentage ;-)
Jan Schloerer
Paul Georgia, and presumably others, wondered:
How did it go from
"...no study to date has positively attributed
all or part of that change to anthropogenic causes."
to
"Taken together, these results point towards
a human influence on global climate."
This is a major difference.
James Acker lucidly explained, why these two statements
are well compatible, writing, among others:
... note ... that the first statement focuses on
studies taken one at a time -- the second pulls the results
together. If 10 studies contain a statement similar to ...
["the results are consistent with what would be expected
from warming forced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases"],
at what point does someone conclude "hmm, since all 10
results are consistent with what would expect from warming
induced by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, it seems
reasonable that the observed changes might be attributable
to some anthropogenic influence."
The IPCC report basically says that point has been
reached.
The irony is that some phrases like
"...no study to date has positively attributed
all or part of that change to anthropogenic causes"
allegedly were eliminated because they might have been
misinterpreted as contradicting phrases like
"Taken together, these results point towards
a human influence on global climate"
especially if, as some IPCC officials feared, the former phrases
"were taken out of context" (Nature 13 June 1996, p 539).
It now seems that was a boomerang. Perhaps they better had
asked James Acker for some explaining sentences :)
Scott Nudds
: they changed the conclusions after the report was peer reviewed.
I'm sorry. No conclusions were changed. And by all accounts the
authors were perfectly within their rights to revise their preamble
under the rules governing the process.
: Wigley and Santer were two of the four lead authors. No scientist is
: entitled to change the conclusions of a peer reviewed document and then
: continue to claim that it is peer reviewed.
I'm sorry. No conclusions were changed. And by all accounts the
authors were perfectly within their rights to revise their preamble
under the rules governing the process.
: Paul Georgia - The views expressed are my own.
Paul Georgia tells us that he does not speak for the CEI. His user ID
tells us that he does.
--
<---->
Eric Stevens
On Sun, 16 Jun 1996 07:08:18 GMT, B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce
Hamilton) wrote:
--- snip ----
>You know, as well as I, that there is a distinct difference between a
>consensus and a majority consensus.
Now that is a unique splitting of hair!
Please enlighten us all as to what the difference actually is. You
may, or may not be, talking sense. But we will never know until you
define your terms.
Eric Stevens
There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
James G. Acker
Jan Schloerer (JSCH...@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de) wrote:
[after deleting Jan's complimentary echo]
: It now seems that was a boomerang. Perhaps they better had
: asked James Acker for some explaining sentences :)
Resume available upon request. ;-U
Bruce Hamilton
stev...@iprolink.co.nz (Eric Stevens) wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Jun 1996 07:08:18 GMT, B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce
>Hamilton) wrote:
>>You know, as well as I, that there is a distinct difference between a
>>consensus and a majority consensus.
>Now that is a unique splitting of hair!
Possibly. My dictionary ( Concise Oxford ), defines consensus as
" agreement" - no mention of hair :-)
>Please enlighten us all as to what the difference actually is. You
>may, or may not be, talking sense. But we will never know until you
>define your terms.
Consensus does not imply all participants agree, that situation would
usually be qualified with unanimous or complete. Consensus is taken
usually taken to mean that the majority agrees with the opinion, and
can also be specifically qualified by terms like general or major.
Thus, the original post was claiming that the "consensus" had been
violated by the changes, when the reality is that Seitz and co. have
presented *no* evidence that the majority disagree with the changes.
John Emsley of the European Science and Environment Forum
( a group of scientists who claim to be excluded from the IPCC process ),
accused the panel of censorship, and claimed the panel achieved
consensus by blocking out alternative views.
Both the ESEF and Global Climate Coalition claim the IPCC doctored its
report, but Houghton ( just appointed for another ( the third ) 5 year term
as co-chair of WGI ) notes that changes were made to background documents
only, as IPCC rules allow, and were designed to clarify statements, and not to
alter their meaning.
Sir John said "There are thousands of references to support the [ IPCC ]
conclusions. It is not an agreement about the detail, because science does not
work that way. It is a general consensus about what we know and what we
don't know. There is no question about forcing a consensus "
[ as reported by Ehsan Massod in Nature v381 p455 6 June 96 ].
As Jan's posts, and the above article note, the changes were permissible,
and were performed by the authorised people - the Lead Authors.
None of the examples provided so far would cause me any great concern,
and one wonders whether it would cause concern to many of the
participants in the process - unlike the fiasco of the WGIII cost of lives
debate. If the only concerns of the climate change opponents about the
Second Assessment are about relatively minor changes in language of
background documents, rather than the research papers on which those
conclusions are based, then they have not spent their time reading the
report wisely. They should either demonstrate that conclusions are not
justified by the data, or the data is wrong or biased.
Incidently, while tryingg out MS Word 6.0 UK English thesaurus on unanimous,
it produced "unadulterated" which, when also looked up, gave "twaddle"
Unadulterated twaddle seems an appropriate expression for this much
ado about nothing.
Bruce Hamilton
John McCarthy
It is of the essence of twaddle that it is adulterated. Indeed it is
usually entirely composed of adulterations.
Eric Stevens
On Tue, 18 Jun 1996 15:41:39 GMT, B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce
Hamilton) wrote:
>stev...@iprolink.co.nz (Eric Stevens) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 16 Jun 1996 07:08:18 GMT, B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce
>>Hamilton) wrote:
>>>You know, as well as I, that there is a distinct difference between a
>>>consensus and a majority consensus.
>>Now that is a unique splitting of hair!
>
>Possibly. My dictionary ( Concise Oxford ), defines consensus as
>" agreement" - no mention of hair :-)
My 'Shorter Oxford Dictionary' gives 'concensus' as follows:
"Agreement or unity view of or of opinion, testimony etc.; the
majority view, a collective opinion; (an agreement of different
parties to) a shared body of views."
At best "majority consensus" is a redundancy. At worst it is an
oxymoron.
>Consensus does not imply all participants agree, that situation would
>usually be qualified with unanimous or complete. Consensus is taken
>usually taken to mean that the majority agrees with the opinion, and
>can also be specifically qualified by terms like general or major.
As my quote from the Shorter Oxford shows, you are selecting a
minority meaning of 'consensus' if you use the word to mean "that the
majority agrees with the opinion". If this is the correct meaning for
the use of the word 'concensus' in the IPCC report there should be
some reference to the minority opinions. That these have been
concealed by removing them after the peer-review process is what Seitz
et al are complaining about.
>
>Thus, the original post was claiming that the "consensus" had been
>violated by the changes, when the reality is that Seitz and co. have
>presented *no* evidence that the majority disagree with the changes.
It's not up to them. It was up to whoever wrote the documents that
were approved by the peer-review process.
>
>John Emsley of the European Science and Environment Forum
>( a group of scientists who claim to be excluded from the IPCC process ),
>accused the panel of censorship, and claimed the panel achieved
>consensus by blocking out alternative views.
The claimed post-review editing seems to lend support to their claim.
>
>Both the ESEF and Global Climate Coalition claim the IPCC doctored its
>report, but Houghton ( just appointed for another ( the third ) 5 year term
>as co-chair of WGI ) notes that changes were made to background documents
>only, as IPCC rules allow, and were designed to clarify statements, and not to
>alter their meaning.
Even if the rules allow it, that does not make it a desirable
practice. Seitz claims that the meanings were changed.
>
>Sir John said "There are thousands of references to support the [ IPCC ]
>conclusions. It is not an agreement about the detail, because science does not
>work that way. It is a general consensus about what we know and what we
>don't know. There is no question about forcing a consensus "
>[ as reported by Ehsan Massod in Nature v381 p455 6 June 96 ].
