Comments on: More on Why Politics and IPCC Matters http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3414 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3414&cpage=1#comment-937 Roger Pielke, Jr. Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:31:02 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3414#comment-937 Thanks Steve for the correction. We appreciate the extra set of eyes. Thanks Steve for the correction. We appreciate the extra set of eyes.

]]> By: Steve D. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3414&cpage=1#comment-936 Steve D. Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:31:40 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3414#comment-936 Agreed - a good selection of evidence "why it is important for the IPCC to ruthlessly protect...". Regarding your solution direction "Looking to the structure of its first assessment report would be a good place to start.", have you already published a proposal on that? There's a minor glitch at the end of your transcript, which ends with "investment in nuclear energy and then carbon" You just need to append after "carbon" the rest of his statement: "sequestration. I do not see it as a mortal sin to question the Kyoto Protocol, which will reduce warming by one-fiftieth of a degree Celsius by 2050, at considerable economic cost. I doubt if its targets will be reached, and there are no sanctions if they are not. I suspect that there will be less costly and more effective ways of dealing with whatever prospects lie ahead than the Kyoto straitjacket." Good work, Steve Agreed – a good selection of evidence “why it is important for the IPCC to ruthlessly protect…”. Regarding your solution direction “Looking to the structure of its first assessment report would be a good place to start.”, have you already published a proposal on that?

There’s a minor glitch at the end of your transcript, which ends with “investment in nuclear energy and then carbon”

You just need to append after “carbon” the rest of his statement:

“sequestration. I do not see it as a mortal sin to question the Kyoto Protocol, which will reduce warming by one-fiftieth of a degree Celsius by 2050, at considerable economic cost. I doubt if its targets will be reached, and there are no sanctions if they are not. I suspect that there will be less costly and more effective ways of dealing with whatever prospects lie ahead than the Kyoto straitjacket.”

Good work, Steve

]]> By: DrMaggie http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3414&cpage=1#comment-935 DrMaggie Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:41:16 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3414#comment-935 Now, I'm far from an expert, but it seems to me that his Lordship is himself suffering from "sexing up syndrome" in the way that he cavalierly dismisses e.g. the "hockey stick" graph. Yes, I know that even the original authors of that study have admitted that there were some problems with their 1998 article, but it is certainly _not_ evident from the conclusions of the papers by e.g. von Storch or McKitrick et al. (or even from the recent Moberg study) that the "stick is broken"... Caution when it comes to attribution of the _observed_ warming trends is certainly advised, but IMHO the IPCC has already (in their 2001 report) done a good job of defining the levels of "uncertainty" and "confidence" they attached to various forcings and effects of these forcings - in any case, a much better job than that made of most of their critics in spelling out why the IPCC report shouldn't be taken seriously. Now, I’m far from an expert, but it seems to me that his Lordship is himself suffering from “sexing up syndrome” in the way that he cavalierly dismisses e.g. the “hockey stick” graph. Yes, I know that even the original authors of that study have admitted that there were some problems with their 1998 article, but it is certainly _not_ evident from the conclusions of the papers by e.g. von Storch or McKitrick et al. (or even from the recent Moberg study) that the “stick is broken”…

Caution when it comes to attribution of the _observed_ warming trends is certainly advised, but IMHO the IPCC has already (in their 2001 report) done a good job of defining the levels of “uncertainty” and “confidence” they attached to various forcings and effects of these forcings – in any case, a much better job than that made of most of their critics in spelling out why the IPCC report shouldn’t be taken seriously.

]]>