Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
In an earlier post, The IPCC: Hiding the Decline…, I argued that even more egregious than the IPCC’s mistaken claim that Himalayan glaciers would be mainly gone by 2035, was the willful omission in the IPCC Working Group II’s 2007 Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of the fact that global warming could reduce the net global population at risk of water shortage. That this was a willful decision on the part of the authors of the of the IPCC SPM is suggested by the fact that one of the Expert comments on the Second Order Draft (SOD) of the SPM had explicitly warned that: “It is disingenuous to report the population ‘new water stressed’ without also noting that as many, if not more, may no longer be water stressed (if Arnell’s analyses are to be trusted).”
In this post I will show that this was not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern. I will show that there are other sins of omission which are also very unlikely to have occurred due to ignorance of the impacts literature or careless reporting, and that it was probably due to a conscious effort to tell the truth, but not the whole truth.
Before identifying other sins of omission, I should note that over the years, our political leaders, e.g., President Clinton, Prime Minister Blair, President Chirac, President Sarkozy, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon — have told us frequently that global warming is one of the – if not the – most important policy issues facing the world today. While there is no scientific or economic basis for such rhetoric (see, e.g., here, here, and here), it does show that policy makers ought to be very interested in how the impacts of global warming compare against other problems afflicting society. [Without such a comparison how could one know that it was ( or was not) the most important problem or issue facing humanity?] Therefore, one would think that any Summary for Policy Makers would be eager to shed light on this matter.
Contribution of Global Warming to Population at Risk of Hunger
Among the Expert comments on the Second Order Draft (SOD) of the SPM, (see page 28, Item A) was the following:
We note that global impact assessments undertaken by Parry et al. (1999, 2004) indeed indicate that large numbers will be thrown at risk for hunger because of CC; however, they also indicate that many more millions would be at risk whether or not climate changes. (see [sic] Goklany (2003, 2005a). Policy makers are owed this context. Withholding this nugget of information is a sin of omission. Without such information, policy makers would lack necessary information for evaluating response strategies and the trade-offs involved in selecting one approach and not another. One consequence of using Parry et al.’s results to compare population at risk for hunger with and without climate change is that it indicates that measures to reduce vulnerability to current climate sensitive problems that would be exacerbated by CC could have very high benefit-cost ratios. In fact, analyses by Goklany (2005a) using results from Parry et al. (1999) and Arnell et al. (2002) suggests that over the next few decades, vulnerability reduction measures would provide greater benefits, more rapidly, and more surely than would reactive adaptation measures or, for that matter, any mitigation scheme. [Emphasis added.]
To which, the IPCC writing team responded thus:
This whole text, from lines 11 to 26, has been deleted. Tables SPM-1 and SPM-2 give greater insights into risks of hunger etc, with full confidence range from negative to positive changes.
But if we go through the current SPM, there is nothing that indicates that even in the foreseeable future, the contribution of global warming to hunger would be substantially smaller than that of non-global warming related factors. Any such statement would, of course, imply that, with respect to hunger, climate change is a smaller problem than proponents of drastic GHG controls would have us believe. That is, regarding hunger, at least, other problems should take precedence over global warming.
Contribution of Global Warming to Population at Risk of Malaria
On page 63 of Expert comments on the Second Order Draft (SOD) of the SPM, it is noted:
First, most of the information on these lines is based on Table 20.4. However, there are several problems with that table that need to be fixed; after that is done, these lines in the SPM should be fixed. The problems we have with Table 20.4 are the following:
A. Table 20.4 omits critical information that would provide a context in which CC impacts should be viewed. This information, which is also available in Arnell et al. (2002) — the same source used to construct this table — is the millions of people that are exposed to the stresses highlighted in this table (i.e., the population at risk) in the absence of climate change. This information should be included in an additional column. This compilation has already been done by Goklany (2005a) for the 2080s. It shows that for hunger, water stress and malaria — which inexplicably is not included in this table, although the data are available in Arnell et al (2002) — the population at risk in the absence of climate change exceeds the population at risk under the “unmitigated” or the S750 and S550 cases. This suggests that for these stresses through the 2080s (at least), non-climate change related factors are more important than climate change, and that existing hurdles to sustainable development would outweigh additional hurdles due to climate change (through 2085, at least). Reference: Goklany, I.M.: 2005a. “A Climate Policy for the Short and Medium Term: Stabilization or Adaptation?” Energy & Environment 16: 667- 680.
