Sceptic Links Discussion

[Admiral_Bobski]

Exxon Mobil spend quite a bit of money funding sceptics otoh, it's estimated that it costs more to monitor local government in the UK than climate research worldwide - or what the US spends on crisps each year. Whatever, there are largeish sums involved on BOTH sides. As I say, lets forget it and assume all are expressing things as they honestly see them rather than try to just tar one side.

That's absolutely fine by me - I have never deliberately attempted to discredit AGW by "tarring" it (I debated, a while ago, the validity of the Hockey Stick but, you will notice, I have dropped the Hockey Stick entirely from my arguments now in an attempt to avoid that whole debate). I want nothing more than a good old-fashioned rational scientific debate that avoids semantics, ad hominem attacks and smoke and mirrors.

There's an assumption here, it's that science you don't like is unreliable due to suspicious funding but that you do isn't.

I have made no such assumptions - I reject papers on the basis of science or conclusions I disagree with. I then debate the science as a result (this is one reason why I don't discuss the Hockey Stick any more). So that is precisely my point - sod the funding, what about the science?

So, you didn't get into the 'what is a sceptic' discussion? I think you did...

Why do you keep making comments like this? I never claimed to have avoided that discussion, I merely expressed my dismay that this was not the kind of discussion I had hoped for. In fact, I joined that discussion in the hope of putting the subject to bed quickly so that we could discuss the relevant things - I didn't expect anyone to argue about a simple dictionary definition of the word "skeptic".

So! On with the Science!

Did you have any thoughts regarding my comments about Plate Tectonics and Evolution?

CB

[Devonian]

Did you have any thoughts regarding my comments about Plate Tectonics and Evolution?

:lol:

CB

Yes, I agree with them. Where we differ is that I think the support for AGW is as strong while you don't. As ever this is the problem, some people accept the science I others don't. I don't know why, but I'm one who finds it more and more compelling as the years go by.

Now, if we were adding ghg and the temperature was falling, or the conc of ghg falling, or glaciers not vanishing, or the models not pretty much in agreement with reality (allowing for natural variability, noise, and aerosols), or ghg theory an hundred years plus old and still accepted, or the Sun clearly warming or, well, you get the picture.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Yes, I agree with them. Where we differ is that I think the support for AGW is as strong while you don't. As ever this is the problem, some people accept the science I others don't. I don't know why, but I'm one who finds it more and more compelling as the years go by.

Now, if we were adding ghg and the temperature was falling, or the conc of ghg falling, or glaciers not vanishing, or the models not pretty much in agreement with reality (allowing for natural variability, noise, and aerosols), or ghg theory an hundred years plus old and still accepted, or the Sun clearly warming or, well, you get the picture.

I see...

There are good reasons why I don't think AGW Theory has the same degree of support as Plate Tectonics or Evolution. For a start, AGW is far more speculative than the basic concepts behind both PT and Evolution. Both PT and Evolution have offered predictions which have been found to be true (e.g. subduction zones in the case of PT). As yet, to the best of my knowledge, AGW Theory hasn't actually given us any solid predictions that have been proven to be true.

Another problem is that we honestly can't say, and will never be able to prove one way or the other, what the global average temperature would have done during the 20th Century had we never had an Industrial Revolution. There is no Control experiment against which we can compare what actually is happening with what "should" happen (in the absence of fossil fuel burning).

With regards to your list of contra-indicators, historically (thanks to the good ol' Vostok Ice Core graph) we can see that there are many occasions where CO₂ has increased and temperatures have fallen. The models are pretty much in agreement with reality because they have been tuned to be in agreement - the correlation between the models and reality has been "fixed"...not necessarily in a deceitful or underhanded way but as a way of attributing specific values to particular variables. The models are a useful tool, but only if they are used correctly (after all, you wouldn't use the claw on a clawhammer to whack in a nail, would you?).

As for the "Sun clearly warming", there's a lot more coming off the Sun than just heat - you can't gauge solar output just by the Sun's temperature...there's UV, charged particles and magnetism to take into account for a start...

So you see, it's not just that I "don't like the theory", I have genuine misgivings about the validity of the science that has given us the theory. Too much credit is given to a theory which is still, quite literally, a work in progress.