> As Jan's posts, and the above article note, the changes were permissible,
>and were performed by the authorised people - the Lead Authors.
Why give lead authors permission to modify documents after the
peer-review process? Why have a peer-review process if the documents
can be cahnged afterwards? The whole thing sounds distinctly shonky to
me.
>
>None of the examples provided so far would cause me any great concern,
>and one wonders whether it would cause concern to many of the
>participants in the process - unlike the fiasco of the WGIII cost of lives
>debate.
I am not interested in the merits or otherwise of the excised/amended
sections of the documents. I am concerned at the fundamental
principle. Either the final report is peer reviewed, or it is not. If
Seitz et al are correct then the documents are not peer reviewed but
may be maskerading as such. That should cause considerable concern
amongst the scientific community.
>If the only concerns of the climate change opponents about the
>Second Assessment are about relatively minor changes in language of
>background documents, rather than the research papers on which those
>conclusions are based, then they have not spent their time reading the
>report wisely.
The reported changes are in the section of the report written to
inform governments and legislators. It was specifically written to
enable them to avoid the chore (for them) of reading the whole of the
technical material (which few of them would be competent to properly
evaluate) and reaching a conclusion. To this end, a peer-reviewed
document was produced. Subsequently, and before publication, the
contents of the document were doctored. This is not acceptable IMHO.
>They should either demonstrate that conclusions are not
>justified by the data, or the data is wrong or biased.
You have missed the point.
>
>Incidently, while tryingg out MS Word 6.0 UK English thesaurus on unanimous,
>it produced "unadulterated" which, when also looked up, gave "twaddle"
>Unadulterated twaddle seems an appropriate expression for this much
>ado about nothing.
When I tried looking up "unanimous" in the Word Perfect 6.1 Thesaurus
it came up with 'accordant', 'agreed', 'consonant', 'unified' and
'united'. As an antonym it produced 'dissenting'. May I suggest that
your MS Word 6.0 UK English thesaurus is adulterated and is giving
you twaddle.
Eric Stevens
On 16 Jun 1996 16:27:32 GMT, JSCH...@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de (Jan
Schloerer) wrote:
--- snip ----
>As I said: sounds like nit-picking by people who feel that
>it's getting tough to argue against what is known :)
That may or may not be true. Far more important, what is the answer to
the question, was the peer-reviewed version altered before
publication?
If it was tampered with, that seems to me to be far more important
than any arguments over the detailed science.
Jan Schloerer
It appears that news are late for Eric Stevens. I'll email him
this and some other posts, so we may avoid further duplications.
In <31c7bf48...@news.iprolink.co.nz>
Eric Stevens (stev...@iprolink.co.nz) wrote:
> [...] Far more important, what is the answer to the question,
> was the peer-reviewed version altered before publication ?
No. You don't yet know it, but this is a strawman.
> If it was tampered with, that seems to me to be far more
> important than any arguments over the detailed science.
Under current IPCC procedures, final drafts of the technical
reports proper are *meant to draw comments from reviewers*.
Lead authors are *required* to take reviewers' comments into
account when preparing the final text. Chapters are accepted
"in principle" by the Working Groups, but the final text remains
the responsibility of the lead authors [1-3].
You may quibble whether this specific procedure is well-designed.
In any event, a review process for an overview on a fast moving
field - which no single person fully oversees - must differ
from the process for authors submitting a paper to some journal.
Line by line approval of the resulting long and detailed text
by full Working Groups is impractical. Most participants wouldn't
understand most of it in sufficient depth. See also James Acker's,
imho, fine post on peer review.
Seitz may well not know the IPCC procedures. The Global Climate
Coalition (GCC), who apparently has launched this affair [1],
knows these rules. If the GCC had backed up their complaint
about the subtle shift in meaning [1] with *factual* arguments
which suggest that this shift was scientifically unsound, then ok.
From what I saw so far, though, it seems that the GCC capitalizes
on the ignorance of most people about IPCC procedures, crying
"peer review corrupted".
My hunch: The GCC, a voice of the fossil fuel industry [1],
wants us to lose the wood (human influence on climate)
for the trees (quibbles about peer review).
[1] [Editorial] Climate debate must not overheat.
Nature 381 (13 June 1996), 539
[2] James P. Bruce, Purpose and function of IPCC.
Nature 379 (11 January 1996), 108-109
[3] Ehsan Masood, Climate report `subject to scientific
cleansing'. Nature 381 (13 June 1996), 546
Bruce Hamilton
stev...@iprolink.co.nz (Eric Stevens) wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 1996 15:41:39 GMT, B.Ham...@irl.cri.nz (Bruce
>Hamilton) wrote:
[ Re use of qualifiers such as "general" or "majority" ].
>At best "majority consensus" is a redundancy. At worst it is an
>oxymoron.
Possibly, but then the quote I posted from Sir John Houghton said
"... It is a general consensus... " My dictionary provides me with the
meaning ( "agreement" ) that I understood for consensus, and that
would permit the use of qualifiers - I'm not wasting more time on it.
>>Thus, the original post was claiming that the "consensus" had been
>>violated by the changes, when the reality is that Seitz and co. have
>>presented *no* evidence that the majority disagree with the changes.
>It's not up to them. It was up to whoever wrote the documents that
>were approved by the peer-review process.
As I haven't seen the Second Assessment Report, or the later articles
in Nature, all I can assume is that the complaints are about the
background section of Chapter 8 of the WGI section, listed as
" Detection of climate change, and attribution of causes"
B Santer, T Wigley, T Barnett, E Anyamba
It appears as having four Lead Authors, presumably all the rest are
"contributors"? We have ascertained that at least two of above were
involved in the changes, perhaps all four. If they approved of the
changes to the background section ( to make it less likely to be
misinterpreted when taken out of context, and to match the language
used elsewhere - as implied in one of Jan's posts ), and they were
entitled to make such changes, then there seems to be little to quibble
about. One assumes that the person who asked to have their name
removed was listed as a contributing scientist, and not as an author
or reviewer, and that all the lead authors saw, and approved, the final
version.
It certainly isn't smart to have contributing scientists wanting there
names removed because of these changes, and I wonder if
this final editing of background sections only arose because time
pressures meant that the WG co-ordinators were not checking for
consistent language. The Assessment is already a year late, but
perhaps they had provision for the lead authors to make changes
because of experience with earlier reports.
There is no evidence, from the information posted, that the changes
were not permitted - it may not be smart to make changes at such stages,
but the posted examples seem to be more editorial that substantial.
Certainly it would be harder to misinterpret the final version.
>I am not interested in the merits or otherwise of the excised/amended
>sections of the documents. I am concerned at the fundamental
>principle. Either the final report is peer reviewed, or it is not.
The full working group previously would have approved the
chapter's content " in principle", but the detail is the responsibility
of the Lead Authors. The final report was peer-reviewed, but it may
not have been reviewed by all ( perhaps any ) of the contributing
scientists. There have been no reports ( so far ) that the original
reviewers are unhappy with the changes - if in fact the specific
section of the chapter was originally reviewed. I'm not certain
of the overall relationship of the Lead Authors, Contributing
Scientists and Reviewers to various parts of each chapter, but the
process used for these changes was permitted.
As I understand it, there is no obligation for the contributing scientists
to be given the opportunity to review the final changes to the background
sections. Just because the contributing scientists don't get to see the
complete final chapter doesn't mean that no peer review occured. I'd be
surprised if the final chapters were not reviewed by the WG chairs
and others, and perhaps that's why the changes were requested.
>The reported changes are in the section of the report written to
>inform governments and legislators. It was specifically written to
>enable them to avoid the chore (for them) of reading the whole of the
>technical material (which few of them would be competent to properly
>evaluate) and reaching a conclusion. To this end, a peer-reviewed
>document was produced. Subsequently, and before publication, the
>contents of the document were doctored. This is not acceptable IMHO.