B. The implications of the relative magnitude of the populations at risk for the hazards noted above with and without climate change should be noted in the SPM (see Goklany 2005a).
C. This table only provides information on the millions of people for whom water stress is increased without providing a parallel estimate of the millions for whom water stress would be reduced.
The IPCC SPM writing team’s response was:
Text has been deleted and replaced by headline on page 18 line 16 and the following text. In particular, lines 25-29 in the old SPM, which were based on Table 20.4, have been deleted.
Table SPM-1 now presents broadly the same information in a more rigorous format. Full range of stabilisation and SRES profiles for 3 time slices are shown, together with examples of impacts related to various temperature changes.
And if one looks at the current SPM or Table 20.4 in the IPCC WG II report, it is silent on the fact that impacts analyses show that through the foreseeable future:
- The contribution of global warming to future population at risk for malaria verges on the trivial,
- The contribution of global warming to the population at risk for hunger is small,
- Global warming could reduce the net population at risk of water shortage.
Noting these results from global impacts analyses would have undermined the case for drastic greenhouse gas emission reductions.
What’s truly remarkable about the above-noted comments on the SOD is that they are based on work done by Parry, Arnell, and their colleagues. But Parry was the Chairman of the IPCC Working Group II, and both were on the writing team for the SPM! It wasn’t as if the comment was saying anything that they didn’t already know, since it was all based on their papers (and, in fact, had been brought to their attention a few times previously – but that is another story ). What seems to have been lacking was candor. Perhaps they didn’t want to get crossways with their political masters. But if that was the case, what function does the SPM serve other than rubber stamp political leanings?
Regardless, they committed sins of omissions and, it seems, with due deliberation.
The IPCC: More Sins of Omission – Telling the Truth but Not the Whole Truth
Indur M. Goklany
In an earlier post, The IPCC: Hiding the Decline…, I argued that even more egregious than the IPCC’s mistaken claim that Himalayan glaciers would be mainly gone by 2035, was the willful omission in the IPCC Working Group II’s 2007 Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of the fact that global warming could reduce the net global population at risk of water shortage. That this was a willful decision on the part of the authors of the of the IPCC SPM is suggested by the fact that one of the Expert comments on the Second Order Draft (SOD) of the SPM had explicitly warned that: “It is disingenuous to report the population ‘new water stressed’ without also noting that as many, if not more, may no longer be water stressed (if Arnell’s analyses are to be trusted).”
In this post I will show that this was not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern. I will show that there are other sins of omission which are also very unlikely to have occurred due to ignorance of the impacts literature or careless reporting, and that it was probably due to a conscious effort to tell the truth, but not the whole truth.
Before identifying other sins of omission, I should note that over the years, our political leaders, e.g., President Clinton, Prime Minister Blair, President Chirac, President Sarkozy, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon — have told us frequently that global warming is one of the – if not the – most important policy issues facing the world today. While there is no scientific or economic basis for such rhetoric (see, e.g., here, here, and here), it does show that policy makers ought to be very interested in how the impacts of global warming compare against other problems afflicting society. [Without such a comparison how could one know that it was ( or was not) the most important problem or issue facing humanity?] Therefore, one would think that any Summary for Policy Makers would be eager to shed light on this matter.