CB

[pottyprof]

Interesting thoughts there CB. It's reasons like the ones that you are suggesting why I have doubts as to AGW being the total cause. Things are being overlooked to try and find a fix for something where we don't have all the pieces.

[Gray-Wolf]

Interesting thoughts there CB. It's reasons like the ones that you are suggesting why I have doubts as to AGW being the total cause. Things are being overlooked to try and find a fix for something where we don't have all the pieces.

I don't think we can ever have 'all the pieces' (no such thing as 'perfection' in this universe) but where do you draw your line and take your stand?

A few years back the IPCC gave us 66% certainty of AGW being 'real', now we're at 90% that AGW is real. In haggling your opening bid is the unrealistic one (as is there's) but holding out for that price never works, you have to be willing to settle lower. The sceptics who seem to be holding out for the whole dollar (and not are not happy to take the 90 cents we have now), is it just blind belligerence on their part for it is not a realistic stance at all.

We (science) do not have even 70% of the complex picture of our weather and it's drivers (ocean currents, SST's ,Solar strength & level of activity, pressure systems) hangs together so to figure just how AGW 'dovetails' into something we have no handle on is always going to be difficult but should we try and suggest it's impacts or sit back and say 'it's impossible'?

As you have all read before I'm quite 'Lovelockian' about how I feel things will go. Because of the existing global weather patterns sometimes AGW is mitigated in effect, sometimes amplified but as time moves on and AGW impact increases (as our outputs continue to increase) so then the 'normal' patterns will become increasingly 'swamped' by the increasingly major input of AGW.

Other warming events will just swamp any pattern anyway, lets imagine a major slice of Greenland's ice sheet, or part of the Ross embayments, failing and breaking free. Once melted the 'meltwater pulse' ,heading to the equator, channelled by ridges and island chains, will impact global weather systems massively for the few years it takes for this water to be 'integrated ' into the oceans. Meanwhile flooding and penetrating storm surges will accompany the 'upset' weather making for a thoroughly miserable time for most.

Have a stance by all means but try and think it through before posting and enraging folk!

Edited June 15, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

Have a stance by all means but try and think it through before posting and enraging folk!

[Devonian]

I see...

There are good reasons why I don't think AGW Theory has the same degree of support as Plate Tectonics or Evolution. For a start, AGW is far more speculative than the basic concepts behind both PT and Evolution. Both PT and Evolution have offered predictions which have been found to be true (e.g. subduction zones in the case of PT). As yet, to the best of my knowledge, AGW Theory hasn't actually given us any solid predictions that have been proven to be true.

Another problem is that we honestly can't say, and will never be able to prove one way or the other, what the global average temperature would have done during the 20th Century had we never had an Industrial Revolution. There is no Control experiment against which we can compare what actually is happening with what "should" happen (in the absence of fossil fuel burning).

...

CB

Clearly there cannot be a control experiment, we don't have two Earth's. Therefore you, and others, will allways be able to say 'it's not proven'.

Well, I think you're rather more reasonable than that, so, what would you accept as that ever asked for thing 'proof'?

Edited June 15, 2007 by Devonian

[Guest Mike W]

I think it's likely that we would have warmed anyway from the 'Little Ice Age' time but not as vertical as we are now, but at the same time I don't think cold events like the winter of 63 and 47 etc would have happened in any way like they did and the notable cool summers that we have happened aswell. I think for this deade you would have to taker 0.1 or 0.2 away from the actual annaul CET's that we have had so far bascially, for our notable SO2 emmtiing days it's wvery tricky, even though alot of our CET were toned down becasue of the stuff some were toned up becasue of the stuff we have kept - CO2 like '76 and 83 etc events.

Edited June 15, 2007 by Mike W

[Admiral_Bobski]

I don't think we can ever have 'all the pieces' (no such thing as 'perfection' in this universe) but where do you draw your line and take your stand...The sceptics who seem to be holding out for the whole dollar (and not are not happy to take the 90 cents we have now), is it just blind belligerence on their part for it is not a realistic stance at all.

