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!




.... you should look into the original letter. There
is one available at
<http://www.met.tamu.edu/people/faculty/dessler/AEIscan.pdf>.
Leigh

One or two folks may have had a web error message due
to the URL break, despite Leigh's careful bracketing.

While it certainly looks like it is trying to ask for an unbiased article,
one wonder's who the favored grantees are, and what they have written in the
past. Also, what would happen if a grantee wrote an unacceptable article?

Was the person who posted the letter offered or did they accept such a
grant?

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

Here is an excerpt from the person who posted the letter:
-------------------------------------------------
http://gristmill.grist.org/user/Andrew%20Dessler

Because of the enormous credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change's reports, and because they suggest that human-induced
climate change is a very real risk, opponents of action on climate change
must attack the IPCC or completely cede the scientific high ground in the
debate.

With the release of the latest IPCC report, a whole new crop of specious
skeptical arguments has arisen. Here's a good example, which appeared in
this week's Weekly Standard:

"One possible reason for the timing is that there appear to be some
significant retreats from the 2001 IPCC report. The IPCC has actually
lowered its estimate of the magnitude of human influence on warming, though
we shall have to wait for the full report in May to understand how and why.
Only readers with detailed knowledge of the 2001 report would notice these
changes, which is why most news accounts failed to report them."


As with most skeptical arguments, there is a grain of truth here, sitting
under a mountain of deception.

------------------------------------------------

The person who posted the letter has extensive credentials as an atmospheric
scientist, and seems to be convinced that the global warming is real, and
that it extremely unwise to dismiss it and fail to take action. I doubt
that many on this list have similar credentials, so perhaps one should take
his warnings seriously.


John M. Clement
Houston, TX


Accordingly, I am pleased to offer his URL again,
which may not break for you this time.

It is signed by a Resident Scholar at the AEI, and directed
to a professor at Texas A&M with a tempting honorarium
(or honoraria, if you will) of ten big ones for a review of
climate change.



Actually, and for the benefit of those unable or unwilling to read the
letter, it seeks a critique of climatic modeling. It is asking for a
clear
and accessible essay that outlines what aspects of the modeling are
reliable
enough on which to base public policy, and what aspects are not. That's
it.