|
Harry, I'm not in a position to take sides on the global warming/cooling
issue, and I can't say that I've read to IPCC material very closely. Yet
the material does suggest that some matters have been reasonably well
established - e.g. the general upward trend in global surface temperatures
during the past hundred years or so. I'm not a climatologist, so I really
can't comment further on this finding or any of the others in the IPCC
reports. However, I would say that if a large number of highly qualified
people suggest we have a problem, there may be reasonable grounds for suspecting
we might have one.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 5:36
PM
Subject: Re: Global Warming/Global
Cooling
Ed,
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
*******************************
|
