[escepticos] los limites del debate cientifico

[Javier Armentia]

Claro: y si no hubieran existido renuncias o disidencias en el IPCC se 
les estaría acusando ahora de monolitismo dogmático... Sigamos, hagan 
juego señores!

Saludos

javier armentia

Carlos Ungil escribió:
> Hola, hola.
>
> El Oct 21, 2007, a las 11:10 PM, jmbello escribió:
>> Pues por lo que se ve el debate es bastante transparente.
>
> Si es que me quejo de vicio, el funcionamiento de la cosa es 
> inmejorable (como ha atestiguado el colistero que formó parte del 
> invento). Las conclusiones del IPCC se basan en estudios 
> irreproducibles cuando no están completamente infundadas, y el 
> consenso es unánime porque los expertos abochornados con el 
> funcionamiento de la cosa se van.
>
> Se desvinculó también del IPCC Paul Reiter, experto en enfermedades 
> tropicales y profesor del Instituto Pasteur. Un informe sobre el 
> funcionamiento del IPCC que presentó a un comite del parlamento 
> británico es muy entretenido (iba a decir clarificador, pero no hay 
> que creer a los disidentes).
>
> [ 
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we21.htm 
> ] Extraigo algunas perlas:
>   In my opinion, the IPCC has done a disservice to society by relying 
> on "experts" who have little or no knowledge of the subject, and 
> allowing them to make authoritative pronouncements that are not based 
> on sound science.
>
>   IPCC SECOND ASSESSMENT REPORT, WORKING GROUP II. CHAPTER 18. HUMAN 
> POPULATION HEALTH
>   The amateurish text of the chapter reflected the limited knowledge 
> of the 22 authors.
>
>   In summary, the treatment of this issue by the IPCC was 
> ill-informed, biased, and scientifically unacceptable.
>
>   These confident pronouncements, untrammelled by details of the 
> complexity of the subject and the limitations of these models, were 
> widely quoted as "the consensus of 1,500 of the world's top 
> scientists" (occasionally the number quoted was 2,500). This clearly 
> did not apply to the chapter on human health, yet at the time, eight 
> out of nine major web sites that I checked placed these diseases at 
> the top of the list of adverse impacts of climate change, quoting the 
> IPCC.
>
>   IPCC THIRD ASSESSMENT REPORT, WORKING GROUP II. CHAPTER 18. HUMAN 
> POPULATION HEALTH
>
>   The third assessment report listed more than 65 lead authors, only 
> one of which—a colleague of mine—was an established authority on 
> vector-borne disease. I was invited to serve a contributory author on 
> the health chapter
>
>   My resignation was accepted, but in a first draft I found that my 
> name was still listed. I requested its removal, but was told it would 
> remain because "I had contributed". It was only after strong 
> insistence that I succeeded in having it removed.
>
>
>
>
>   IPCC FOURTH ASSESSMENT REPORT, WORKING GROUP II. CHAPTER 18. HUMAN 
> POPULATION HEALTH
>
>   It will be interesting to see how the health chapter of the fourth 
> report is written. [esto fue escrito en 2005] Only one of the lead 
> authors has ever been a lead author, and neither has ever published on 
> mosquito-borne disease. Only one of the contributing authors has an 
> extensive bibliography in the field of human health. He is a 
> specialist in industrial health, and all his publications are in 
> Russian. Several of the others have never published any articles at all.
>
>   I replied with a question about the two Lead Authors that had been 
> selected: "It is often stated that the IPCC represents the worlds top 
> scientists. I copy to you the bibliographies of (the two lead 
> authors), as downloaded from MEDLINE. You will observe that (the 
> first) has never written a single article, and (the second) has only 
> authored five articles. Can these two really be considered "Lead 
> authors" with experience, representative of the world's top scientists 
> and specialists in human health?"
>
> [ FIN DE LA CITA ]
>
> Asi que los chorrocientos mil expertos no lo son tanto. Supongo que es 
> inocente pensar que el IPCC debería regirse por criterios puramente 
> cientificos (veo por otra respuesta posterior que entiendes que es un 
> ente político además de científico, no eres tan inocente como yo).
>
> Chau,
>
> Carlitos
>
> PS: Hablando de huracanes, resulta curioso que sean (Katrina en 
> particular) la imagen mas frecuentemente asociada con la verdad 
> inconveniente del Sr Gore teniendo en cuenta que es uno de los 
> argumentos menos sólidos (aunque es mejor que los que son directamente 
> falsos, claro). En palabras de uno de los redactores de capítulo sobre 
> ciclones tropicales del último informe del IPCC "We concluded that the 
> question of whether there was a greenhouse-cyclone link was pretty 
> much a toss of a coin at the present state of the science, with just a 
> slight leaning towards the likelihood of such a link".
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Escepticos mailing list
> Escepticos en dis.ulpgc.es
> http://correo.dis.ulpgc.es/mailman/listinfo/escepticos
>