Dear Jim,

I wouldn't exactly refer to Greenpeace and the New York
Times as scientific publications, and therefore you shouldn't
be convinced to believe in or not believe in global warming
based on their stories.  I'm not surprised that they either
exaggerate to sell publications or to win over those who
aren't convinced yet.

But what you should listen to is every single credible
atmospheric scientist and publication that states that
global warming is definitely true and producing significant
climate change.  The problem with getting people
to believe in global climate change is that it is an extremely
difficult and complex problem and therefore involves a good
deal of uncertainty.

I don't have the latest recommendation in front of me,
but it's in the neighborhood of 3 +/- 1 degree C, or
a more conservative number like 2 +/- 2 depending on which
model is run.  Now, here's where the problem lies.  The
scientists who determine these numbers publish them and of
course publish their uncertainties, or else they would be very
dishonest.  To any other scientist, you look at the numbers
and know that about 2-3 degrees of global warming will occur
with a fair amount of certainty.

But if you're someone like President Bush with ulterior motives,
you say, "Wow look at these uncertainties.  Why can't the
scientists have zero error and be 100% correct.  Plus my
science advisors and the general public have no idea about
climate change.  I'll 'Do Little and Delay'"  Which is what ends
up happening here in the US because we'd rather do what's
good for the economy rather than the Earth.  It's too bad
the US administration seems to actually need someone
to exaggerate before they will listen.


At 08:19 PM 8/20/02, you wrote:
>Title: SLIPPERY SLOPE [written by Andrew Stuttaford]
>
>Greenpeace has been showing [these] pictures on its website:
>
>http://www.greenpeace.org/features/details?features%5fid=21871
>
>comparing the current state of some glaciers in
>Svalbard (an island some five hundred miles to
>the north of Norway) with how they used to be
>some eighty years ago.
>
>The picture (ice then, rocks now) seems to give
>further weight to the global warming hypothesis.
>
>A dramatic story? Well, no. It turns out that the
>Greens didn't bother to check the facts.
>
>The London Daily Telegraph, however, did.
>
><http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$NUK5BQXEKTSHBQFIQMFCF
>FOAVCBQYIV0xml=/news/2002/08/17/wglac17.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/08/17/ixworld.
>html&_requestid=74431&_requestid=415539>
>
>One of its correspondents took the trouble to consult
>with the marvelously named Professor Ole Humlun, a
>leading glaciologist in that part of the world. The
>result? It turns out that the glacier melted back in
>the 1920s.
>
>As yet, there has been no change to the Greenpeace
>website.
>
>This embarrassment comes a few weeks after the New
>York Times was shown to have misstated the degree
>of warming in Alaska.
>
>If the case for man-made global warming is so clear-cut
>as we are always told, why the need for all the exaggeration?
>
>+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + -
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
>[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics