Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Check your source!



I am not going to be drawn into this uninformed debate here. I won't even read it; I have an open, but not empty, mind. I have devoted much time to study and writing on this topic in other groups, including my own faculty. My criticism is certainly not directed at Rick, but he made a significant comment, and it leads to a lacuna that I can fill. Yes, you should look into the original letter. There is one available at <http://www.met.tamu.edu/people/faculty/dessler/ AEIscan.pdf>. It should open some eyes here into a few still open minds.

You should also read the SPL (both the 2 February version which raised all the debate, and the final edited version that came out Tuesday) of the IPCC's AR4, and look at the SOD itself. Then, most important, look at <http://www.ipcc.ch/about/app-a.pdf>, with particular attention to the second complete paragraph on p. 5 ("Reports to be accepted by the Working Groups ...").

If you have questions, please write me directly. I have been getting useful work done lately, and I am not perusing this group.

Leigh

On 10 Feb 2007, at 09:00, Richard Tarara wrote:

It might be nice to have the full text of the letter that was sent to
scientists BEFORE going off half-cocked with inflammatory subject lines
(like the above) or sensationalist headlines as per the Guardian (not your most
unbiased publication).