Once again I shall say this: I am not looking for "all the pieces", the "whole dollar" or even 100% incontrovertible proof. I would like a fair amount of concrete evidence, and I would be thrilled to see some specific predictions come true.

A few years back the IPCC gave us 66% certainty of AGW being 'real', now we're at 90% that AGW is real.

I would rather read scientific papers myself than rely on the conclusions of a UN-established think tank which was set up with the express purpose of proving that AGW is real.

We (science) do not have even 70% of the complex picture of our weather and it's drivers ...so to figure just how AGW 'dovetails' into something we have no handle on is always going to be difficult but should we try and suggest it's impacts or sit back and say 'it's impossible'?

Neither. We should try to actually get a handle on it first...

Because of the existing global weather patterns sometimes AGW is mitigated in effect, sometimes amplified but as time moves on and AGW impact increases (as our outputs continue to increase) so then the 'normal' patterns will become increasingly 'swamped' by the increasingly major input of AGW.

I'm sorry, but this sentence is entirely speculative. If AGW exists and since, as I said in my previous post, we have no "Control" Earth to compare ours with, how do we even know what a "normal" pattern is? How do we know that the weather patterns you claim are either mitigated or amplified by AGW are not merely the "normal" weather patterns? Your statement makes the presupposition that AGW is real. You can't claim that AGW is real by starting a sentence (effectively) with "AGW is real, so therefore..."

Have a stance by all means but try and think it through before posting and enraging folk!

I would like to thank Jethro for hitting the nail firmly on the head with regards to my stance, and with regards to this comment...

To Devonian:

Clearly there cannot be a control experiment, we don't have two Earth's. Therefore you, and others, will allways be able to say 'it's not proven'.

Well, I think you're rather more reasonable than that, so, what would you accept as that ever asked for thing 'proof'?

My point about there being no "Control" was not intended as a means to dismiss AGW out of hand. The point I was trying to make is that it is extremely difficult to ascertain whether or not our current climate is "Normal". There are (or should be) other ways of determining this.

I'm glad you don't think I am being unreasonable - I appreciate that proof is difficult to obtain. However, I do not think it unreasonable to ask that AGW Theory makes some specific predictions which can be assessed and proven either true or false within a sensible timeframe (say 10 years - of course the problem with that is that many AGW supporters think we've already waited too long...on the flip side, if we have waied too long then what's another 10 years between friends...?).

To go off at a slight tangent, String Theory has lost a lot of support over the past few years largely due to the fact that it has not been able to make any experimentally verifiable predictions. This year the latest particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider, will come on line and be able to test one of String Theory's predictions for the first time (which is quite exciting for boring people like me who love Physics!). If the prediction (the existence of Supersymmetric partner particles) is confirmed then String Theory will regain much of that lost support.

All I ask is that AGW Theory do the same...

CB

[jethro]

I have to say I agree Captain.

All my life I’ve been curious about how things work, and yes I did take a watch apart and not be able to get it back together again when I was little. I first approached this whole AGW/climate change debate with a “Wow, can we really do that?” perspective. I’d heard all the stuff on the TV, read the papers and I guess by and large figured it must be right if so many people were saying it was so. Being intrigued that we as a species could over- rule all the natural climatic causes, I started reading and delving further. The more I read, the more I searched, the more I became aware that something didn’t add up. The cut and dried case which had been portrayed was in fact far from the truth. There is so much we don’t know about the natural climate drivers, so how can we possibly know their or our impact. We can’t separate the two; we can’t calculate them singly and come up with a total, that’s just bad Maths. If I get a calculator and key in 3+2 press = it will come up with 5, if I then key in 2+3 and press =and it doesn’t come up with 5, then something is amiss somewhere, either the machine is faulty or the data I’ve inputted is wrong. And this is precisely what happens with the climate models, data in inputted and it comes up with a projection. If the same data is inputted and the climate is modelled retrospectively, the projected past climate it produces is wrong. Now either the machine is wrong or the data is wrong. If they cannot accurately reproduce the past with the known variables then how the hell can they predict the future with those same variables?

