Journal pudge's Journal: IPCC Report Missing Something 10
From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18466213/:
Described as a road map for curbing global warming, a report was approved Friday by delegates from 120 countries that lays out what they said was an affordable arsenal of tools that must be rushed into place to avert a disastrous spike in temperatures.
But a U.S. official raised concern about the economic costs.
The report, a summary of a study by a U.N. network of 2,000 scientists, said the world has to make significant cuts in emissions through increasing the energy efficiency of buildings and vehicles, shifting from fossil fuels to renewable fuels, and reforming both the forestry and farming sectors.
The document made clear that nations have the technology and money to decisively act in time to avoid a sharp rise in temperatures that scientists say would wipe out species, raise ocean levels, wreak economic havoc and trigger droughts in some places and flooding in others.
... Delegates said the approval of the report should conclusively debunk arguments by skeptics that combating global warming was too costly, that it would stifle development in poorer countries, or that the temperature rise had gone too far to change.
What I want to know is, how can the conclusions of scientists possibly debunk -- let alone do so conclusively -- fundamentally economic claims?
For crying out loud, this is economics: how can anything be conclusive anyway? Even if they were economists and not scientists? That they would even claim it is conclusive make me question their motives and judgment.
Now Playing: The Beach Boys - Surf's Up
The Dismal Science (Score:2)
Not to mention (Score:2)
The document (Score:2)
The document you're looking for is here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf [www.ipcc.ch]
It has so many footnotes and tables I can't reproduce it here. But the main text is:
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it was wrong. I said I have no reason to trust it. It is not my job to prove them wrong, it is their job to prove themselves right.
Re: (Score:2)
Was that because it was written by scientists and not economists?
Or because MSNBC, in paraphrasing informal comments about the report, used an adverb in a subjunctive clause that you felt was not sufficiently sciency?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(Since you responded only to half my comment, I assume you've dropped your objection to MSNBC's adverb "conclusively.")
I have no reason to trust it.
Was that because it was written by scientists and not economists?
I don't know that it was.
Well, that's correct, you don't know. Hopefully you will after you finish reading this. :)
I know they don't claim it was written by economists, that the IPCC is mostly scientists, so they have a much higher burden of proof to meet for their economic claims than their scientific claims.
The IPCC is entirely scientists, unless you don't count engineers...?
Working Group III includes economists. You appear not to have been aware of this, but each Working Group (I, II, and III) focuses on a different aspect of climate change. WG1 [www.ipcc.ch] "describes progress in understanding of the human and
Re: (Score:2)
(Since you responded only to half my comment, I assume you've dropped your objection to MSNBC's adverb "conclusively.")
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Working Group III includes economists.
They don't claim that. I previously read what you quoted, and as you well know, they do not claim there that their number includes any economists. They only claim that they are examining economic impacts.
WG3, since part of its mandate is to examine the economic impact of reducing greenhouse gases, would be poorly composed if it had no economists!
I agree. And?
I did not bother to look up individual bios, because again, it is their job to prove it to me, not vice versa. If you say some of them are economists, fine. It's the first I'd heard of it. I certainly wouldn't dare assume it.
Further, just becau
Re: (Score:2)
So, to summarize what we've learned:
how can... scientists possibly debunk... fundamentally economic claims?
False premise. The Working Group included economists.
how can anything be conclusive anyway? Even if they were economists and not scientists? That they would even claim it is conclusive make me question their motives and judgment.
False premise. Your epistemological misconceptions about that term aside, the WG3 summary does not claim its findings are "conclusive." That term (actually the adverbial form) was a journalist's paraphrase. WG3 describes the finding in question as "high agreement, medium evidence," and, like good scientific reports, goes into detail about its methodologies and underlying assumptions.
I have no reason to trust it.
Incorrect. You have many good r
Re: (Score:2)
how can... scientists possibly debunk... fundamentally economic claims?
False premise. The Working Group included economists.
Shrug. It's not my premise, I was just referring to what the article said.
how can anything be conclusive anyway? Even if they were economists and not scientists? That they would even claim it is conclusive make me question their motives and judgment.
False premise. Your epistemological misconceptions about that term aside
False conclusion. I have no such misconceptions.
the WG3 summary does not claim its findings are "conclusive." That term (actually the adverbial form) was a journalist's paraphrase.
Shrug. It's not my premise, I was just referring to what the article said.
I have no reason to trust it.
Incorrect. You have many good reasons
Incorrect.
A well-respected institution
False premise!
collected together well-qualified scientists and economists
So you say. I've never heard of any of these economists, and have no reason to believe they are respected in their field.
who, after studying the available scientific information for months, produced a summary report you cannot find a single fault with.
Again, it is not my job to find faults, it is their job to prove their case. As they have not released the actual report, I find it hard to figure out why you