Thought this excerpt would be interesting:

"In fact, as IPCC lead author and NAS contributor Richard Lindzen of MIT has
repeatedly said, these characterizations of the state of the science are
inaccurate. Writing recently in Canada's Hill Times newspaper (Feb. 23), he
said,

'[I]t is quite wrong to say that our NAS study endorsed the credibility of
the IPCC assessment report. We were asked to evaluate the IPCC "Summary for
Policymakers" (SPM), the only part of the IPCC reports that is ever read or
quoted by the media and politicians. The SPM, which is seen as endorsing
Kyoto, is commonly presented as the consensus of thousands of the world's
foremost climate scientists. In fact, it is no such thing. Largely for that
reason, the NAS panel concluded that the SPM does not provide suitable
guidance for the U.S. government...

The full IPCC report, most of which is written by scientists about specific
scientific topics in their areas of expertise, is an admirable description
of research activities in climate science. It is not, however, directed at
policy. The SPM is, of course, but it is also a very different document. It
represents a consensus of government representatives, rather than of
scientists. As a consequence, the SPM has a strong tendency to disguise
uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no
evidence.

Similarly, in the case of our NAS report, far too much attention was paid to
the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The
summary claimed that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere
as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and
subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Yet, the full text noted that 20
years was too short a period for estimating long term trends, a crucial
point that the summary neglected to mention. Our primary conclusion was that
despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled.
[Emphases added].'

[You can check Professor Lindzen's remarks by reading the body not the
summary of the NAS report here.]

So who is misrepresenting the science, the Bush administration or its
political opponents? The doublespeak surely comes from those who claim
reports say one thing when the text says another. Far from making the policy
choice first, in the area of global warming the administration seeks a
careful review of the actual science, not just a brief reading of an
unsatisfactory summary."

Enjoy!

Val

Frustrated with dial-up? Lightning-fast Internet access for as low as

--- In ssi_list@... "Valens Agnitio"
>
> So who is misrepresenting the science, the Bush administration or
> its political opponents?

Despite the spinning of the report I surely wouldn't put the Bush
Administration up as the poster-child for scientific integrity.
Wanting to have industry scientists vet proposals was the sign of
chutzpah.

> The doublespeak surely comes from those who claim reports say one
> thing when the text says another.

I agree with Crichton's original assessment that there was political
spinning going on with the IPCC summary. It was overreach. However,
the fact that Bush questioned the scientific foundations certainly
had nothing to do with respect for sound science methodology, and
more to do with favoring political ideologies. They caught a lucky
break in the confluence of the two situations and are using one to
disguise the other.

> Far from making the policy choice first, in the area of global
> warming the administration seeks a careful review of the actual
> science, not just a brief reading of an unsatisfactory summary."

Talk about spinning! My, oh my. The Adminsitration has shown its
cards too many times for me to take them seriously on this
statement. I can't believe that they would be in favor of Kyoto, or
even the Convergence Treaty, even if the science was
methodologically sound and beyond dispute. Even on matters that are
known to be beyond dispute, the Administration obfuscates.

I'm simply left with the belief that people are prone to go beyond
evidence quite frequently. Right now I'm engaged in a debate with
rabid free-traders who can't see that their belief in their
economics goes beyond the evidence and theory. They're just like the
rabid environmentalists, in that they take some good science and
evidence and then on faith make propositions that are unsupportable.
It's just as difficult to get through to the free-traders as the
environmentalists.

Thanks for the heads-up on this article. It was interesting.

TangoMan

>
>Thanks for the heads-up on this article. It was interesting.
>

No problem at all. I thought you might respond as you did :-)

I have been opposed to the Kyoto mish mash from its origin, finding clear
political purpose that fails to address the problems it supposes in a way
that is obviously effective. In fact, the fixes it supposes do not seem to
account for the inevitable divergence that will occur, especially in
currently developing nations.

But who ever said that the UN had actual solutions in mind?

I have been sorely dissapointed with the Bush admin's treatment of biotech
and its emergence as a possibly key sector in our economy. By many estimates
this will be a trillion $ industry in as little as one decade, and as such,
provides the employment that will replace that inevitably lost to
outsourcing and such in a maturing economy such as the US. Since I am not
intimately familiar with the treatment of other areas of sci/tech by the
admin, I can only assume that it is similar. Very unfortunate from many
perspectves.

One more thing, you mentioned being in a debate concerning free-traders...
Is this debate public in nature (such as this forum). If so, I sure would
like to listen in!

Val

--- In ssi_list@... "Valens Agnitio"

> I have been opposed to the Kyoto mish mash from its origin,
finding clear
> political purpose that fails to address the problems it supposes
in a way
> that is obviously effective. In fact, the fixes it supposes do not
seem to
> account for the inevitable divergence that will occur, especially
in
> currently developing nations.
>
> But who ever said that the UN had actual solutions in mind?

I think that this may have a better chance of success.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994467

> I have been sorely dissapointed with the Bush admin's treatment of
biotech
> and its emergence as a possibly key sector in our economy. By many
estimates
> this will be a trillion $ industry in as little as one decade, and
as such,
> provides the employment that will replace that inevitably lost to
> outsourcing and such in a maturing economy such as the US.

He's playing to the religious right base. The whole South Korean
cloning reports from a while back just show that the US is losing
ground in terms of innovation on this front. This doesn't portend
well for the US being on the crest of a new economic trend. Off-
shoring is rationalizing many knowledge industries and the US needs
to climb higher on the value chain. Bio-tech could be one link in
such a chain, but that's being closed off.

TangoMan