I lost interest in the IPCC after I think their first meeting in Italy.
After it, they produced a Summary Report that omitted all dissent. Of course some of the dissenting scientists protested.
Then, came the full Report and again all mention of dissent was omitted. When the dissenting scientists protested furiously, they were told that the full Report had to changed to conform to the Summary.
Shall I repeat that? It's funny - or perhaps not so.
I also lost my respect for Nature - the British equivalent of Science. In an editorial, they pointed out that the protested actions of the IPCC should not turn us from the serious nature of the conference.
Shouldn't they have been highly critical when a "scientific" body leaves contrary opinions out of a report of proceedings?
Well, not if you have taken sides in a controversy that surely should be reported without prejudice.
Problem is that such treatment turns away good scientists with different, but not to be tolerated, ideas about GW. They return to their benches and say "the heck with it".
Of course that Report showing a solid front became the Bible of religious Global Warming.
And now you know why a highly rated anti-Global Warming documentary produced in Britain, called "The Greenhouse Conspiracy", was turned down by PBS as being "too one-sided" even as they showed for the 99th time Burke standing under the palms in a "globally warmed" Boston.
I believe eventually, a PBS station in Washington put it on.
Eventually, it was shown on cable on A&E - but, they had two scientists - a pro and a con on to discuss it. I've never seen that on any of the pro-GW programs that PBS is fond of presenting.
Perhaps for people abroad I should mention that PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) is our kind of BBC.
So, I would say that the people of the IPCC are not engaged in science so much as finding evidence to prove a case already accepted. The same argument can be directed at the opponents - of whom there are many, but at least they are reacting critically to the IPCC stuff, which is completely allowable in science.
Except you are not likely to find any dissent in IPCC material - which makes it advertising or if you like, propaganda.
Harry
___________________________________
Ed Weick wrote:
There has been some debate on this topic on the list recently. Before it continues, discussants might take a look at some of the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changd at http://www.ipcc.ch/ . The reports of the Panel appear to suggest that we do have a problem.
Ed Weick
******************************
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
*******************************
