Steve
I researched this a little further and found a magazine article about
Gore's claims and found
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
This is less categorical about the 928 papers but is nevertheless
confirmation that the consensus is there and is supported by the
National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the
American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS). "Politicians, economists, journalists,
and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or
discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."
Hope this helps.
Brian
Steve Gregory wrote:
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Ross McKitrick [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 9:20 AM
> To: Steve Gregory
> Subject: Re: FW: [EN] Global Warming, another point of view...
>
>
> Dear Steve
>
> Thank you for your note. The Fraser Institute did not receive any money
> from any firms, certainly not Exxon or any others listed by Mr Ellis,
> for the ISPM. (As for that, what people don't understand is that all the
> climate policy proposals before the US government right now will be a
> financial boon to major fossil energy producers if passed. Cap and trade
> as configured in those proposals is simply a legalized cartel with the
> scarcity rents (in this case emission permits) handed to the incumbent
> firms. Energy firms are not out there fighting against climate policy,
> they are lobbying for cap and trade). In any case, the Fraser Institute
> did not seek or get any funding from any firms--energy or otherwise--for
> this project.
>
> The ISPM is not, as he suggests, a summary of the IPCC Summary for
> Policymakers. It is a summary of the Second Order Draft of the full IPCC
> Working Group I report as it stood in June 2006, at the close of
> scientific review. We used this as the best estimate of the final
> wording of the full IPCC report, which is due out in early May. We
> explain this in the ISPM.
>
> We also explain that the statement of Overall Conclusions represents the
> views of the writing team. Judgments about whether climate changes are
> good or bad are not mere emotion. The IPCC report devotes many pages to
> discussions of things like storms, extreme weather, precipitation, heat
> waves, sea levels, etc, because these are the things people worry about
> in connection with climate change. Ambiguity about trends in these
> things implies ambiguity about whether potential problems or benefits
> will arise.
>
> The "90%" probability statement was arrived at by a vote among
> bureaucrats at a meeting in Paris. I would not put much emphasis on the
> specific number: different studies, different methods and different
> assumptions imply very different numbers. The IPCC relies heavily on a
> single model-based methodology. The discussion of this is in the
> detection and attribution chapter in the IPCC report, which we summarize
> in detail in the ISPM.
>
> The kinds of policies put forward to address CO2 emissions are different
> from those that address air pollution, and to some extent are rivals.
> This is especially true in 3rd World settings, where the main health
> threat is indoor air pollution from burning wood and dung in open indoor
> fires. The first step to improving air pollution for most of the poor
> people in the world is creating an electricity grid with
> fossil-generated power. I have a short magazine article about this at:
> http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/particles.pdf. So the decision
> about climate policy can't be subsumed under general air pollution
> policy. Choices do have to be made. One of the main motivations behind
> the ISPM is to get interested people to read the full IPCC report
> itself, not merely the SPM published in Paris in February. The more
> people grapple with the details, in all their complexity, the more
> likely we will be in a position to make sound policy choices.
>
> Yours truly,
>
>
> Dr. Ross McKitrick
> - Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
> - Department of Economics
> - University of Guelph
> - 519-824-4120 x52532
> - http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/ross.html
>
>
>
> Steve Gregory wrote:
>
> Dear Doctor McKitrick,
>
> First I would like to introduce myself, my name is Steve Gregory
> and I
> am a Production Engineer for an electronics comapany in Tulsa,
> Oklahoma
> called OAI Electronics.
>
> I belong to a email forum that is hosted by the IPC (Institute
> for
> Printed Circuits) called Environet, which discusses
> environmental issues
> as they relate to our industry. We occasionally get into other
> environmental topics as well, as you can read in the exchange
> below.
>
> I was wondering if you could comment on Brian Ellis's reply.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Steve Gregory
> Production Engineer
> OAI Electronics
> 6960 East 12th Street
> Tulsa, Oklahoma 74112
>
> (918) 836-9077
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Ellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:10 AM
> To: Environmental Issues; Steve Gregory
> Subject: Re: [EN] Global Warming, another point of view...
>
> Firstly, let me quote the last sentence of the ES:
> "Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of
> uncertainty
> as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate
> change,
> and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing."
>
> The IPCC report allows "an unavoidable element of uncertainty"
> by
> equating "very likely" to a 90 percentile probability.
> Furthermore, it
> quotes the ranges of different scenarios. It is therefore "very
> likely"
> than a part of the climate change, but not all of it, is
> anthropogenic.
> This is therefore not contradictory.
>
> Whether or not it is a good or bad thing depends on where you
> are. It is
> very personal and such a statement has NO place in what is
> purported to
> be a purely scientific assessment. When I see emotional
> interpretations,
> then credibility flies out the window.
>
> Then, when I see "Our work is financed by tax-deductible
> contributions
> from thousands of individuals, organizations, and foundations."
> without
> names, I think of Exxon-Mobil, Shell, BP, Total and their
> offshoots etc.
>
> as being possible major contributors. Who bites the hand that
> feeds
> them? Compare this with
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html
>
> Yes, there are still many naysayers. I await, with impatience,
> the full
> IPCC scientific report which, hopefully, will be published next
> month.
> Until that comes out, we have no yardstick by which to measure
> the
> veracity of the modelling (and neither have the writers of this
> report,
> which is based essentially on a 20 page summary, not the ~500
> pages of
> the full report).
>
> Finally, whether climate change is partially anthropogenic or
> not - and
> I believe it is from all the evidence I have seen - there is an
> even
> more compelling reason to cut down on using fossil fuels: public
> health.
>
> I'm sure I've touched on this before, but see here
>
> http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv/files/climate_change.htm#Public%20health
> if you wish to know more.
>
> Brian
>
> Steve Gregory wrote:
>
>
> I was given the link below to read, and it credibly
> dicusses another
> point of view about "global warming". I cannot just
> dismiss this
>
>
> paper.
>
>
> It seems well supported by some prominent researchers
> and is backed-up
>
>
>
>
>
> by data. I just wonder what some of you think?
>
> -Steve Gregory-
>
> http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ISPM.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