I also am not looking for 100% proof but I am looking for an equal level of knowledge of natural causes/drivers before any conclusions are reached. The disparity between funding for natural versus man-made causes is vast and in my humble opinion this is wrong. You can’t conduct any experiment without knowing the variables to take account of first and you can’t do any sums without having all the figures to add up. Any calculations based on incomplete knowledge has to end up with a best guess scenario, not the Holy edict we’ve been led to believe is so; the IPCC should have a disclaimer, small print paragraph at the bottom.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I have to say I agree Captain.

All my life I’ve been curious about how things work, and yes I did take a watch apart and not be able to get it back together again when I was little. I first approached this whole AGW/climate change debate with a “Wow, can we really do that?” perspective. ...The more I read, the more I searched, the more I became aware that something didn’t add up. The cut and dried case which had been portrayed was in fact far from the truth. ...If they cannot accurately reproduce the past with the known variables then how the hell can they predict the future with those same variables?...I also am not looking for 100% proof but I am looking for an equal level of knowledge of natural causes/drivers before any conclusions are reached...The disparity between funding for natural versus man-made causes is vast and in my humble opinion this is wrong.

Thank you for your posts so far, Jethro! I have to say that it would appear that you and I have much the same views for much the same reasons. When you debate this stuff for any length of time you start to think that maybe you've gone mad and really are just be contrary for the sake of it...then you go away for a while, come back and look at the evidence with fresh eyes and find yourself reaching the same conclusions you made originally - it can be infuriating! So it's always a pleasure to come across someone who has managed to reach the same conclusions as you since it shows that your conclusions aren't the delusions of your own mind.

Getting back on topic, what are people's thoughts on the issue of predictions? Can anybody pinpoint any specific predictions that have been made (other than "temperatures set to increase") and actually held true?

The reason I discount temperature predictions is because it isn't really a fair thing to qualify as a prediction - if the temperature has increased at a certain rate for a certain period of time then it's a relatively safe bet that it will continue to increase at that rate (all things being equal), making it easy to project a temperature increase range for some arbitrary future time (a range to accomodate the possibility that all things won't be equal).

Surely there must be something in our environment which can be predicted to act a certain way as a result of human activity - something which would, if it held true, lend hefty support to the notion of human-induced climate change?

Any ideas?

CB

Edited June 15, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[noggin]

Getting back on topic, what are people's thoughts on the issue of predictions? Can anybody pinpoint any specific predictions that have been made (other than "temperatures set to increase") and actually held true?

I cannot debate my way out of a paper bag, but there is such difficulty in predicting the weather for the near future. If the prediction provided by the IPCC of increased heat is "correct", then how come things like the Meto seasonal forecasts are experimental?

Not really on topic, but as far as weather and seasonality (is that a word?) is concerned, it is only mankind who says that Summers should be hot and Winters cold. Mankind is dictating what the weather "ought" to be. I don't think that whatever it is that drives the weather takes any notice!

No time to check now, but Gray Wolf pointed out that the IPCC has changed it's percentage of likelihood that AGW is "real" from 66% to 90%, which reminded me that somewhere in the Sceptic's Link thread is another change of percentage regarding something which made me shake my head in disbelief and caused me to pooh-pooh their findings even more than I had previously. It's really too late to dig it out now, but I'll do it tomorrow.

I know that I have no debating skills, but hey ho...... B)

[Admiral_Bobski]

I cannot debate my way out of a paper bag, but there is such difficulty in predicting the weather for the near future. If the prediction provided by the IPCC of increased heat is "correct", then how come things like the Meto seasonal forecasts are experimental?

Not really on topic, but as far as weather and seasonality (is that a word?) is concerned, it is only mankind who says that Summers should be hot and Winters cold. Mankind is dictating what the weather "ought" to be. I don't think that whatever it is that drives the weather takes any notice!

No time to check now, but Gray Wolf pointed out that the IPCC has changed it's percentage of likelihood that AGW is "real" from 66% to 90%, which reminded me that somewhere in the Sceptic's Link thread is another change of percentage regarding something which made me shake my head in disbelief and caused me to pooh-pooh their findings even more than I had previously. It's really too late to dig it out now, but I'll do it tomorrow.

I know that I have no debating skills, but hey ho......

