I really didn’t want to get into this question since it bears (pun intended) not the least on whether man is responsible for the modest warming that ended in 2002. But since so many have put so much importance on this debate, ignoring more important scientific evidence and consequences, I will address the question.
Environmentalists, or opportunists, depending on your viewpoint, had been forcing the Bush administration to list the fuzzy white polar bears on the Endangered Species List. This would have allowed the environmentalists to force the United States to adopt a Kyoto type carbon emissions program without ever having a vote in Congress. They were using the bears to push their agenda. The discussions were covered under many venues so there should be no doubt that this was at least one of the objectives. The logic goes that the IPCC says man’s CO2 is warming the world so Arctic ice will melt and the bears will be unable to ruthlessly annihilate cute baby seals in a cruel bloody massacre. It seems environmentalists wanted to save the white harp seals but black, brown or gray seals can be brutally murdered.
Some nine papers were developed and submitted to promote this hypothesis to get the Endangered Listing. Countering these papers was a lone paper by Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green entitled, Polar Bear Population Forecasting Audits: A public-Policy Forecasting Audit
”. Steven Amstrup, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center prepared a rebuttal
of the Armstrong paper which was presented at the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group conference in Copenhagen. This article attempts to distinguish between the claims of Mr. Amstrup and those of Mr. Armstrong. I will note that I have read both papers. I must also confess to having been a reviewer on the Armstrong paper. Not a peer reviewer, but the one thing I noted was corrected…a typo. Still I was glad to be part of the effort. I also attended a presentation of the Armstrong-Green paper at the 2008 International Climate Conference in New York City. The fact is that I understand the Armstrong –Green paper reasonably well so I am in a position to defend it. Scott and Kesten might disagree but I'll do my best. Steven Amstrup is most qualified to defend the 9 papers predicting the demise of the Polar bears from their and his point of view. So, having declared my bias, let’s get started.
Amstrup, abbreviated as AMS for this article, stated his basic premises for discounting the Armstrong-Green paper, abbreviated as A-G for this article. The following is a summary of 14 pages of the AMS report, and the relationship to the A-G, so pardon me if I leave out a detail or two.
The first point, which struck me as really odd, was the value of General Circulation Models (GCM) as a tool for policy decisions. I will confess to having discussed with several mathematical modelers that models make a poor predictive tool. That has been universal with all my input so I must disagree with AMS on this point. Secondly, his argument was supported by decisions where politicians passed legislation based on GCM’s as well as other groups activities based on them. From the report (some paraphrased):
·Specifically he cited a Congressional bill that used the IPCC GCM projections to establish fisheries regulations.
· “The US Coast Guard has begun considering new base locations because of Ice retreat.” They haven’t done anything yet!
·“The US Climate Change Science Program has concluded that forecasts of increasingly severe storms, floods, and droughts, which GCM outputs have suggested for years… are now a reality and will increase in frequency and intensity.”
·There is a statement that essentially says insurance companies are raising rates due to the outputs of GCM’s
So because liberal politicians bought this and passed a bill, insurance companies saw a chance to make a buck, the U.S. Coast Guard, of which I was a member, has started thinking about a change and a government agency has accepted the output of the politically driven IPCC reports regarding storms which are in great dispute, we should accept GCM’s as reliable prediction devices. I think not!
I will continue this evaluation in my next article.
Source Link: examiner.com