Is the UN exaggerating global warming facts also?

Question

In an interview, Al Gore said "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it (global warming) is..."
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/index.html

Now we learn the UN has been practicing the same thing regarding HIV research.
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/index.html

We have seen a great deal of alarmism coming out of the UN's IPCC panel recently. Do you think the UN is exaggerating global warming facts also?

Enraged Parrot, thanks for pointing out the link problem. The correct link is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900978.html

It is related because exaggeration of the facts drives funding and attention to the issue. It seems pretty obvious to me that the UN's IPCC panel is doing exactly the same thing. The IPCC is losing all credibility with their ridiculous claims.

Answer 1

Ron, you are just not familiar with the Modern Science Method:



1) Form clique of friends

2) Announce new “ground-breaking paper” to the press.

3) Announce “result” in soundbite form.

4) Get papers published peer reviewed by friends

5) Go to United Nations and declare “the science is settled”

6) Denigrate other scientists who disagree with you as “Deniers” and in league with [insert scary corporation here]

7) Praise other “independent” scientific papers written by your friends which miraculously support your hypothesis.

8) Repeat the above two processes so that you and your friends get lions share of grant money while your opponents are starved of funding and attention.

9) Hide data/methodology so as to prevent replication. Make sure only copy of data is on a floppy disk and never, ever backed up like normal people.

10) Start weblog.

11) When cornered, declare that “science has moved on”

Answer 2

No. Many scientists (more of them and more distinguished than the "skeptics") say the IPCC tends to underestimate. Particularly seen in the summaries.

"The drafting of reports by the world’s pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For many months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are extremely conservative – even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be." - George Monbiot

"being a consensus document, a lot of the material that I think is reasonably well-supported also gets weeded out through that process. If the IPCC says it you better believe it and then leave room to think it is actually a lot worse than they have said." - Tim Flannery

The summaries get a few political edits, which make the scientists statements seem a bit less solid than they are. For example, in the last scientists report, they said is was "virtually certain" that most of global warming was caused by man. The political edits changed that to "very likely". Not much of a change and in the WRONG direction for your argument.

Bottom line:

"UN report on climate change too rosy, many say"

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/18/europe/climate.php

It almost doesn't matter, but the charge about HIV is a lie. The UN revised their estimates of the number of AIDS victims because they got better data. It's not exactly easy to measure this in undeveloped Africa, with poor medical care. The change was from 40 million cases to 33. Guess that means it's not a problem, huh? Note that Ron didn't give you the data.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,,2214425,00.html

This disinformation comes from conservative blogs, which are hyping it.

EDIT - The IPCC is losing credibility? That statement is.... incredible. They get more credibility every day. The Nobel Prize is just a small example.

Answer 3

Oh lordy.

First of all, I can't even tell what Gore is trying to say in that quote.

"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it (global warming) is..."

What the heck is an "appropriate over-representation of factual presentations"?

Maybe it's clear to you, but then again maybe you're biased in the direction of assuming that everyone talking about AGW is alarmist. To me in no way is the meaning of that quote clear.

In the second example, it is not at all clear why the UN overestimated the size and course of AIDS. One author claims it's "alarmism", the UN claims it's due to methodology.

"Among the reasons for the overestimate is methodology; U.N. officials traditionally based their national HIV estimates on infection rates among pregnant women receiving prenatal care. As a group, such women were younger, more urban, wealthier and likely to be more sexually active than populations as a whole, according to recent studies."

My guess is that you're assuming the author is right for no reason other than the fact that she used a favorite term of the AGW doubter - "alarmism".

Finally, your conclusion that the IPCC is exaggerating because (according to you) Al Gore and another UN body have exaggerated is completely illogical.

It also goes counter to the scientific evidence, which shows that global warming is exceeding the IPCC's worst case scenarios.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjzG7rQf23Cg8Cp4EICcRE8jzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20070928145800AANaTwh

Answer 4

Your links are frakked up. The second is the same as the first.

But anyway, why do you suspect the IPCC is exaggerating? The UN (possibly) exaggerating about HIV research has nothing to do with the IPCC.

Answer 5

I think the science is so speculative that either the IPCC is deliberately overstating their case (for the 'greater good') or they have a niave faith.

Taking some reasonable action to reduce the possibility of negative consequences makes sense and that's all they need to say. If people don't understand that, offer them a six shooter and ask them if they mind playing russian roulette. Mass ignorance really isn't such a great thing.

Answer 6

Whaaaaaat? The UN alarmist? Say it ain't so!

I find it hard not to believe global warmists (UN or otherwise) are being alarmist when they say we better do something drastic right now or the world will cease to exist in 10 years. Where do they get these numbers? I can think of one place but I can't write it here.

Answer 7

Algore, the UN, and Dr. Hansen all exaggerated the claims of "global warming" for the better good.

And you have to admit that there tactics worked. Look how many people think the world is coming to and end.

Answer 8

perhaps we need to be frightened into action before thing get to a point where we can't fix them, maybe this is why they may be exaggerating the facts

Answer 9

Yes. There's gold in them thar hills!
Algore and the UN are fear mongering for dollars.

Answer 10

"over-representation of factual presentations" is a politician's way of saying "lies". It boggles the mind that he would actually say that without a twinge of guilt!