Originally posted by lazs2
Good science still exists... it just doesn't exist in this field because of the greed and political and religious beliefs of it's "advocates".. they are activists and not scientists... they are fire and brimstone preachers who advocate shutting up anyone who would dispute them...
lazs [/B]
lazs
I agree with everything you said but would like to point out that there is in fact good science in this field they are just being drowned out. There are many climate scientist who see what is going on and are trying to get the word out. Many petitions such as the Oregon petition signed by over 17000 scientist including I believe 5 Nobel prize winners for instance.
I will include the link to the article I'm about to quote from at the end of this text. It concerns the scientists who wrote the UN's IPCC report and were then concerned that their approved final draft was changed prior to publication to reflect desired policy changes rather than the science.
Some quotes:
In brief, I believe that:
Chapter 8 was altered substantially in order to make it conform to the Summary;
Three key clauses-- expressing the consensus of authors, contributors, and reviewers-- should have been placed into the Summary instead of being deleted from the approved draft chapter;
The ambiguous phrase "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate" has been (mis)interpreted by policymakers to mean that a major global warming catastrophe will soon be upon us;
The IPCC report and its authors are being (mis)used by politicians and others to push an ideologically based agenda.
Were the Changes Substantial?
When I was first apprised of the existence of alterations to Chapter 8 in a mailing from the Global Climate Coalition in May 1996 (2), my reaction was that of surprise. I had attended both the Madrid and Rome meetings and recalled no discussion or announcement of such changes. But after personally comparing the "final draft" (of October 9, 1995) and the printed version (May 1996), I had to conclude that the changes were indeed substantial.
I realize that judgments can differ (3). It would, therefore, be best to have this matter settled by independent reviewers. It may, however, be helpful to quote three key phrases that were deleted from the final draft of Chapter 8:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man- made] causes."
"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
Legality of Changes
It is a matter of dispute--but of great importance--whether the text revisions, Houghton's instructions to Santer, or the State Department letter, were in accord with IPCC procedures. I have no fixed opinion and will leave the resolution of this dispute to others, including legal experts.
A separate question is whether IPCC procedures on matters such as peer-review are in accord with accepted scientific standards. For example, a conscientious journal editor would not choose an author's colleague as a referee. The Nature article points out that "the integrity of the reviewing and approval process is ... an essential element in assuring the credibility of the resulting conclusions." The IPCC assigned the role of convening lead author to Ben Santer, who then based much of the conclusion of Chapter 8 on two of his own papers that had not yet appeared in peer-reviewed journals (4). (The comment deadline on Chapter 8 was July 1995; one paper appeared in Climate Dynamics in December 1995, his other paper in Nature in July 1996). Eight of his co-authors are also listed as Chapter 8 contributors. I don't think that one can fairly expect them to be critical of their own work. And indeed, I have seen several scientific notes being submitted for publication, critiquing the two Santer articles, now that these have been published in widely available journals.
Conclusions
As far as most politicians are concerned, the science is now settled. There is really no need for further research, and certainly not for any results that might cast doubt on the "scientific consensus." According to the Ministerial Declaration issued in Geneva on 18 July 1996, paragraph 4, the continuing work by the IPCC can now focus on "socio-economic and environmental impacts on developing countries." With the ambiguous IPCC conclusion at hand they can now say to climate scientists: "Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you very much. You've done your job. We don't need you anymore. You can now leave the room. We have more important work to do to figure out how to apportion emissions, a political job that we're perfectly qualified to do without your help."
I believe we have here a clear example of the misuse of science-- and of scientists. If you agree, or have some constructive comments, I would like to hear from you. You may even be interested in joining others in signing the attached Leipzig Declaration.
Anyway there is lots more if you care to go to the link. Again these are the scientist who actually did the research that went into the IPCC report and were then duped. Their work and conclusions were changed to fit a political rather than Scientific agenda.
Link
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/ipccflap.htm