Hi Noggin!

I think that in many ways it is more important to be able to express your misgivings on a subject than to actively debate it - if someone is uncomfortable getting involved in a debate then they can always leave the debating to others, but their misgivings are their own. A lack of debating skill doesn't mean that your misgivings are invalid.

It is important to remember the distinction which is drawn between climate and weather - weather is to do with specific events whereas climate is to do with trends. I still argue that climate is subject to some chaotic perturbations, despite the claim that the process of detemining trends eliminates these, but nevertheless climate should still be at least a little easier to predict than weather.

You're quite right to point out that "seasons" are a man-made concept, and that the allocations of certain months to certain seasons are fairly arbitrary. The seasons do shift, though generally very slowly (over millennia). I don't see that an accelerated shift is necessarily indicative of human-induced climate change but, if a significant trend is established in the rate of season shift, it would seem prudent to investigate a variety of explanations for that shift. Such a shift could have a natural cause.

The problem is that, these days, every time we spot some phenomenon that we perceive to be unusual in any way it is instantly blamed on AGW. Whatever happened to the scientific process of investigation?!

With regards to the IPCC, I find it hard to accept their jump from 66% to 95% certainty when they cut the effects of solar activity by 50%. I must read the report again some time, but the last couple of times I read it I couldn't see any justification for this cut, other than a deliberate effort to rule out natural factors as much as feasibly possible to heighten the man-made effects. Call me a cynic, but if there really is no justification for the 50% reduction in solar effect then it casts doubt on the justification for the 66-95% certainty difference.

To be honest, I take the IPCC's reports with such a large pinch of salt that I find their conclusions pretty meaningless. I'm happy to read through their reports to look at the science and to see how they've reached their conclusions, but that doesn't mean that I accept their conclusions!

Please feel free to air any of your misgivings, as there are many people here who enjoy discussing them.

CB

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

[There is a warming trend being imposed on natural variability. NV is quite large, it's till possible to get cold years. Also, of course, the effects of aerosols needs to be considered.]

So there is a forcing that completely overides CO2? I certainly believe that to be the case. bftp

[Possible but not, as you have, something anyone can state. Figures? I suspect (I'm not stating...) the Arctic is right now is relatively very warm.]

Arctic is relatively warm but uniquely Here

There are bigger players than CO2 IMO and nothing yet has staisfied me otherwise

BFTP

Edited June 16, 2007 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Bobby]

How are seasons a man made concept? Seasons are defined by the Sun. Winter is when the sun is low and weak and summer is when it's high and strong and autumn and spring are the transition periods. That is the universally accepted definition of a season, don't see how that is "man made".

[Admiral_Bobski]

How are seasons a man made concept? Seasons are defined by the Sun. Winter is when the sun is low and weak and summer is when it's high and strong and autumn and spring are the transition periods. That is the universally accepted definition of a season, don't see how that is "man made".

What I mean is the conception that Winter occurs from December to February, Spring from March to May, Summer from June to August and Autumn from September to November.

Obviously the processes that occur in nature are related to our planet's orientation and distance from the Sun, among other things, but the strict definition of "Seasons" is a man made concept. Do trees care whether it's Autumn before shedding their leaves? No. Do blossoms hold off until Spring has officially begun? Of course not. The seasons we have defined were defined by us - not the Sun...

CB

[Guest Viking141]

I don't see that an accelerated shift is necessarily indicative of human-induced climate change but, if a significant trend is established in the rate of season shift, it would seem prudent to investigate a variety of explanations for that shift. Such a shift could have a natural cause.

The problem is that, these days, every time we spot some phenomenon that we perceive to be unusual in any way it is instantly blamed on AGW. Whatever happened to the scientific process of investigation?!

Couldn't agree more Capn B! The possibility of natural phenomena being a cause is becoming increasingly drowned out by the "received wisdom" of AGW which is increasingly being delivered with almost religious-like zeal. Ive certainly made the point before about the "process of investigation" which seems to be becoming limited more and more to an unhealthy dependance on computer models. What happened to physical observation, for so long a reliable mainstay of the scientific process which has stood us in good stead over the years? Computers may be good, but they are far from perfect, the number of times one has to resort to "Ctrl-Alt-Del" is surely evidence of that!