Contribution of Global Warming to Population at Risk of Hunger
Among the Expert comments on the Second Order Draft (SOD) of the SPM, (see page 28, Item A) was the following:
We note that global impact assessments undertaken by Parry et al. (1999, 2004) indeed indicate that large numbers will be thrown at risk for hunger because of CC; however, they also indicate that many more millions would be at risk whether or not climate changes. (see [sic] Goklany (2003, 2005a). Policy makers are owed this context. Withholding this nugget of information is a sin of omission. Without such information, policy makers would lack necessary information for evaluating response strategies and the trade-offs involved in selecting one approach and not another. One consequence of using Parry et al.’s results to compare population at risk for hunger with and without climate change is that it indicates that measures to reduce vulnerability to current climate sensitive problems that would be exacerbated by CC could have very high benefit-cost ratios. In fact, analyses by Goklany (2005a) using results from Parry et al. (1999) and Arnell et al. (2002) suggests that over the next few decades, vulnerability reduction measures would provide greater benefits, more rapidly, and more surely than would reactive adaptation measures or, for that matter, any mitigation scheme. [Emphasis added.]
To which, the IPCC writing team responded thus:
This whole text, from lines 11 to 26, has been deleted. Tables SPM-1 and SPM-2 give greater insights into risks of hunger etc, with full confidence range from negative to positive changes.
But if we go through the current SPM, there is nothing that indicates that even in the foreseeable future, the contribution of global warming to hunger would be substantially smaller than that of non-global warming related factors. Any such statement would, of course, imply that, with respect to hunger, climate change is a smaller problem than proponents of drastic GHG controls would have us believe. That is, regarding hunger, at least, other problems should take precedence over global warming.
Contribution of Global Warming to Population at Risk of Malaria
On page 63 of Expert comments on the Second Order Draft (SOD) of the SPM, it is noted:
First, most of the information on these lines is based on Table 20.4. However, there are several problems with that table that need to be fixed; after that is done, these lines in the SPM should be fixed. The problems we have with Table 20.4 are the following:
A. Table 20.4 omits critical information that would provide a context in which CC impacts should be viewed. This information, which is also available in Arnell et al. (2002) — the same source used to construct this table — is the millions of people that are exposed to the stresses highlighted in this table (i.e., the population at risk) in the absence of climate change. This information should be included in an additional column. This compilation has already been done by Goklany (2005a) for the 2080s. It shows that for hunger, water stress and malaria — which inexplicably is not included in this table, although the data are available in Arnell et al (2002) — the population at risk in the absence of climate change exceeds the population at risk under the “unmitigated” or the S750 and S550 cases. This suggests that for these stresses through the 2080s (at least), non-climate change related factors are more important than climate change, and that existing hurdles to sustainable development would outweigh additional hurdles due to climate change (through 2085, at least). Reference: Goklany, I.M.: 2005a. “A Climate Policy for the Short and Medium Term: Stabilization or Adaptation?” Energy & Environment 16: 667- 680.
B. The implications of the relative magnitude of the populations at risk for the hazards noted above with and without climate change should be noted in the SPM (see Goklany 2005a).
C. This table only provides information on the millions of people for whom water stress is increased without providing a parallel estimate of the millions for whom water stress would be reduced.
The IPCC SPM writing team’s response was:
Text has been deleted and replaced by headline on page 18 line 16 and the following text. In particular, lines 25-29 in the old SPM, which were based on Table 20.4, have been deleted.
Table SPM-1 now presents broadly the same information in a more rigorous format. Full range of stabilisation and SRES profiles for 3 time slices are shown, together with examples of impacts related to various temperature changes.
And if one looks at the current SPM or Table 20.4 in the IPCC WG II report, it is silent on the fact that impacts analyses show that through the foreseeable future:
· The contribution of global warming to future population at risk for malaria verges on the trivial,
· The contribution of global warming to the population at risk for hunger is small,
· Global warming could reduce the net population at risk of water shortage.