These changes are apparently in the background section of
Chapter 8, and AFAIK, they are not part of the Summary for Policymakers
which was written , and approved ( often line-by-line ), by the government
appointees for the policitians. It's unlikely the politicans are going to
even approach the 2000 page Second Assessment, unless they have
a need for a doorstop.
As far as I'm aware, the Summary for Policymakers issued earlier was
based on the Second Assessment, and thus these changes may not even
have been made at that time. Who knows, who cares?.
Bruce Hamilton
Eric Stevens
On 17 Jun 1996 18:57:45 GMT, JSCH...@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de (Jan
Schloerer) wrote:
--- snip ----
>The irony is that some phrases like
>
> "...no study to date has positively attributed
> all or part of that change to anthropogenic causes"
>
>allegedly were eliminated because they might have been
>misinterpreted as contradicting phrases like
>
> "Taken together, these results point towards
> a human influence on global climate"
>
>especially if, as some IPCC officials feared, the former phrases
>"were taken out of context" (Nature 13 June 1996, p 539).
>
>It now seems that was a boomerang. Perhaps they better had
>asked James Acker for some explaining sentences :)
Some of which should cover why it was that these changes were made
*after* the peer-review process and not before. I presume the document
as a whole was subject to peer-review and not just segments, with some
left to later write a summary not subject to peer-review.
Pete Owens
In article 302...@news.iprolink.co.nz, stev...@iprolink.co.nz (Eric Stevens) writes:
>
>Some of which should cover why it was that these changes were made
>*after* the peer-review process and not before. I presume the document
>as a whole was subject to peer-review and not just segments, with some
>left to later write a summary not subject to peer-review.
>
One of the main purposes of the reviewing process is
for the reviewers to make suggestions to the
author of possible changes. Preventing the
author from then making these changes would make
it a bit of a futile exersise.
---
Pete Owens
P.O...@dl.ac.uk
Richard Shedenhelm
To all: I have compliled an extensive bibliography entitled: "Critical
Perspectives of the Greenhouse Effect: A Bibliography of Works Since 1970."
If you'd like an e-mail copy, please write to me at:
main...@uga.cc.uga.edu
Best,
Richard Shedenhelm, LTA
_________________________________________________________________________
||> Richard Shedenhelm University of Georgia Libraries <||
||> Library Technical Main Periodicals (706)-542-7460 <||
||> Assistant Senior Periodicals Assistant <||
||> Athens, Georgia 30602 USA <||
||> BITNET: mainper4@uga Internet: main...@uga.cc.uga.edu <||
*Editor/publisher of _Summa Philosophiae_, a monthly philosophical jn'l.*
_________________________________________________________________________
tomgray
Good point. Doesn't it also make sense that only a few people would be
involved in the actual writing of a document, while many people would be
invited to review it and sign off on its contents? If the other folks on
the Panel are unhappy with its conclusions, why aren't they raising hell?
Tom Gray
Director of Communications
American Wind Energy Association
PS Support renewable energy! Visit the Electronic Lobbyist For
Renewable Energy Web Site:
http://www.netcom.com/~stevie2/budget.html
Interested in energy and the environment? The free electronic
edition of _Wind Energy Weekly_ reports on energy-related
environmental issues, energy policy, and wind industry trade
news. The electronic edition normally runs about 10kb in length.
For a subscription, send me an e-mail request. Please include
information on your position, organization, and reason for
interest in the publication.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Gray <tom...@econet.org>
sn...@swcp.com
In article <31c7bf48...@news.iprolink.co.nz>,
Eric Stevens <stev...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>On 16 Jun 1996 16:27:32 GMT, JSCH...@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de (Jan
>Schloerer) wrote:
> --- snip ----
>>it's getting tough to argue against what is known :)
>That may or may not be true. Far more important, what is the answer to
>the question, was the peer-reviewed version altered before
>publication?
>If it was tampered with, that seems to me to be far more important
>than any arguments over the detailed science.
Although it appears that the wording was changed for political reasons,
it is not clear to me that any of the original authors have objected.
In the absense of any such objection, it appears that the changes would
have, at least, the grudging acceptance of the original authors.
>Eric Stevens
snark
John McCarthy
In article <4qb8jl$4...@mserv1.dl.ac.uk> p...@mserv1.dl.ac.uk (Pete Owens) writes:
In article 302...@news.iprolink.co.nz, stev...@iprolink.co.nz (Eric Stevens) writes:
>
>Some of which should cover why it was that these changes were made
>*after* the peer-review process and not before. I presume the document
>as a whole was subject to peer-review and not just segments, with some
>left to later write a summary not subject to peer-review.
>
You don't seem to understand how peer review works.
One of the main purposes of the reviewing process is
for the reviewers to make suggestions to the
author of possible changes. Preventing the
author from then making these changes would make
it a bit of a futile exersise.
Seitz had lots of experience with reports and their review. When he
says that the IPCC Report was handled in a non-standard way, you
should take him seriously.
Jan Schloerer
In <JMC.96Ju...@Steam.stanford.edu>
John McCarthy (j...@Steam.stanford.edu) writes:
As a former President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences,
Fred Seitz had lots of experience with reports and their review.
When he says that the IPCC Report was handled in a non-standard
way, you should take him seriously.
Alter schuetzt vor Torheit nicht.
:-s
Jan Schloerer
jsch...@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de
F. L. Johnson
Pete Owens wrote:
>
> In ar**deleted**
later write a summary not subject to peer-review.
> >
> You don't seem to understand how peer review works.
> One of the main purposes of the reviewing process is
> for the reviewers to make suggestions to the
> author of possible changes. Preventing the
> author from then making these changes would make
> it a bit of a futile exersise.
>
> Pete Owens
This is exactly right!
F. L. Johnson
John McCarthy wrote:
>
> In article <4qb8------
--------bit of a futile exersise.
>
> As a former President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Fred
> Seitz had lots of experience with reports and their review. When he
> says that the IPCC Report was handled in a non-standard way, you
> should take him seriously.
> --
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> *
> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
Did Mr. Seitz indicate in what way he thought the handling of the
report was non-standard? Revision in accordance with reviewer's
comments is standard, and is indeed one of the major objectives
of the peer review process.
tomgray
j...@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>In article <4qb8jl$4...@mserv1.dl.ac.uk> p...@mserv1.dl.ac.uk (Pete Owens) writes:
> In article 302...@news.iprolink.co.nz, stev...@iprolink.co.nz (Eric Stevens) writes:
> >
> >Some of which should cover why it was that these changes were made
> >*after* the peer-review process and not before. I presume the document
> >as a whole was subject to peer-review and not just segments, with some
> >
> You don't seem to understand how peer review works.
> One of the main purposes of the reviewing process is
> for the reviewers to make suggestions to the
> author of possible changes. Preventing the
> author from then making these changes would make
>
>As a former President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Fred
>Seitz had lots of experience with reports and their review. When he
>says that the IPCC Report was handled in a non-standard way, you
>should take him seriously.
A quick search on the Web reveals that Dr. Seitz is indeed an eminent
scientist. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Science
and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), a project headed up by Dr. Fred
Singer, a noted global warming debunker.
The following is a quote from SEPP's Web page concerning their positions
on global warming and ozone depletion:
GLOBAL WARMING-
There is no evidence, other than from computer model calculations, that
appreciable global warming will occur as a result of human activities, or
that its consequences would be harmful. It is therefore prudent to pursue
a "no regrets" policy of improving energy efficiency and conservation
through market-based measures.
