Climate Science and the untruths of Politics

[maury <maury@WEBTEXAS.COM>]

The material below was extracted from the World Climate Report - a

periodical at greeningearthsociety.org   I will furnish detailed

citation if anyone wants it.



-------- Original Message --------

Subject: A core detail in the abuse of climate science ....

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 04:21:20 -0500

From: maury <maury@webtexas.com>

To: Don Kosloff <dkosloff1@EMAIL.MSN.COM>,"James S Dukelow, Jr."

<jim.dukelow@PNL.GOV>,Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>,

Ted Rockwell <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>



There is no way I can have first hand knowledge of this account. Is this

a distortion by Singer? I cannot "really" know, but I am persuaded that

it probably is correct. I'm intimately familiar with the infighting that

was (is?) common in graduate school departments. I hope to see soon a

copy of the actual Working Group report (not the Summary for

Policymakers) at a local university library - can't buy this thing; I

think the individual volumes are about $175 each!

Cheers,

Maury

===============================================

" ... the biggest flap in the normally torpid history of

climatology has blown up because of deletions and alterations of

the chapter on “Detection” of the human influence on the climate.



Singer was an observer at the IPCC  mega-confabs at Madrid/Rome in

November/December 1995.  He “recalled no discussion or announcement

of such changes.”  He was surprised to learn that the final draft of

October 1995, was different from the version published in May 1996. 

Three key phrases had been deleted:



1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we

can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of

increases in greenhouse gases.”



2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of

observed climate changes) to anthropogenic causes.”



3. “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.”



Instead, the new text states that there are substantial

uncertainties with respect to magnitude and type of change, but

that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible influence on

the climate.”



In the resultant (and predictable) fire-storm, IPCC defended

itself by stating that it was indeed appropriate to make minor

modifications of the text in order that it conform to the much

more widely read Summary for Policymakers.



Most observers agree that minor text changes at the final

stages of publication are appropriate; in fact, editing occurs

in almost all refereed journals when authors look at the galley

proofs.  But whether IPCC’s changes are “minor” is debatable.



Was this planned all along?  Singer cites a letter from the

U.S. Department of State, dated November 15, 1995, to Sir John

Houghton, head of IPCC, which says that “it is essential that

the chapters not be finalized prior to the completion of

discussions at the...plenary in Madrid, and that chapter

authors be prevailed upon to modify their text in an

appropriate manner following discussion in Madrid.”



July 7, 1995, four months earlier, was the deadline for the

ersatz (we’ve also tried “pseudo,” “almost,” and “quasi”

here—pick ’em) peer review by individual scientists.  Thus

the text could have been modified “in an appropriate manner”

long after the cover of apparent peer review was removed.



Singer rightfully argues that no one knows whether or not

IPCC really had the power to do this—but IPCC claimed

otherwise.  The abstract of their letters to the Wall

Street Journal might have read “We changed the text. 

We had the authority to do so according to our rules (made

by, guess who?  Us!), and according to our rules, this is

peer-reviewed.”   IPCC seemed determined to avoid the real

issue: Was changing the text without thorough review the

right thing to do?



Singer then argues that Houghton had revealed his biases

long before the world’s environment ministers got together

in Geneva July 8 to declare that it’s high time for legally

binding restrictions on greenhouse emissions (or did they?

See the BIG Rumor). On June 5, he told the London press

that he supported mandatory emissions reductions.  On June

17, he signed a letter in the London Times referring to

climate change as a “moral issue,” ending with the

statement that: ... "

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.