Noting these results from global impacts analyses would have undermined the case for drastic greenhouse gas emission reductions.
What’s truly remarkable about the above-noted comments on the SOD is that they are based on work done by Parry, Arnell, and their colleagues. But Parry was the Chairman of the IPCC Working Group II, and both were on the writing team for the SPM! It wasn’t as if the comment was saying anything that they didn’t already know, since it was all based on their papers (and, in fact, had been brought to their attention a few times previously – but that is another story ). What seems to have been lacking was candor. Perhaps they didn’t want to get crossways with their political masters. But if that was the case, what function does the SPM serve other than rubber stamp political leanings?
Regardless, they committed sins of omissions and, it seems, with due deliberation.
Kaboom — see J from Norway pointing out colder tha normal in some parts of the world …. and in other parts it’s warmer …
PeteM
I”m not trying to convince you to do anything other than check for yourself. Here’s a good read on those “few” (over 1000) e-mails. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf
Look, check out the work done here on this site. People from all over the world checked out the surface stations. Just look around and see what they found. It’s a big problem for anybody that would deal in climate. Thermometers setting by air-conditioners?? As far as I know, not one AGW alarmist has even mentioned fixing these kind of things. If you’re any kind of critical thinker, you’d have to ask yourself, why. They know the temps aren’t accurate and yet, they use the numbers generated by them as the final word. They dropped perfectly good surface stations from the database without any explanation. Now they’re doing a proximity trick that absolutely makes no sense, and you don’t even ask why?
The IPCC needs to double-check all major statistics they officially report, especially when it directly applies to a country (like in this case). A 15 year difference in estimations is quite significant. Perhaps there is more to this story, however: http://www.newsy.com/videos/glacier-sized-problem-for-climate-change-panel
to Milwaukee Bob (08:24:59) :
Have you got any of those references… ie web sites where these are quoted?
I would be very interested in getting some of these off to our local mainstream media, and to pass on to other blogs
Thanks
James Sexton – Here’s how I look at this . Glaciers , polar ice , plants , and so on (entities who don’t read emails or websites ) are responding in a way consistent with a warmer planet .
I don’t see why anyone pointing out there is a lot of information supporting the idea of a warming planet is an alarmist . ( I’m sure there’s some confusing data about smoking somewhere but I don’t hear the term tobacco alarmists )
Just a note that this thread was picked up at the web site of the late Fr. Richard Neuhaus.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/
While the site is mostly devoted to religion & public life, it has references to Dr. North.
The site has a lot of visitors, as Fr. Neuhaus got a half page obit in the Wall Street Journal. That was very rare.
PeteM (14:05:55) :
“What will it take for me to change my view — well perhaps polar icecaps not melting , glacier ranges expanding , spring happening later and winter earlier , tree and plant species retreating , ocean acidification, perma frost not melting , average global temperatures not increasing…”
This won’t change Pete’s mind. When cognitive dissonance takes hold like that, it will require an epiphany for the scales to fall from his eyes. But for everyone else, let’s deconstruct:
“Icecaps not melting”: What Pete is cherry-picking is only the North polar ice. The South polar ice has been steadily increasing at a faster rate than N.H. ice has been declining: click. And if the polar ice caps are ‘melting’, show us where: click. [This blink gif shows the “adjustments” made to the data – which calls into question the claim that global ice cover is decreasing]: click
Next: “glacier ranges expanding”. Yes, they are:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
click8
click9
click10
“spring happening later and winter earlier , tree and plant species retreating” Credible citations that Spring is happening earlier and Winter is occurring later, please – based on global data. [Don’t forget to include the 2009-2000 N.H. Winter].
“ocean acidification”: The ocean is not acidifying. Its buffering capacity is for all practical purposes unlimited. However, pH does fluctuate: click
“perma frost not melting”: on a global basis, true. Again, the southern half of the globe is disregarded.