OZONE DEPLETION-
There is insufficient evidence to conclude that anthropogenic emissions
will cause ozone depletion over populated areas or that if they do the
consequences would be harmful. One should avoid or postpone expensive and
potentially harmful disruptions of freon-based air-conditioning and
refrigeration systems and the phase-out of other important chemicals
until better scientific evidence is available.
Personally, I think these two statements are a bit extreme. I note in
particular the absence of any time limit in the global warming statement.
I think one can justifiably say "there is no evidence . . . that
appreciable global warming will occur as a result of human activities, or
tht its consequences would be harmful" with regard to the next 50 years,
but certainly not for 500.
John McCarthy
In article <31C98F...@uoknor.edu> "F. L. Johnson" <fjoh...@uoknor.edu> writes:
John McCarthy wrote:
>
> In article <4qb8------
>
> As a former President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Fred
> Seitz had lots of experience with reports and their review. When he
> says that the IPCC Report was handled in a non-standard way, you
> should take him seriously.
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> *
> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
Did Mr. Seitz indicate in what way he thought the handling of the
report was non-standard? Revision in accordance with reviewer's
comments is standard, and is indeed one of the major objectives
of the peer review process.
Yes, he did. The Web page http://www.nas.org/seitz.html contains the
full article.
Are there many people in this newsgroup who do not have access to the
Web - or is it just that people don't want to be bothered?
John McCarthy
In article <4qctrc$3...@igc.apc.org> tomgray <tom...@igc.apc.org>
writes:
McCarthy wrote:
> >As a former President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Fred
>Seitz had lots of experience with reports and their review. When he
>says that the IPCC Report was handled in a non-standard way, you
>should take him seriously.
Calling proposals to temporize extreme seems a bit exaggerated.
I can't see that anyone has proposed to close the subject for 500
years or even 50 years. How about 10 years?
Steinn Sigurdsson
Nature June 20th has more on this (p 639).
Santer specifically notes the point Jan makes,
that the lead authors were _required_ to take
note of the comments made at the plenary meetings
and amend the chapters accordingly.
Santer argues the substance of the text is unchanged,
only the "scientific clarity" has been improved.
If GCC want to continue contesting this issue
they need to demonstrate a change in substance
(or they could continue to follow GCI's lead and
get someone to occupy and trash Santer's office ;-)
[PS in case anyone lacks sense of humour - you know
who you are - the last suggestion is not meant to be
taken seriously or acted upon in any way - and I can't
believe I feel I have to actually say this, but I do...]
Leonard Evens
sn...@swcp.com wrote:
>
> In article <31c7bf48...@news.iprolink.co.nz>,
> Eric Stevens <stev...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
> >On 16 Jun 1996 16:27:32 GMT, JSCH...@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de (Jan
> >Schloerer) wrote:
> > --- snip ----
> >>As I said: sounds like nit-picking by people who feel that
> >>it's getting tough to argue against what is known :)
>
> >That may or may not be true. Far more important, what is the answer to
> >the question, was the peer-reviewed version altered before
> >publication?
>
> >If it was tampered with, that seems to me to be far more important
> >than any arguments over the detailed science.
>
> Although it appears that the wording was changed for political reasons,
It may appear that way to you, but it does not seem so to me. Read
Samter's response as recently posted by Paul Farrar. It appears
to me that on one hand we have an accusation by a group known to
be funded by energy industries making the accusation in a non
scientific, non-peer reviewed medium, and the IPCC and its lead authors
responding. If you choose to believe the former group is objective
and has no political agenda and the latter does, that is your right,
but it usggests to me that you may have some political biases of
your own. Is that possible?
Of course we all have political biases and they tend to enter our
conclusions on scinetific matters. This is inevitable since we
are all human beings with all the faults of our species, but one
has to try to overcome these biases in addressing scientific matters.
I think, and perhaps it is my own political bias, that the IPCC is
the closest we are going to get to a non-political body to study
and evaluate important concerns related to climate. And I wish someone
would explain what political motivations such a body would have
beyond arriving at a scientific understanding? I may be naive, but
it would be more reasonable to assume that a theory posed by a group
whose financial interests are directly at stake, e.g., the fossil fuel
industry, would be politically motivated. Of course, one can always
use the canard that the scientists involved have a financial stake in
the matter because their grants depend on certain science being
considered important. I think that argument carries little weight. The
scientists, particularly the leaad authors, of the IPCC reports, have
well established reputations in their fields of expertise and hold
secure positions, by and large. If the scientific evidence were to
show that there is absolutely nothing to worry about if we double or
quadruple the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, these
same scientists would suffer no loss of prestige or income in that
event. They would just shift their research to other areas. For
example, I understand that Gray (I hope I have his name right) who
predicts the intensity and frequencies of hurricanes with some success
does not accept the consensus view in these matters. (Of course, this
is not really exactly his field, so he speaks with a bit less authority
than some others), but he still seems gainfully employed. Richard
Lindzen, who was recently profiled in an article in the N. Y. Times,
thinks contrary to what virtually everyone else in the field thinks that
water vapor feedback is essentially negative. As best as I can tell he
is still a full professor at MIT and a member of the National Academy of
Sciences. I have not noticed any calls for his demotion. On the
other hand, it is my impression that his clever explanations for why he
is right and most everyone else in the field is wrong have still not
been proved correct, Maybe he will in the end, but I don't see any
indication that is immediately in the offing. In the article, the
reporter notes that Lindzen became a Republican because of the reception
by non-scientists at some of his lectures to his criticisms. I wonder
if he will return to being a Democrat if his theories prove to have been
nonsense? It is my impression that there even exist Republicans, some
of them quite conservative, who take the idea of global warming quite
seriously.
Finally, let me add that this is a scientific question. Instead of
criticizing the _process- whereby the IPCC Report was written, let
the critics propose their own theories, construct their own models, and
make their own obsevations. I have not yet had an opportunity to read
the critical chapter 8 of the latest report, but I have read much of the
previous IPCC Reports. They are full of caveats and explanations of
uncertainty. Also, the executive summaries seem to me to be a pretty
good reflection of the contents of the chapters. For what I understand
the conslusion that human activities have with high probability affected
climate follows from quite specific results. Among these are the
papers of Thomson and Karl as well as others. Karl, for example, is
unambiguous in concluding that his index of events expected in an
enhanced greenhouse effect world, from records in the continental US,
has increased enough that the chances that this happend because of
natural vriabiity or random events is small. Of course, this
particular research does not prove the case---it is no smoking gun---but
it is one more piece in a structure of evidence that has been
accumulating for years. Needless to say there is still other
conflicting evidence, and the case is not absolutely clear, but it is
clear enough to conclude that human activities have produced some
effect, but as the IPCC concludes, the exact amount cannot as yet be
quantified.
Leonard Evens, Department of Mathematics, Northwestern Univesity
l...@math.nwu.edu
Pete Owens
In article 96Jun2...@Steam.stanford.edu, j...@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
>In article <4qb8jl$4...@mserv1.dl.ac.uk> p...@mserv1.dl.ac.uk (Pete Owens) writes:
> In article 302...@news.iprolink.co.nz, stev...@iprolink.co.nz (Eric Stevens) writes:
> >
> >Some of which should cover why it was that these changes were made
> >*after* the peer-review process and not before. I presume the document
> >as a whole was subject to peer-review and not just segments, with some
> >left to later write a summary not subject to peer-review.
> >
> You don't seem to understand how peer review works.
> One of the main purposes of the reviewing process is
> for the reviewers to make suggestions to the
> author of possible changes. Preventing the
> author from then making these changes would make
> it a bit of a futile exersise.
>
>Seitz had lots of experience with reports and their review. When he
>says that the IPCC Report was handled in a non-standard way, you
>should take him seriously.
