|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:19 am Post subject: The UN and the Global Climate Convention |
 |
|
| Quote: |
United Nations' Experts Doctor Evidence
'Hot Politics' by James M. Sheehan (July 1996)
As United Nations negotiations for the Global Climate Convention convene this month, scientists on the UN's panel of expert advisers are under fire for altering a scientific report. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made headlines with its claim that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." Now there is evidence suggesting that this assessment was driven by politics, and not science.
The IPCC's 1995 report, the final version of which was published in June, is supposed to represent the consensus of world scientific experts regarding the highly controversial issue of global warming. The panel's work is relied upon by Global Climate Convention negotiators who are considering possible curbs on the use of fossil fuels, such as energy taxes. The IPCC's reputation for objectivity rests upon its commitment to balanced scientific opinion arrived at through the process of peer review.
Potential misconduct at the IPCC was recently uncovered by the Global Climate Coalition, an association of oil, coal, and utility companies. In a memorandum to Congress and the White House, the business coalition alerted U.S. officials that the IPCC's final published report had been altered before final publication. Substantial portions of Chapter 8, which discusses the impact of human activities on the earth's climate, had been re-written by one of its authors after contributing scientists had already given their approval. Cautionary references to scientific uncertainty were removed or modified, changes not approved by the reviewers. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz called the last-minute editing a "disturbing corruption of the peer review process" which could "deceive policymakers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming."
Seitz's remarks set off tremors throughout the scientific community. Several articles about the controversy appeared in the New York Times and Energy Daily, as well as the prestigious journals Science and Nature. The IPCC's Sir John Houghton labeled the charges "appalling," and maintained that the re-write "improved the science." Lead author Ben Santer, an atmospheric scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab, denied wrongdoing and claimed that IPCC rules allow modifications "to improve the report's scientific clarity." However, the deletions were more than minor clarifications. Key portions accepted by contributing scientists were later removed or altered without their knowledge. The changes functioned to suppress doubts and to downplay uncertainties about forecasting a human influence on climate. For example, Santer told Science that in a discussion of when scientists will be able attribute climate change to human causes, he removed the phrase "we do not know" because it overstated doubts that human activity can be blamed.
The IPCC's explanations bolster the impression that the revisions were politically motivated. Santer cites a November State Department memo to the IPCC advising "that chapter authors modify the text in an appropriate manner." According to an editorial in Nature, IPCC officials said that revisions to the text were needed "to ensure that it conformed to a 'policymakers' summary of the full report," a document whose language is voted on by government delegates. Thus the process is heavily influenced by government officials, including non-scientists.
The IPCC had a rather different response to earlier efforts to modify its report. During peer review, Britain's Global Commons Institute (GCI) took issue with a finding in Chapter 6 that the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions may exceed the predicted economic damage from global warming. Demanding that the damage be calculated in a way which showed that richer countries owe "compensation" to the Third World, GCI orchestrated an effort by delegates from Cuba and the Alliance of Small Island States to rewrite the report, replacing all damage estimates with warnings about "the loss of unique cultures." In response, senior IPCC official James Bruce insisted that the proper time to make revisions under IPCC rules was during two prior rounds of peer review: "At this stage [the October 1995 Montreal working group], the authors can make a few editorial changes for clarity of reading, but not changes to the meaning or substance of the report" (italics added).
Perhaps IPCC officials should consult one another regarding their contrasting interpretations of IPCC procedures. Both environmentalist groups, like GCI and Greenpeace, and industry groups like the Global Climate Coalition, are having great difficulty understanding how the IPCC conducts itself with regard to peer review. What is clear, however, is that the UN panel is so thoroughly politicized that its integrity and objectivity cannot be taken for granted. |
Last edited by dmbfan on Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:56 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The Absurdity Of Trying To Control Climate
'Cool Climate' by Jonathan H. Adler, July 1996
Environmental activists are increasing the heat on policy makers worldwide to do something about global warming before it is too late. They charge that human activity is already warming the planet�yet the climate is not cooperating. Thus far, 1996 has been a cool year. Much of the East coast experienced record snowfalls this winter, and May was the sixth consecutive month of temperatures below seasonal norms, according to global satellite measurements.
Only several months ago the British Meteorological Office reported that 1995 was the hottest year on record, edging out 1990 by a bare 0.07 degrees F. Environmental activists proclaimed the announcement as further evidence that human-induced global warming had arrived.
Yet all was not right with the data. The designation of 1995 as the "warmest year on record" was based on incomplete measurements. As readings for only the first 11 months of the year were available, the British scientists estimated December temperatures. The excluded data revealed a record, end-of-year nose dive throughout the Northern Hemisphere. The complete data set for 1995 gathered from satellite readings revealed a thoroughly average year �only the eighth warmest since the satellites began taking climate measurements.
Most global warming predictions are based on general circulation models (GCMs), immensely complex computer simulations. Environmentalists tend to put a lot of faith in the predictive capacity of the computers. Others suggest that the model projections are hooey. Dr. Richard Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology compares model output to predictions from a ouija board, and with some cause. According to the models, the earth should be significantly warmer than it is.
Climate computer programmers have had a difficult time including all of the myriad variables that affect the climate, such as clouds and precipitation. One problem of existing models, for instance, is that they are unable to replicate weather fronts. Recent scientific evidence suggests that models do not sufficiently account for the impact of the sun either. Several recent studies have suggested a possible correlation between temperature trends and solar cycles. As Science magazine reported, "the sun could have been responsible for as much as half of the warming of the past century. If so, the role of greenhouse gases... would dwindle�as would estimates of how much they will warm climate in the future as they continue to build up."
As the computer models have become more accurate, their predictions have become less severe. For instance, the latest models have sought to incorporate the potential cooling effect of industrial emissions. The result is the lowest projected temperature change generated by a computer model to date. The model upon which the most recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is based predicts a warming of 0.8 to 3.5 degrees centigrade by the year 2100. This is significantly less warming than has been predicted in the past. Indeed, the lower-bound warming estimate is approximately half that predicted just four years ago.
It is certainly possible that human activity will contribute to a warming of the planet. Yet this fact, of itself, is no cause for alarm. How warming would occur is immensely important. Scorching summers, produced by an increase in daytime highs, would have far different effects on human and other life than a wintertime warming that occurs mostly at night. Where the warming is concentrated is also a real concern, as is what effect warming has upon precipitation. Whether environmentalists choose to accept it or not, there are many indications that a warmer world would be far more benign than previously imagined. Some research even suggests that a moderately warmer climate would be a far better one for humanity.
The real question facing the world's people is not "is warming real?" but "what, if anything, should be done about it?" Future events will always be indeterminate, and given the magnitude of human activity, this means there will be uncertainty about the impacts of civilization. Natural disasters will strike randomly whether modern industrial society warms the earth or not. Even the most sophisticated computers will be forever unable to forecast future events with anything approaching certitude. What then is the proper policy response to uncertainty?
By all estimates, only incredibly severe reductions in global carbon dioxide emissions�on the order of 60 percent or more � will alter the computer forecasts. The resulting economic dislocations would be tremendous, potentially outweighing the negative impacts of even the most apocalyptic warming scenario. Global warming may pose uncertain risks, but the risks of global warming policies is clear.
The arguments for dramatic greenhouse gas reductions are all variants of the precautionary principle, essentially that it is better to be safe than be sorry. If only it were that simple. It is true that economic growth and technological advance pose environmental risks. But stagnation is hardly a safer course. In the words of the late Aaron Wildavsky:
"the results of doing too much can be as disastrous as doing too little |
." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Got a newsletter from the Ditto Head club today, did we? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Got a newsletter from the Ditto Head club today, did we? |
No, I did not sign up for your newsletter....sorry.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Seriously, it's like you're a Scientologist except instead of Tom Cruise you got Sean Hannity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
dmbfan,
Haven't you learned by now that the only people that have independent opinions are people that are blindly liberal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Seriously, it's like you're a Scientologist except instead of Tom Cruise you got Sean Hannity. |
Wow.........well, if you want to sit there and throw poo...by all means...let it fly.
But, if you actually want to have a discussion about things, then I suggest you dispense with the poo, and go find some sources of information.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:12 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| How about you post current events in the current events forum and not crap 1996? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, well considering it adds fire to the global warmning myth arugment, I think I'll use it.
But thanks anyway..... 
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:24 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| How about you post current events in the current events forum and not crap 1996? |
TRANSLATION: If you had posted an article from 2004 that supported my opinion, I would support it. However, since you posted an article supporting a position that I don't share, I'm forced to call you out on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Atavistic
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: How totally stupid that Korean doesn't show in this area.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dude, work on your fucking subject lines.
"I AM BORED AND HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO DO, ARTICLE ONE" would be a start. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:33 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| TRANSLATION: If you had posted an article from 2004 that supported my opinion, I would support it. However, since you posted an article supporting a position that I don't share, I'm forced to call you out on it. |
TRANSLATION: It supports my position, so I don't care if you're posting crap from 1996. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Dude, work on your *beep* subject lines.
"I AM BORED AND HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO DO, ARTICLE ONE" would be a start. |
Yes, these Sunday nights SHOULD be filled with endless activities.
But, you on line as well.........
And, yes the topic header issue has already been covered.
I apologize.
It is just that the hint of actual news and sources does scare off some folks here.
dmbfan
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Atavistic
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: How totally stupid that Korean doesn't show in this area.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dmbfan wrote: |
| Quote: |
Dude, work on your *beep* subject lines.
"I AM BORED AND HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO DO, ARTICLE ONE" would be a start. |
Yes, these Sunday nights SHOULD be filled with endless activities.
But, you on line as well......... |
Last time I checked, I wasn't posting multiple articles with subject lines like "hmmmmmm." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Last time I checked, I wasn't posting multiple articles with subject lines like "hmmmmmm." |
OK..I'll make it simple for you.
ATTENTION: dmbfan does not have anything to do on this Sunday night. He does not wish to drink, and he has already finished reading his book.
What better way to kill a few hours then doing some research online, the posting the findings on the infamous Daves ESL Cafe?
Anyway, now if you want to sit there and throw poo, then joing a few of the kids in the corner. If you want to talk about the O.P. in an objective and intelligent manner, then that is nice to.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