“average global temperatures not increasing…”: True: click
PeteM actually appears to believe all those things are happening. That’s the difference between scientific skeptics and true believers. The AGW believers don’t let facts sway them, while skeptics are happy to be convinced by the facts – as long as there is full transparency of all data and methods.
Matt Kamp (14:32:07) :
“The IPCC needs to double-check all major statistics they officially report, especially when it directly applies to a country (like in this case). A 15 year difference in estimations is quite significant.”
Where is the data saying that the IPCC meant 2050 rather than 2035?
This is just arrant nonsense, and just as intellectually bereft as the IPCC claim of 2035!
Try harder, troll.
PeteM (14:05:55) :
What will it take for me to change my view — well perhaps polar icecaps not melting , glacier ranges expanding , spring happening later and winter earlier , tree and plant species retreating , ocean acidification, perma frost not melting , average global temperatures not increasing , .. irrelevant things like that …
From this I take it that you would view increasing areas of the planet covered by increasing amounts of ice, later arriving Springs, earlier arriving Winters, and declining areas suitable for living things as positive developments for the planet. An interesting perspective, to say the least. Just a hint Pete. ICE IS NOT NOW NOR NEVER HAS IT BEEN, OUR FRIEND! Except for putting a nice chill on a bottle of Dom or very dry martini.
Perhaps you can help me out. I’ve asked this question here on a number of occasions and have yet to receive a cogent answer, maybe you can provide one. If in the increasingly unlikely possibility that the Arctic sea ice does completely disappear at some point in a future summer, what exactly will be the catastrophe that will manifest itself from such an occurrence?
Smokey – I’ve got to give you full marks for your determination to believe these changes are not actually happening despite the evidence .
Luckily , it won’t matter what gets put in this blog because the reality of physical processes will have the last say .
PeteM— I use the term alarmist because, to my knowledge, there hasn’t been a case made that even if the earth is warming significantly that there would be all the doom and gloom predicted. In fact, many of the predictions are contradictory. Case in point, water. H2O doesn’t go anywhere. It’s either solid, gas or liquid. If it warms, then there is less solid H2O. But, more for the liquid and gas. So, it stands to reason that there would be more rain. So we can’t all live in a desert if we’re to have more rain. Follow? So, what then, about the “we’re all going to drown” scenario?(solid H2O occupies more space than liquid). It simply hasn’t happened like they predicted. By now, with the reported warmth, we are suppose to have island refugees. We don’t. In fact, if the glacial melting is going on as reported, then where did the H2O go? It isn’t in sea level rise. So, they were wrong. If they are wrong on this point, wouldn’t it stand to reason that we should examine all the other things they are saying with a more intense scrutiny? And when we do examine, we find all of the above mentioned malfeasance. Pete, we’re not all going to die because we’re a tad warmer. In fact, much can be said about the possibility of a much more pleasant place to live if it were to get warmer. Of course, then A generated CO2 would likely decrease and make us cooler again. (Less CO2 for the less energy required for warmth necessary for human existence.) When one really thinks about it, it’s a none issue. And that’s only if the earth is really getting warmer. With all the washing and homogenizing and proximity averaging, no one can say with any certainty that we are warming or cooling.
PeteM (15:41:31) :
“of physical processes will have the last say ”
Which is why we await the results of the Cloud experiment at CERN.
PeteM (15:41:31) : “Luckily , it won’t matter what gets put in this blog because the reality of physical processes will have the last say .”
Hey, look! Something alarmists and deni– er, hereti– er, skeptics can all agree on!
PeteM (14:18:48) : Kaboom — see J from Norway pointing out colder tha normal in some parts of the world …. and in other parts it’s warmer …
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-199664-101-meteorologists-warn-new-cold-front-will-hit-turkey.html
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_481985.html
PeteM,
Yep, glaciers are receding in GlacNP, but where’s the evidence that temperature is causing it?
