Stop me if someone has done this already (Eli?; OK, Deltoid has something)… I’m still catching up. But US climate report comes under fire caught my eye, as did the link to RP’s take.

My first comment would be, isn’t this report just a teensy bit pointless, we have the IPCC report. I doubt there will be anything useful in it that wasn’t in IPCC. But assuming that US chauvinism means they have to have their own…

The major thing wrong with the exec summary is that its written for idiots, who are apparently unable to understand that its a process unless the boxes are drawn on top of a road, and unable to understand “irreversible” unless there is a no-U-turns sign drawn on. Unless no-U-turns is subtle irony and is supposed to mean “don’t expect any policy changes”.

But descending into the details, RP detects the use of the word “now” both in the editors powerpoint of two years ago, and in the exec summary. also the word “irreversible”; this is taken as evidence of the editor putting in her own POV. But the IPCC report SPM uses both, which is hardly surprising. OK, it doesn’t use “urgency”, ‘cos the IPCC is more measured. Anyway, I don’t find the proposed overlap very convincing: these are just balnd commonplace phrases that should be criticised for that reason instead.

There must be worse in the report than just this.

Comments

  1. #1 Steve Bloom
    2008/08/31

    Recall that the purpose of this entire exercise was to get climate scientists to spin their wheels long enough for Bush to get out of Dodge without having to do anything. The hope is that it will at least serve to strengthen the case for action once the new regime is in office. We’ll see.

    Speaking of Pielkes, I know you’ll be enlightened to discover that your comment on Chase et al served only to *confirm* the latter’s conclusions. After all, why else even go to the trouble of submitting a comment?

    [Thats the other Pielke, of course. But I'm surprised by his dishonesty there. Maybe just false memory syndrome -W]

  2. #2 Hank Roberts
    2008/08/31

    > independently confirmed ….
    yeah
    > Other climate topics were similarly presented selectively ….
    right

  3. #3 Steve Bloom
    2008/09/01

    Atmoz discovers more septic vandalism at WP!

  4. #4 Eli Rabett
    2008/09/01

    Why complain that the executive summary is written for idiots, it is, after all written for high officials in the US government.

    [Ah you cynical bunny, if you can’t have Faith, have Hope -W

  5. #5 Bob C
    2008/09/02

    Then again, perhaps it was written for science policy experts.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!