[Terrapreta] IPCC Integreity

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Greg,

I can see you like to play games with semantics and statistics, too.  I don't think all scientists are equipped as well as the 1500+ IPCC climate scientists and other associated scientist consultants of the IPCC.  Get a second opinion from the Nobel Foundation or from other Nobel Laureates, if you like.

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Greg and April<mailto:gregandapril at earthlink.net> 
  To: Terra Preta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 7:35 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] IPCC Integreity


  From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Consensus<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Consensus> 
  1 a: general agreement : unanimity  
     b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>
  2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief


  How many scientists on the IPCC?
  How many scientists in the world?
  The IPCC, represents what percentage of the global scientific population?    Probably less than 1/10 of 1%

  It may be a consensus on the IPCC, but it can not by any definition, be a consensus of the global scientific population.


  Yet they are trying to make it sound like it is.


  If you can document that the members of the IPCC can not engage in lobbying efforts, I'll take back those words.

  Greg H.


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
    To: Greg and April<mailto:gregandapril at earthlink.net> 
    Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 17:54
    Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] IPCC Integreity


    Hi Greg,

    The IPCC has made its reports based on the finding of a large number (1500+) of scientists from many diverse fields.  The work of the scientists mutually supports the work and the independent findings of other scientists.  Consensus was made based on examination of a large set of data and possibilities.  The work has gone on at least since 1992 and actually started some time in the late 70s, I believe.  Dissent was heard and it was dismissed, but it was because on review of those findings, they did not agree with the majority of the others who had studied the same issues.  The large number of parties involved in the IPCC work, consented, with a large majority and unanimity on some is between them, that the findings of the IPCC be posted as they thought together.

    The organization that gives out Nobel Prizes is not politically motivated.  The IPCC scientists were given the Nobel Prize (co-winners with Al Gore) for their work on the AGW, GW, and the GCC subject.  You may not agree with their findings, but they, as a large group, agree with one another, and have plenty of data to back up their assertions.  In fact they have redundant findings made by independent experiments done by independent investigators.  Their work supports one another.  They make arguments validating each others work.

    In science, data handling and experimental protocol, and mutually understood statistical processing of the data is always the issue.  Scientists get "sticky" on methods, more so than outcomes, when they a reviewing the work of others.  If the methods a respectable, commonly understood, and repeatable, and openly and clearly presented, then usually the outcomes are validated (or even reviewed).  It's when the methods are poor (and therefore the quality of the work from the scientists working on the data analysis is suspect), that issues of scientific integrity come to the fore.

    If any scientist would present data or findings, to the media, for instance, before having it published in a "peer reviewed" journal (e.g. the Pons and Fleischmman "Cold Fusion" story), then they are committing a real gaff.  They almost could not lose the respect of their peer scientists faster, by doing anything else.  Just ask one, if you do not believe me?

    I think you are completely wrong about the IPCC lobbying for anything.  In fact, I would not be surprised if every member of the IPCC was not required to certify in writing, that they were explicitly " ... not involved in any lobbying activities, whatsoever".  This is common practice by governments and the United Nations to do this, I think.  I know for sure that the US government does not pay grant money to (or employ?) scientists without such an oath.

    Regards,

    SKB


      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Greg and April<mailto:gregandapril at earthlink.net> 
      To: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
      Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 10:26 AM
      Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Earthen Kiln Conjecture


      In it's own way, the IPCC is the most powerful "lobbing" group in the world, because they have the ear of the UN  ( in many ways it's as if the NRA, was the only organization that could send official reports about guns to congress ).

      Even worse than the threat of corruption, is the fact that such a small group of people, are saying that they speak for a consensus of scientists ( and convinced the UN of that ), when there is actually allot of dissension about the subject - and when any scientists tries to go public with opposite beliefs ( and the data that it's based on ), it's scientists from the IPCC ( and in some cases the IPCC it's self ) that lead the charge in discrediting them, not only to just debate the specific issue, but in a way that discredits them as a scientist - in other words not just attacking the subject, but attacking the person as well. 

      In many ways I find that when they start attacking the person rather than the subject, that diminishes my belief in any data that they ( the IPCC and it's members ) have brought forward, in part because I wonder what it is, that they are trying to hide.


      Greg H.


        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Sean K. Barry<mailto:sean.barry at juno.com> 
        To: Kevin Chisholm<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net> 
        Cc: terra pretta group<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
        Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 23:44
        Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Earthen Kiln Conjecture


        Hi Kevin,

        You've twisted my words, yet again, to try and make a case based on what you think I've said and vastly different from what I think I am proposing (this is your game, not mine).  I do not believe that the IPCC is a small group of conspirator scientists and bureaucrats.  The recommendations of the IPCC were and are to policy makers.  The IPCC does not make the policy and is not active in changing the activities of governments or corporate offices.  What political and business forces do with this information and how they attempt to "spin" it is, I think, more of a potential problem and a fertile ground for corruption, than what the scientists did to make recommendations thay made, based on their scientific findings.  Scientists do not stand to make nearly as much as industrialists or political and marketing forces.

  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
  http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
  http://info.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080419/0329a68e/attachment.html