NatGeo story says the glaciers will melt 10 years sooner because: “Temperature rise in our area was twice as great as what we put into the [1992] model,” Fagre said. “What we’ve been saying now is 2020.”
OK, GHCN mean temp for that area – Kalispell/Glacier in 1992 was 7.2C.
Only hotter year since then was 1998 @ur momisugly 7.5C, while 12 years were colder at 4.7C to 6.9C. That’s colder, not warmer. Let’s see … the NEGATIVE temperature rise was twice what was predicted???
Actually the temperature of that area has been FLAT for the last 110 years. See:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climgraph.aspx?pltparms=GHCNT100AJanDecI188020080900110AR42572779000x
Hmm, now where’s the warming that’s causing these GlacNP glaciers to melt?
Guess it’s just an anomoly, huh?, or maybe virtual temp rise?, or maybe the measured temperatures were wrong and we need to adjust the data to fit the expected result? Yea that’s it, let’s make it colder in the past and warmer now, so we can prove our theory that glaciers are melting because of global warming.
At least PeteM is not one of the radical AGW religious. He seems to at least be calm and rational, even if he is in denial.
Re: starzmom (09:39:36) :
Gomer Pile’s bestest ever comment was, “Shazaam!”.
Here’s a map of the current Northern Hemispheric sea ice coverage
from Environment Canada:
http://www.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/data/analysis/350_50.gif
PeteM (15:41:31) :
“Smokey – I’ve got to give you full marks for your determination to believe these changes are not actually happening despite the evidence .”
Belief has nothing to do with skepticism. And what ‘evidence’? All you’ve given is your opinion.
Give us some alarmist citations to deconstruct. Or deconstruct the ones I provided above, if you can. But baseless opinions mean nothing here.
There is no bigger lie than a truth half told, it is in fact worse than telling straight out PORKIES (i.e PORK PIES = LIES….SPARE RIBS = FIBS…..RED MEAT = DECEIT…..BAD DICTION = FICTION )…..All rhyming slang used by Cockneys, Australians and Kiwis…and most of us really enjoy eating a good PORK PIE ! and washing it down with an ice cold BEER = PIGS EAR. I am not going to get into the rest of the vocab like SEPTIC TANK….TROLLY and TRUCK…..PONY and FLOAT…but you can all no doubt guess what they mean !
At least we all now know that AGW is the BIGGEST PORK PIE SPARE RIB RED MEAT LOAD OF BS EVER TOLD !
The only thing I find surprising about the rapidly toppling dominoes at the IPCC is that anyone is surprised about the true nature of that body being finally exposed.
Perhaps the fact that it has “Climate Change” in its name is a clue to its purpose? Similarly, many of the professorial mouthpieces that spruik in its wake, not to mention the nominated government Ministers in many nations, also have “Climate Change” in their official titles.
For those who value their handsomely paid jobs and enterprises in that long-burgeoning industry, the last thing they want to admit is any sign of absence of climate change, and therefore they can all be expected to remorselessly spin the message to suit their purpose. What more could we expect of politicians? Or university types, for whom internal politics about promotion, peer respect and grant funding is their daily fare?
Despite the ugly name-calling that has often characterised the debate, initially from the pro-AGW camp and now, finally relishing their revenge, from the skeptical side, there is actually a common thread that unites all intelligent and reason-oriented minds: we want to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
What we actually need is an IPC, an International Panel on Climate, a body that has no agenda other than to discover the absolute truth to the best of our collective ability. This issue is too important for any “sides” to carry the day. We have to know whether we are in trouble or not, and if we are, whether we actually have the capacity to avoid it or should instead concentrate our efforts on mitigating the effects. And if we’re not in trouble, the doom-mongers can all STFU and go and depress someone else.
What we also absolutely deserve is the whole truth from our elected leaders. We need them to tell us why they have so enthusiastically jumped onto this bandwagon, for bandwagon it so transparently is.