I have absolutely no doubt that Seitz *knows* what
peer review is all about. What he *says* (particularly
when addressing a non-sceinticic audience and attempting
to make a political point) is a different matter.
---
Pete Owens
P.O...@dl.ac.uk
John McCarthy
Len Evens includes:
Needless to say there is still other conflicting evidence,
and the case is not absolutely clear, but it is clear enough
to conclude that human activities have produced some effect,
but as the IPCC concludes, the exact amount cannot as yet be
quantified.
What is the current state of efforts to conclude from the IPCC report
that major efforts to restrict energy use are warranted at present?
What Len gets from the IPCC report would not suggest that.
F. L. Johnson
John McCarthy wrote:
>
> In article <31C98F...@uoknor.edu> "F. L. Johnson" <fjoh...@uoknor.edu> writes:
>
> John McCarthy wrote:
> >
> > In article <4qb8------
>
> >
> > As a former President----------------------------------usly.
> > --
> > John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> > *
> > He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> > http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
>
> report was non-standard? Revision in accordance with reviewer's
> comments is standard, and is indeed one of the major objectives
> of the peer review process.
>
> Yes, he did. The Web page http://www.nas.org/seitz.html contains the
> full article.
>
> Are there many people in this newsgroup who do not have access to the
> Web - or is it just that people don't want to be bothered?
I asked a simple question. I expected a civil answer.
John McCarthy
In article <31CB05...@uoknor.edu> "F. L. Johnson" <fjoh...@uoknor.edu> writes:
John McCarthy wrote:
>
> In article <31C98F...@uoknor.edu> "F. L. Johnson" <fjoh...@uoknor.edu> writes:
>
> John McCarthy wrote:
> >
> > In article <4qb8------
>
> --------bit of a futile exersise.
> >
> > As a former President----------------------------------usly.
> > --
> > John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> > *
> > He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> > http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
>
> Did Mr. Seitz indicate in what way he thought the handling of the
> report was non-standard? Revision in accordance with reviewer's
> comments is standard, and is indeed one of the major objectives
> of the peer review process.
>
> Yes, he did. The Web page http://www.nas.org/seitz.html contains the
> full article.
>
> Are there many people in this newsgroup who do not have access to the
> Web - or is it just that people don't want to be bothered?
I asked a simple question. I expected a civil answer.
I didn't intend to offend or to criticize.
I really don't know whether all or most of the readers of this newsgroup
have Web access. I also don't know whether those who do have access
consider a reference to a Web page an appropriate way of answering a
question. It only takes me about 30 seconds to go to a Web page, but
maybe it takes other people longer.
Leonard Evens
John McCarthy wrote:
>
> Len Evens includes:
>
> Needless to say there is still other conflicting evidence,
> and the case is not absolutely clear, but it is clear enough
> to conclude that human activities have produced some effect,
> but as the IPCC concludes, the exact amount cannot as yet be
> quantified.
>
> What is the current state of efforts to conclude from the IPCC report
> that major efforts to restrict energy use are warranted at present?
>
> What Len gets from the IPCC report would not suggest that.
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> *
> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
This is a matter of polical debate. Should we do absoutely nohing?
I think not. I think the evidence is strong enough, and that has been
true for a while now, that `no-regrets' policies which make sense
anyway to restrict use of fossil fuels should be encouraged. (I was
interested to learn that even Fred Singer's group comes to that
conclusion, but they seem to insist that this has to be done by
`free market' mechanisms. I don't pesonally consider that term well
defined, particularly in this debate, but I do agree that it is
impossible to affect the actions of millions of people without their
having an economic incentive for one course of action as opposed to
another. Exactly how to apply such incentives is a matter of debate
where honest people can differ. However, our present system,
particularly with respect to use of fuel in personal transportation is e
providing counter-incentives to fuel efficiency and reduction of fossil
fuel emissions.) Should we at this point take draconian measures. I
think not, since we haven't yet got enough certainty to convince all the
relevant actors that such measures are necessary.
Contrast this with the debate about the ozone layer. After a certain
point, the scientific evidence was so strong that the manufactuers,
like Dupont, which had been opposing stringent measures, changed their
positions 180 degrees. One can hope for some clear indications which
will convince enough people that we have to move faster will appear
soon, but I am afraid that is not in the offing. Right now I think,
with the present people in control of Congress being opponents of
any action whatsoever, we have to worry more about moving backwards
rather than the imminence of Draconian measures. It is not even clear
that research to allow continued study of this matter will be encouraged
by the US government in the immmediate future. Note also, that
from a practical political point of view, although there was a lot of
ideological debate about such matters, the difference between what the
Bush administration was willing to do and what the Clinto administration
has in fact done is very small.
In short, I think John McCarthy's question is a straw man, if you
don't mind a mixed metaphor. It seems to suggest that the burning
issue is a debate between extremists using the iPCC Report and calling
for immediate Draconian measures which will destroy society and
reasonable people who want to wait. I don't think that is an accurate
picture. What the IPCC Report should do is convince people honestly
interested in the issue and not trying to pursue various ideological or
economic causes that there really is a potentially serious question here
and to think about practical ways to _start_ doing something about it.
As a parallel, during the internationally and politically induced oil
shocks of the 70s, thre was a lot of serious interest in energy
efficiency, and there was a real significant increase in such
efficiency. So people can be convinced to buy energy efficient cars
and appliances, even if doing runs counter to their immediate interests.
I for example have not owned a station wagon type vehicle capable of
carrying large objects despite an occasional inconvenience when trying
to stuff some large object in my Toyota Tercel. Before the 70s, our
family always had such a vehicle, but now we can make do quite readily
with less, and I hope this makes a small contribution to solving the
problem of burning too much fossil fuel without any great sacrifice
on my part. On the other hand, it appears that nearly half of new car
buyers are buying small trucks or vans, which they probably only need
the full use of occasionally, because the cost of gas is in real terms
at an historical low. These vihicles are not covered by the fuel
efficiency standards, but they could be, except for opposition from US
manufacturers. Ironically, I gather one of the US manufacturers
arguments against such standards is that this would place them in
a bad position with respect to the Japanese who already know how to
manufacture such vehicles which are fuel efficient. So this is simply
a matter of political will, not of technical capability. One can hope
that things like the IPCC Report will make some changes in this
lack of political will.
--
Leonard Evens l...@math.nwu.edu 491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois
Bruce Hamilton
j...@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>Yes, he did. The Web page http://www.nas.org/seitz.html contains the
>full article.
Well, when I tried that link, it was not correct, and suggested ( very
appropriately for the topic ) that it was outdated. The actual site is
http://www.marshall.org/seitz.html.
>Are there many people in this newsgroup who do not have access to the
>Web - or is it just that people don't want to be bothered?
Perhaps the reality of the Internet hasn't hit you yet? The costs of the
whole structure are being passed onto the users as various funding
bodies pull out. No matter how fast the communications technology
improves, the size of the sites increases as well - with some front pages
being well over 150kB. This means that when you hit an address, at the
cheap rate here of US$2/MB you've just forked out 30 cents - just to arrive.
An intensive web play ( even with images not autoloading ) can result in
costs of $/hr. All the universities here got badly hit in 1995 when their
annual budgets for internet use ( $500,000+ for a smaller one ) were
blown in less than 2 months, and so now most are using some form of
pre-paid usage accounts before letting students near the WWW.
From what I can tell, the USA is moving down the same path of user pays.
While you are in a position that your actual usage may not be personally
charged to you or your team at work, that is rapidly becoming the unusual case,
rather than the norm it once was, in many parts of the world. There are very
few positions where playing on Usenet is a legitimate and productive activity
that justifies the expense. It is usually justified because the groups
discussing Internet connectivity, viruses, email, etc provide a useful resource
for the computer support teams.
