Disregarding the Rest

Disclaimer: The 'quotes' in this post are not actually the exact quotes. For the exact quotes, see here.

----
from the CAtO News Service:

The much anticipated release of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Arms Control (IPAC) occurred yesterday. The report, a collaboration of the world's leading experts on Arms Control, paints a stark picture, suggesting that it is extremely likely that Iran will develop nuclear weapons in the near future. Several possible scenarios are outlined in the report, but all include increased nuclear armaments in Iran and a corresponding increase in risk of nuclear conflict.

Despite the near unanimous consensus of global experts on the topic, and the fact that results of the last decade and a half have played out almost exactly as predicted in the first panel report 16 years ago, and the grave threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran, Conservatives across the country downplayed the report.

Conservative columnist Lorne Gunter writes,

"In effect, the IPAC summary is a prospectus for big government written by big government's sales department.
And don't expect the full truth to come out even when the 1,600 pages of military analysis are finally released. The IPAC has a habit of censuring the work of analysts who disagree with the Islamofascist alarmist orthodoxy."

Inspired by Gunter, Greg Staples writes on his blog Political Staples,

"I have a B.Sc. in Physics and I work in a science related field. In short I have been trained in the scientific method. I am also a practicing Roman Catholic so I know religious language when I see it. Finally, I have a MBA focused on sales and marketing. Yeah, I know that when I see it as well. This is my concern on the question of the Iranian nuclear threat - there is far too much language that is not analytical (fascist, defeatist, evil, Ahmaddamatree). These terms are either religious or marketing - military analysis does not work on belief it works on what is provable.

Commenters at Political Staples agreed:

Ian:

"When one considers just how many cooks are in the kitchen on this one it will be a wonder if there is any truth left in it by the end."

Alan:

"junkproliferation.com has posted the raw data that was supposed to be released later. It was to be edited to fit with the summary for policy makers."

Anon:

"Someone should devise the ‘upsidedown enrichment’ graph.

Not the now debunked historical graph, but the real one, which tracks the drop in hysterical predictions.

That’s the thing about predicting the sky is falling. It expires when the sky doesn’t fall or at least starts to fall."

Kitchener Conservative:

"I question whether anyone in the media has taken the time to actually read the report released by the IPAC.

I did myself and based on the information in the report, I can to the conclusion that analysts being ‘very likely’ sure of Iran developing nuclear weapons is way too premature."

lrc:

"If today’s military analysts understand the subject about as well as the analysts who supported the Iraq war understood theirs, we have a vast potential for errors."

----
Post based on this post and comments as Political Staples (and also this and this)

At some point one wonders what the threshold for changing their mind is for people who still advocate doing nothing about global warming - is there one? What would it take?