Is it about “world governance” as some suspect? Or is it about purely national agendas, currying favour with the green-inclined electors who in many countries hold the balance of power – first frighten the kiddies, then offer to save the world for them? Is it about wresting wealth and resource control from the Middle East? Is it about keeping a lid on China and India, to slow their inexorable march to the top? Or is it just a terrific new way to levy taxes on we poor mug punters who get to pay for everything?
You may note that these are all cynical motives that I ascribe to our glorious leaders. Well, perhaps that’s because we’re talking about politicians here, and I personally find that’s the best way to deal with ‘em. And anyway, “a cynic” is merely an optimist’s name for a realist.
It is perfectly possible that many politicians and climate scientists truly believe that we are in deep s**t, and that they are simply doing their heroic best to save us from ourselves using whatever means they have at their disposal. There is also absolutely no doubt that we need to find long-term solutions to reliable, high capacity energy provision, and fast.
But please, all of you – Barry O’Barmy, Gordon Clown, Krudd, Angular Merkin and the rest – tell us the truth: what’s your game? We CAN handle the truth.
And please, lay off the CO2. It’s harmless. Ask any plant. (You could get Prince Charles to do that.)
It might be possible to enter a plea with a Lord. The Lord can approach the Crown but the Crown can’t take action. It none the less would a put the matter before the houses and be deemed of public interest.
Cases bought before the court that are deemed of public interest are not subject to court costs.
Herman L (08:43:48) :
RESPONSE: First, Herman, you seem to be unclear as to what it is that the IPCC has done, or what it is that I claimed that they did. The IPCC didn’t conclude — nor did I say they did — that global warming is the most important policy issue or for that matter, “one of the most important” policy issues. They could NOT make such a conclusion because the studies they relied upon do not allow one to make such a conclusion – and the references that I linked to in the above show this explicitly. Instead the IPCC WG II report withheld information that would show readers, including policy makers, that other problems are more important to human well-being than global warming.
What happened was that policy makers, ostensibly acting on the advice of their advisors/handlers, claimed that global warming is one of the most important policy issues, etc., despite the lack of any basis for this.
Second, you seem to think that there is a scientific basis for the claim that global warming is (one of) the most important policy issues facing the world? Where is this scientific basis expounded?
To my knowledge, the only people who have even asked and tried to answer this question are Lomborg and myself. And both of us have concluded that other things are much more important. And the funny thing is that both of us start with the general assumption that the analyses relied upon by the IPCC are generally correct, whether or not they are.
Herman L (10:36:27) :
RESPONSE: Quantity is not a substitute for quality. And the problem is that there is a lack of candor in the IPCC’s WG II report, which is exacerbated by poor quality control (as revealed by the sections on Himalayan glaciers and natural disasters).
The IPCC’s mandate only requires study of “the risk of human-induced climate change” and not any advantages.
deniers suck (09:24:52) :
RESPONSE: This posting, although on Anthony Watts’ blog, is by Indur Goklany. I am more of a scientist than one who labels a dissenter a “skeptic” or a “denier,” thereby proving that (s)he simply has no grasp of the scientific method.
BTW, you want to see good science, check out this link: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf.
The surprise is that we have all these “scientists” using temperature data, without ever having checked the data quality. That’s not science. There’s more to science than being able to solve a mathematical equation or doing statistical analysis correctly. If one can do these well, it proves one is a good technician and has a good grasp of the tools of science, but to be a scientist one has to be able to bring the scientific method to bear, and that means being skeptical of everything — the evidence, the explanations, the conclusions, etc.
KPO (10:43:35) :
RESPONSE: I am generally skeptical about conspiracies. But I am a firm believer in the power of self-interested individuals to self-organize into groups of like-minded individuals. In fact, that’s how free markets (in goods, ideas, etc.) organize themselves, as well as the various groups that congregate on the internet. Everyone who has bookmarked WUWT or RealClimate (or whatever) is, for example, participating in such self-organization.