One of the consequences for those of us in NZ, is that we have always been
24-48 hours behind - just because of propagation delays, and I've noticed
a trend for threads to become more frenzied. Sure, people like Eric and myself
could spend money and read Usenet on US sites - but sadly your wit and wisdom
doesn't justify the expense.
So perhaps others will excuse this rant that doesn't have any science.
Incidently, there is no obvious link between Seitz ( of Marshall Institute and
SEPP fame ) and the Global Climate Coalition. The GCC seems to have
a very wide membership profile covering most large fossil fuel users and
producers, and isn't just the producers. Their home page
http://www.worldcorp.com/dc-online/gcc/whoweare.html
indicates a very diverse range of bedfellows, and perhaps not as anti-science
as previously indicated. Their review of the AOSIS proposals at the IPCC
is available for scrutiny, and I assume the IPCC one will be soon as well.
http://www.worldcorp.com/dc-online/gcc/exaosis1.htm
It's a bit much that I recently only have been posting the URLs of SETT,
Marshall Institute and GCC, but the IPCC site is well known and outdated - no
mention of the Second Assessment Executive Summaries of Chapters that they
were hoping may be placed on the WWW. Perhaps, once John has convinced
the Marshall Institute to tidy up their home page ( return to top from the
global warming section didn't work for me ), he could "encourage" the IPCC
to take the WWW seriously as well :-).
Bruce Hamilton
Donald L. Libby
>From: Leonard Evens <l...@math.nwu.edu>
>
>John McCarthy wrote:
>>
>> Len Evens includes:
>>
>> Needless to say there is still other conflicting evidence,
>> and the case is not absolutely clear, but it is clear enough
>> to conclude that human activities have produced some effect,
>> but as the IPCC concludes, the exact amount cannot as yet be
>> quantified.
>>
>> What is the current state of efforts to conclude from the IPCC report
>> that major efforts to restrict energy use are warranted at present?
>>
>> What Len gets from the IPCC report would not suggest that.
>> --
>> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>> *
>> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
>
>This is a matter of polical debate. Should we do absoutely nohing?
>I think not. I think the evidence is strong enough, and that has been
>true for a while now, that `no-regrets' policies which make sense
>anyway to restrict use of fossil fuels should be encouraged.
snip
>In short, I think John McCarthy's question is a straw man, if you
>don't mind a mixed metaphor. It seems to suggest that the burning
>issue is a debate between extremists using the iPCC Report and calling
>for immediate Draconian measures which will destroy society and
>reasonable people who want to wait. I don't think that is an accurate
>picture. What the IPCC Report should do is convince people honestly
>interested in the issue and not trying to pursue various ideological or
>economic causes that there really is a potentially serious question here
>and to think about practical ways to _start_ doing something about it.
>>
Len has answered John's question - IPCC recommends pursuing "no-regrets"
policies at this time. "No-regrets" policies are not major efforts to
restrict energy use, they are directed toward other ends but they have
lower GHG emissions as a side-effect at no additional cost. These are ways
to get "free" GHG emission reduction - if GCC happens, there will be no
regrets that costs were incurred by polices that failed to prevent it, and
if GCC doesn't happen, there will be no regrets that costs were incurred
by unnecessary policies to prevent it. The Montreal Protocol to control
CFC emissions is an example- it is intended to reduce ozone damage but also
reduces emissions of a GHG as an unintended consequence, so no additional
cost is imposed in order to obtain GHG reduction.
My analysis of _Climate Change 1994_ posted here about four months ago led
me to conclude that the only course of action that would reduce GHG
emissions enough to stabilize concentrations at twice pre-industrial levels
would be to attain a global economy described by IS92 "non-policy"
scenarios C or D - both of which are "no-regrets" paths that do not involve
any special GHG reduction policy. In fact, according to my analysis of the
CC94 report, the expected (average) effect of GHG reduction policies are
so small that they would not prevent any of the "non-policy" scenarios from
exceeding double pre-industrial stabilization, and in the case of scenarios
C and D, they would not be necessary to do so. In other words, it does not
make sense to pursue GHG reduction policies in any case, and the only
development paths that would stabilize GHG concentrations at or below twice
pre-industrial levels involve only "no-regrets" policies.
Unfortunately (for those convinced that anthropogenic GCC is a problem) it
does not seem that scenarios C and D are likely to come about without some
force (political will?, ecological limits to growth?, the triumph of
reason?) to counteract our collective desire to grow the world economy at
a faster rate using fossil-fuels. These scenarios feature low over-all
economic growth, a decline in per capita energy consumption, and a shift
away from fossil fuels.
I present selected data and assumptions for IS92 scenarios "c" and "d" from
CC94.
IS92 C IS92 D
From CC94, p. 261
Population 6.4B by 2100 same as C
Economic Growth 2.0%/yr 1990-2025 2.7%/yr
1.2%/yr 1990-2100 2.0%/yr
Energy Supply 8,000 EJ oil same as C
7,300 EJ gas same as C
Nuclear costs decline Solar costs fall
by 0.4%/yr to $0.065/kWh
272 EJ/yr of
Biofuels @$50/bl
Other Legally enacted and Emission controls
internationally agreed extended worldwide
controls on SOx, NOx, for CO, NOx, SOx,
and NMVOC emissions. and NMVOC. Halt
Efforts to reduce deforestation.
emissions of SOx, NOx, Capture and use of
and CO in developing emissions from coal
countries by 2050. mining and gas
production and use.
CFCs Partial compliance CFC production
with Montreal Protocol. phase-out by 1997
Technology transfer for industrialized
results in gradual countries. Phase
phase out of CFCs in out of HCFCs
non-signatory countries
by 2075.
From CC94, p 262
CO2 emissions per year 7.4 GtC 1990 7.4 GtC
8.8 2025 9.3
4.6 2100 10.3
From CC94, p271 Average annual growth rate (%/yr) 1990-2020
Population 1.1 1.1
GDP/Population 0.92 1.75
GDP 2.0 2.83
Energy/GDP -0.86 -1.1
Carbon/Energy -0.55 -0.68
Carbon emissions 0.56 1.0
From CC94, p22
Cumulative emissions 770 GtC 980 GtC
by the year 2100
Within the range of a
stabilisation case at 450 ppmv 550 ppmv
-dl
sn...@swcp.com
In article <31CA992D...@math.nwu.edu>,
Leonard Evens <l...@math.nwu.edu> wrote:
>sn...@swcp.com wrote:
[much trimmed]
>> Although it appears that the wording was changed for political reasons,
>It may appear that way to you, but it does not seem so to me. Read
>Samter's response as recently posted by Paul Farrar. It appears
>to me that on one hand we have an accusation by a group known to
>be funded by energy industries making the accusation in a non
>scientific, non-peer reviewed medium, and the IPCC and its lead authors
>responding. If you choose to believe the former group is objective
>and has no political agenda and the latter does, that is your right,
>but it usggests to me that you may have some political biases of
>your own. Is that possible?
A rhetorical question; I'm sure that we both have biases. Note that
the part of my response that you deleted suggested that I do not agree
with the attacks based on the peer-review process. I suggest that both
groups seem to have some political agenda--is that possible?
The bottom line, as you indicated in your posting, was that it is
likely that human activities have affected the climate, but the amount
of the effect cannot be measured. From reading the quotes that were
deleted from the final report, I do not see how this clarified any of
the scientific aspects. It appears that people were concerned (perhaps
with justification) that the inclusion of those quotes might cause
non-scientists to reach the "wrong" conclusions.
