Re: More evidence Danny can't read.
Posted by Dale on Mar 04, 2002 at 09:53
Re: The laugh of the year (so far) (DA Morgan)
Ok, Danny, let’s assume for the moment that you actually read the article before deciding what it said. (I know this is a terrible assumption but work with me here.) It said:
“A group of scientists in the US and the UK says the accepted wisdom on climate change remains unproved.”
“The scientists, a group convened by the American George C. Marshall Institute, first published their report in the US.”
The George C. Marshall Institute is a reputable scientific think tank. See http://www.marshall.org/aboutpg.html Look at that Board of Directors. Why would all those scientists be on the board if there were no scientists in this organization?
“It has been republished in the UK by the European Science and Environment Forum (Esef), entitled Climate Science and Policy: Making the Connection.”
So who is the European Science and Environmental Forum (ESEF)? They don’t seem to have a web site and the best I could find was “The European Science and Environment Forum is an independent, non-profit-making alliance of scientists whose aim is to ensure that environmental debates are properly aired, and that decisions which are taken, and action that is proposed, are founded on sound scientific principles.” Sounds though as if they might have a few scientists in the organization.
“Esef says it is "the result of an extensive review by a distinguished group of scientists and public policy experts of the science behind recent findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)".”
“The US group included a former CIA director and defence secretary James Schlesinger, and Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.”
Let’s see, according to Danny, a distinguished group of scientists and public policy experts couldn’t include anyone who wasn’t directly involved in scientific research, could it. According to Danny all public policy experts must be scientists, right Danny? If even a single public policy expert isn’t directly involved in research, everything and everyone associated with that report must be an object for Danny’s amusement. Even if every other person involved had credentials of a Richard Lindzen, Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow, or Bruce N. Ames, the mere mention of James Schlesinger makes everything they say untrue. Right, Danny?
“Its detailed criticisms of the IPCC include:
• projections of climate change based on models and assumptions which "are not only unknown, but unknowable within ranges relevant for policy-making"
• models which "do not adequately characterise clouds, water vapour, aerosols, ocean currents and solar effects"
• a failure "to reproduce the difference in trends between the lower troposphere and surface temperatures over the past 20 years".”
So the reason you don’t have to address any of the concerns is because James Schlesinger was involved as a public policy expert but he isn’t a scientist. Facts are irrelevant if someone who you disagree with politically is in any way involved. Right Danny? Or didn’t you bother to read the article before attempting to discredit it because you didn’t like what it said in the first sentence?