Carl Wunsch, one of the scientists interviewed, says he was quote-mined, (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/) with an explanation of a positive CO2 feedback misrepresented as implying that today's elevated levels are not manmade, and criticism of extreme climate alarmists misrepresented as criticism of the mainstream, IPCC-style consensus. Entertainingly, several AGW denialists in the comments to that post insist that he is lying now and his statements should be taken as aired.
I can sympathize with him. On this LJ, on a few occasions, I've criticized statements about climate that, based on my admittedly second- or third-hand reading of the science, seemed excessively alarmist to me (James Lovelock's scary book about the impending near-extinction of humanity, and the misleading media attention given to the high outliers in the climateprediction.net experiment, which I'm guessing may have actually been the models that Wunsch was talking about). My point was to keep unrealistically scary scenarios from driving people past the point of working for change into fatalistic depression, but I'm sure that things I said in those posts could easily be taken out of context and used as fodder for denialist arguments.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-03-15 03:24 am (UTC)I can sympathize with him. On this LJ, on a few occasions, I've criticized statements about climate that, based on my admittedly second- or third-hand reading of the science, seemed excessively alarmist to me (James Lovelock's scary book about the impending near-extinction of humanity, and the misleading media attention given to the high outliers in the climateprediction.net experiment, which I'm guessing may have actually been the models that Wunsch was talking about). My point was to keep unrealistically scary scenarios from driving people past the point of working for change into fatalistic depression, but I'm sure that things I said in those posts could easily be taken out of context and used as fodder for denialist arguments.