You seem to be concerned with objectivity, Len. Were the quotes that
were deleted not correct? If they weren't, then why were they deleted?
I don't have a particular problem with the changes that were made, but
I think that it borders on disingenuity to suggest that the changes
were made solely to enhance objectivity.
>Leonard Evens, Department of Mathematics, Northwestern Univesity
snark
Scott Nudds
(John McCarthy) wrote:
: As a former President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Fred
: Seitz had lots of experience with reports and their review. When he
: says that the IPCC Report was handled in a non-standard way, you
: should take him seriously.
Given the size of he IPCC report and the number of scientits involved,
it is doubtful if there is any sanctioned "standard" to follow.
It is however sufficient that the method followed was a peer review
process.
Seitz, like McCarthy are not interested in attacking the science
behind the report. They are content to throw dirt at it for their own
political reasons.
---
I don't think IPCC has a hidden agenda. However, I suspect that many
of its participants want to consider themselves as good guys and may
succumb to the temptation to say what they think their friends want to
hear and think is the virtuous thing to say. What their friends want
to hear is that there is a global warming crisis and prompt action is
needed. They want confirmation of the moralistic view that the
society in the rich countries is self-indulgent and needs to be made
to curb its wasteful habits. - John McCarthy 1995/12/07
--
<---->
Don Baccus
>That may or may not be true. Far more important, what is the answer to
>the question, was the peer-reviewed version altered before
>publication?
>If it was tampered with, that seems to me to be far more important
>than any arguments over the detailed science.
You are saying that the editing protocol is more important than the
underlying science, i.e. our best approximation of the facts?
Weird.
I thought this was all about atmospheric science, not the rules
which govern high-school debating teams.
It's nice, though, to see you openly state that the protocol is
more important than the detailed science, because that makes it
clear that you don't really care about our scientific understanding
of the situation, but rather the politics.
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <do...@rational.com>
Nature photos, site guides, and other goodies at:
http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza
sn...@swcp.com
In article <4qo3gp$d...@rational.rational.com>,
Don Baccus <do...@rational.com> wrote:
>In article <31c7bf48...@news.iprolink.co.nz>,
>Eric Stevens <stev...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>>That may or may not be true. Far more important, what is the answer to
>>the question, was the peer-reviewed version altered before
>>publication?
>>If it was tampered with, that seems to me to be far more important
>>than any arguments over the detailed science.
>You are saying that the editing protocol is more important than the
>underlying science, i.e. our best approximation of the facts?
>Weird.
>I thought this was all about atmospheric science, not the rules
>which govern high-school debating teams.
>It's nice, though, to see you openly state that the protocol is
>more important than the detailed science, because that makes it
>clear that you don't really care about our scientific understanding
>of the situation, but rather the politics.
Benjamin Sanger stated that the scientific content was unchanged, so
the changes were presumably for some purpose other than to change
the detailed science.
>- Don Baccus, Portland OR <do...@rational.com>
snark
Michael Tobis
Accusations of a failure of objectivity on the part of IPCC WGI can take
one or both of two forms . That the report is politically biased because
of internal social pressure among climatologists, or beccause of
external political pressures on the IPCC by outside groups. The latter
form seems to me incoherent. It is difficult to see a sufficiently
powerful political force external to climatology that would have an interest
in placing unnecessary constraints on energy use and other technological
behaviors.
The argument that climatologists are skewing the evidence is often
dismissed too cavalierly for my taste. The possibility of unconscious
bias does exist. I think the argument that there has been a conscious
and malevolent skewing of the data is ludicrous - I can think of far
more effective ways to be self-servingly dishonest than in conspiring
to misrepresent results in a physical science, particularly one with
close ties to the agricultural, aviation, and military sectors. The
question of unconscious bias can be addressed in the way it is
addressed in general in the physical sciences - by setting up testable
hypotheses and testing them.
The IPCC has been reliably and steadfastly undertaken the onerous task
of sifting through a large body of material, extracting the relevant points,
and sketching the big picture. As a result, the state of knowledge in
the field is more accessible and better organized than in most matters of
scientific controversy touching on public policy.
Those attempting to decide whether the IPCC or its opponents are indulging
in propaganda are encouraged to try a thought experiment. Imagine if
climate change were a legitimate threat, and imagine what sorts of
arguments would be brought to bear against it by affected commercial
interests, in the fashion of the tobacco industry. Consider the sorts
of arguments you actually see. Do they form a realistic match?
Now consider the alternative - say that climate change were a very dubious
pseudoscientific position, similar to some of Greenpeace's fearmongering.
Imagine what the response of the scientific community would be. Would
you expect the foremost world assembly of scientists in that field to
form an institutational framework to report on research in the area
to the political process? Would you expect them to reach modest, equivocal
conclusions that became more robust as time passed? If this happenned,
would you expect critiques of this process to become increasingly scarce
in the general purpose refereed publications like Science and Nature?
I claim that the observed behavior of the relevant scientific community
is not a realistic match to the second hypothesis.
In other words, someone was bound to say the sorts of things that Seitz
is saying if the IPCC were legitimate, and it strains credulity that it is not.
The fact that it is Seitz in particular (among about a dozen others) who
is saying this is not particularly relevant to the discussion. This sort
of response is inevitable during the period when the evidence becomes
increasingly firm but not yet trivially obvious to the lay public. Of course,
the affected commercial interests will cast about for the most impressive
credentials, and not surprisingly will come up with a few emeriti who
were reluctant to jump on the bandwagon in the earlier, more speculative
days.
Critics of the consensus position who take their criticisms to the
usual scientific channels are not, of course, guilty of anything, and
they may just turn out to be right in the end. Turning a bit of hair-splitting
into the equivalent of a major scandal, and trumpeting such to the press,
on the other hand, is a disease of politics, and not a triumph of science.
It is a shame to see Seitz sullying his career record in this fashion.
mt
James G. Acker
Followup to Michael Tobis:
In contrast to Dr. Seitz, I must say that I admire
Dr. Lindzen of MIT. He has stated his scientific doubts about
global warming quite clearly, and they rest in the area of
greatest uncertainty, clouds and water vapor. He has a
valid opposing scientific position. I must say that I don't
think he's right, but he has certainly not been proven wrong --
and I sure couldn't refute him at present.
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
Robert Parson
Robert Parson
In article <4rb990$7...@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>,
James G. Acker <jga...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Followup to Michael Tobis:
>
> In contrast to Dr. Seitz, I must say that I admire
>Dr. Lindzen of MIT. He has stated his scientific doubts about
>global warming quite clearly, and they rest in the area of
>greatest uncertainty, clouds and water vapor. He has a
>valid opposing scientific position. I must say that I don't
>think he's right, but he has certainly not been proven wrong --
>and I sure couldn't refute him at present.
One thing that has struck me for some time is the extraordinarily poor
scientific quality of most of the arguments _against_ the mainstream
view of enhanced greenhouse warming. Personally, I'm not yet convinced
that the mainstream guys have reduced the uncertainties to within the
stated error limits. (I've not read IPCC 1995, but I am familiar with
the 1990, 1992, and 1994 volumes, and I've heard seminars from people
like Trenberth on the latest stuff.) I'm sure they're doing the best
they can but the problem really is very difficult. And it is very
common for people to underestimate systematic errors.
HOWEVER: with the notable exception of a few people like Lindzen and Balling,
the arguments from the anti-greenhousers strike me as just plain lousy.
