From the “I’ll believe it when I see it” department comes this story in Nature News:
I thought this was interesting:
A new conflict-of-interest policy will require all IPCC officials and authors to disclose financial and other interests relevant to their work (Pachauri had been harshly criticized in 2009 for alleged conflicts of interest.) The meeting also adopted a detailed protocol for addressing errors in existing and future IPCC reports, along with guidelines to ensure that descriptions of scientific uncertainties remain consistent across reports. “This is a heartening and encouraging outcome of the review we started one year ago,” Pachauri told Nature. “It will strengthen the IPCC and help restore public trust in the climate sciences.”
Which is a far cry from “voodoo science”:
Told ya so…IPCC to retract claim on Himalayan Glacier Melt – Pachauri’s “arrogance” claim backfires
Next on the forefront of “voodoo” science we have this:
The first major test of these changes will be towards the end of this year, with the release of a report assessing whether climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme weather events. Despite much speculation, there is scant scientific evidence for such a link — particularly between climate warming, storm frequency and economic losses — and the report is expected to spark renewed controversy. “It’ll be interesting to see how the IPCC will handle this hot potato where stakes are high but solid peer-reviewed results are few,” says Silke Beck, a policy expert at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Leipzig, Germany.
I predict they will botch this too.
Full article here h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Laurie Bowen says:
May 20, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Jerzy says: May 20, 2011 at 11:42 am “You haven’t yet identified a new species that has developed “due to humans’ effects on the environment”, have you?”
“Without getting into nit picking about “humans’ effects on the environment” . . . How about the Modern Jersey, Gernzie, or Holstein Cow . . . The wooley Sheep we raise . . . Poodles, Great Danes, and all those other fancy dogs, cats, chicken, and rabbits . . “
Laurie, all the animals (or breeds) that you noted are examples of artificial selection.
My question was initially in response to the post by Paul (May 18, 2011 at 12:02 pm), in which he commented that “environmentalists are such glass half-empty types” because they are concerned about the extinction of species rather than “new ones,” and he noted that according to the theory of evolution “species adapt, evolve or become extinct.”
I noted that it is quite easy for humans to cause species to go extinct due to our effects on the environment; but I do not know of any new species that has come about as a result of an anthropogenic effect on environment. And as of now, I still do not know of any such species or subspecies.
I think it is important to at least be aware of our detrimental effects on other species. There is no law or theory of nature that suggests that humans will bring species into existence through natural selection just because we cause species to go extinct due to our own stupidity.
Who are “environmentalists”? Am I an environmentalist? I confess that I am concerned and would wish to try ameliorate and avoid catastrophic anthropogenic effects on species–examples of which we can all name plenty.
What exactly are “species” anyway? Every dog is, I believe, a grey wolf. Even a chihuahua is a grey wolf. Cow breeds are not separate species. Wikipedia again (sorry!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebu
Actions speak louder than words. Pachauri is still head of IPCC.
Jerzy says: May 20, 2011 at 11:44 am
Jessie, you are asking me what the paragraph you quoted “really means”?
Frankly, I couldn’t make much sense of it, but the title sounds interesting. I enjoy any occasion when “ontological” and “physics” are used in the same sentence.
What do you think the paragraph “really means”?
I certainly do agree that “[s]moke itself, however, did not change the colour of the moths”.
Yes I am asking Jerzy.
I know what it says. But what it says is of little sense to me. Lumping together ‘causality’ in this manner is difficult. The entire articel discussed intuitive processes.
For eg a person switching a switch in an electrical circuit has a long history in human science and technology and then manufacturing.
Moths in a forest and changes which resulted ?genetically to colour patterns (?mimesis) or purely by selection because of industry output and predators is a different scenario.