Somehow these people have a talent for attacking a scientific theory
at its strongest points, sort of like Abercrombie at Ticonderoga or
Burnside at Fredricksburg. For example, the anthropogenic origin of
the measured CO2 increase is very firmly established. Balling states
this clearly in his book. Yet over and over again we see this disputed,
often by people who cite Balling in the same article, and usually with
no attempt to even address the evidence from isotopic abundance. As
another example, take Barrett's argument that there will be _no_
greenhouse effect because CO2 already absorbs all of the energy it
can. Barrett completely ignored 30+ years' worth of research on
atmospheric radiative transfer (he seemed to think he was telling people
something new by saying that the absorption spectrum of CO2 at
1 bar consisted of discrete bands.) John Emsley's condescending reply
to Zare et al. in the pages of _Chemistry in Britain_ last year, in
which he told the authors to read Barrett's paper so as to learn that
the mechanism behind greenhouse warming was more complicated than the
simple-minded version used by the "IPCC/Greenpeace" crowd, is one of
the funniest things I've ever read in a scientific magazine. It's as if
Jerry Pournelle were to instruct John McCarthy on the relative merits
of BASIC over LISP for AI research.
I don't know if IPCC is right, but I _know_ that Seitz, Emsley, and
Barrett are wrong. Lindzen and Balling might be right.
------
Robert
Leonard Evens
James G. Acker wrote:
>
> Followup to Michael Tobis:
>
> In contrast to Dr. Seitz, I must say that I admire
> Dr. Lindzen of MIT. He has stated his scientific doubts about
> global warming quite clearly, and they rest in the area of
> greatest uncertainty, clouds and water vapor. He has a
> valid opposing scientific position. I must say that I don't
> think he's right, but he has certainly not been proven wrong --
> and I sure couldn't refute him at present.
>
> | James G. Acker |
> | REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
> ===============================================
> All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
> and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
> or corporate entities.
the N. Y. Times, which was not paticularly critical of him, is to
be believed, Lindzen won't give the same benefit of the diouvbt to those
he differs with. As far as they are concerned it is obvious to him that
they are wrong and he is right. He admits the theoretical possibility
that he might be wrong, but then dismisses it as entirely unlikely.
He is apparently not does not suffer many self doubts. Just your
commmon garden variety objective scientist :-)
Leonard Evens
> > Followup to Michael Tobis:
> >
> > In contrast to Dr. Seitz, I must say that I admire
> >Dr. Lindzen of MIT. He has stated his scientific doubts about
> >global warming quite clearly, and they rest in the area of
> >greatest uncertainty, clouds and water vapor. He has a
> >valid opposing scientific position. I must say that I don't
> >think he's right, but he has certainly not been proven wrong --
> >and I sure couldn't refute him at present.
>
so they don't present a consistent alternate view as best I can see.
Balling is primarily an observational climatologist, and he argues that
the evidence for warming in the past century is weak. He has a variety
of alternate eplanations for various aspects of the data. In his book
~the Heated Debate' he clearly admits the existence of the enhanced
greenhousee effect and suggests that sulfate aerosols may be masking
what would other wise be an increase in average temperature. The most
recent work in this area suggests that he may have been right.
Later in some
of his other writings, which I haven't seen directly but have seen
quoted, he does seem to go off the deep end a bit. He makes prominent
use of the work of Spencer and Christy, or so he is quoted, but he
seems to have data different than what they published and he does
not come to the same conclusions they apparently came to. More to the
point,
as an experienced climatologist, he shold know better than taking one
particular method of measuring aaverage temperatures for a relatively
short period of time and harp on that. Again, let me say that I
haven't read his remakrs, in the non-cientific media, directly, but
have often seen him quoted saying things like this. Having looked at
the letters in Nature which deal with thee matters, I think his
conclusions, as they have been reported, are not very good science.
This is to be distinguished from the great body of his work.
Lindzen on the other hand attacks the enhanced greenhouse effect
directly by questioning almost everything about the basic scientific
model used to study it. He claims water vapor feedback is negative.
If I understand correctly, he has no real observationsal evidence
of this, and he relies, according to Ray Pierrehumbert, on paleoclimatic
assumptions which have been called into question. He also takes pains
to minimize the basic greenhouse enhancement without feedbacks, which I
think no one else in the field takes seriously. More to the point, his
work does not appear to have given rise to a large body of work,
beyond a few peer reviwed papers he has written, which support his
conclusions. Of course, he may in the end prove to be correct, and
everyone else may be proved to be wrong. But he is no smarter nor more
imaginative than several other people working in this field, so I don't
think there is any reason to give his theories special weight just
because they differ from the consensus. We can hope that his
particular attacks on conventional theory will be dealt with by
the scientific process in the fullness of time. However, as Robert
remarks, he has put his reputation on the line by actually publishing
theories. If he proves to be wrong, his reputation will undeoubtedly
suffer, so he should be given credit for the courage to deal with the
science directly.
James G. Acker
Leonard Evens (l...@math.nwu.edu) wrote:
: Lindzen on the other hand attacks the enhanced greenhouse effect
: directly by questioning almost everything about the basic scientific
: model used to study it. He claims water vapor feedback is negative.
: If I understand correctly, he has no real observationsal evidence
: of this, and he relies, according to Ray Pierrehumbert, on paleoclimatic
: assumptions which have been called into question. He also takes pains
: to minimize the basic greenhouse enhancement without feedbacks, which I
: think no one else in the field takes seriously. More to the point, his
: work does not appear to have given rise to a large body of work,
: beyond a few peer reviwed papers he has written, which support his
: conclusions. Of course, he may in the end prove to be correct, and
: everyone else may be proved to be wrong. But he is no smarter nor more
: imaginative than several other people working in this field, so I don't
: think there is any reason to give his theories special weight just
: because they differ from the consensus. We can hope that his
: particular attacks on conventional theory will be dealt with by
: the scientific process in the fullness of time. However, as Robert
: remarks, he has put his reputation on the line by actually publishing
: theories. If he proves to be wrong, his reputation will undeoubtedly
: suffer, so he should be given credit for the courage to deal with the
: science directly.
A very nice summary, Len. I just wanted to point out that
I did say I think Lindzen is wrong, but I am scientifically unqualified
to examine his theories. I only wanted to point out that if
greenhous gas-induced global warming is to be examined in a scientifically
critical manner, Lindzen appears to be going about it in the proper
fashion.
Pierre Boileau
Leonard Evens wrote:
>
> James G. Acker wrote:
> >
> > Followup to Michael Tobis:
> >
> > In contrast to Dr. Seitz, I must say that I admire
> > Dr. Lindzen of MIT. He has stated his scientific doubts about
> > global warming quite clearly, and they rest in the area of
> > greatest uncertainty, clouds and water vapor. He has a
> > valid opposing scientific position. I must say that I don't
> > think he's right, but he has certainly not been proven wrong --
> > and I sure couldn't refute him at present.
> >
> > | James G. Acker |
> > | REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
> > ===============================================
> > All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
> > and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
> > or corporate entities.
> the N. Y. Times, which was not paticularly critical of him, is to
> be believed, Lindzen won't give the same benefit of the diouvbt to those
> he differs with. As far as they are concerned it is obvious to him that
> they are wrong and he is right. He admits the theoretical possibility
> that he might be wrong, but then dismisses it as entirely unlikely.
> He is apparently not does not suffer many self doubts. Just your
> commmon garden variety objective scientist :-)
>
> Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
> Evanston Illinois
Hi Leonard,
I have a hard time with people who discount climate change is a real
thing. It's true that natural variability could be causing the effects
we are seeing, however I think it's in our best interest to err on the
side of caution in this case. If you listen to any reputable atmospheric
scientist we could be looking at a 3.5 C temperature increase by the
year 2100 and the severity of weather patterns will cause some pretty
devastating events. I know the small island states don't dispute climate
change or sea level rise and if you speak to anyone in Louisiana I don't
think there's much doubt there either. New Orleans is definitely
sinking.
Pierre