[HighPressure]

I am not qualified to present this as a scientific argument, they are just my thoughts on what I have read, seen and heard:

My main problem with the IPCC projections is that to me they appear to underplay the effects of natural forcing on temperature, they have the trend in net solar activity plus volcanic forcing as negative in recent decades. I find this extremely difficult to accept when we know that solar activity has been increasing and that similar solar activity has been shown to give positive forcing by way of temp increases in the medieval period. We also know that minimum solar activity correlates directly with lower temperatures as shown in the 17th century during the mini ice age. The IPCC quote volcanic activity alongside that of solar within its natural forcing calculations but the sources I have read shows Volcanic activity at least as stable over the past 200 years or so if not actually increasing. So I am left with the fact that the IPCC are saying that without Anthropogenic forcing we should be seeing no temp rise in the face of the highest solar activity measured in the past 1000 years. Where is the evidence in past data to show this effect?

I am also concerned that if it is accepted that AGW has a significant effect on GW then it must also be accepted that Sulphur a known coolant must have distorted natural temp trends over the past 200 yrs during the industrial revolution. This leads me to suggest the starting temps used in IPCC projections are actually lower than they would have been if sulphur had not acted as a global coolant?

My third area of concern is that at no time in history can high solar activity be matched with a large hole in the Ozone layer and therefore its combine effects on GW cannot be fully understood?

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.18.jpg

http://www.volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?faq=06

[HighPressure]

2 days no replies, is that it then have I won the argument?

[Admiral_Bobski]

2 days no replies, is that it then have I won the argument?

Funny, I was thinking the same thing! Considering we're talking about skeptic stuff I expected more pro-AGW people to come on and fight us about it... Maybe there's more to this skeptic point of view than even I thought!

CB

[jethro]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing! Considering we're talking about skeptic stuff I expected more pro-AGW people to come on and fight us about it... Maybe there's more to this skeptic point of view than even I thought!

CB

Given that I've been shot down and stamped upon on more than the odd occasion because of my ignorant, silly, heretic ideas and thoughts, I'd have thought there would have been more activity from the pro camp too. Can we issue a clarion call to all pro AGW'ers? Explain why all us sceptics are wrong please.

[noggin]

With regards to the IPCC, I find it hard to accept their jump from 66% to 95% certainty when they cut the effects of solar activity by 50%.

CB

Yes Captain, that was the change I was referring to! It makes a mockery of the whole report as far as I am concerned. What other figures are they fiddling around with?

I shall continue to air my misgivings. B)

2 days no replies, is that it then have I won the argument? :lol:

The silence certainly is deafening, HP!

[Devonian]

I am not qualified to present this as a scientific argument, they are just my thoughts on what I have read, seen and heard:

My main problem with the IPCC projections is that to me they appear to underplay the effects of natural forcing on temperature,

Ok, if they're wrong lets see you restimates (?) of natural forcings and how you arrived at them.

they have the trend in net solar activity plus volcanic forcing as negative in recent decades.

Well, it's either a conspiracy to deceive us, hummmm, or new evidence has come forward the changes the view. Not exactly difficult...

I find this extremely difficult to accept when we know that solar activity has been increasing and that similar solar activity has been shown to give positive forcing by way of temp increases in the medieval period.

Has it, solar activity, increased? Perhap by a little but not by enough to explain all the warming seen. What solar change data do you approve of?

We also know that minimum solar activity correlates directly with lower temperatures as shown in the 17th century during the mini ice age.

Correlation being causation you mean?

The IPCC quote volcanic activity alongside that of solar within its natural forcing calculations but the sources I have read shows Volcanic activity at least as stable over the past 200 years or so if not actually increasing. So I am left with the fact that the IPCC are saying that without Anthropogenic forcing we should be seeing no temp rise in the face of the highest solar activity measured in the past 1000 years. Where is the evidence in past data to show this effect?

I am also concerned that if it is accepted that AGW has a significant effect on GW then it must also be accepted that Sulphur a known coolant must have distorted natural temp trends over the past 200 yrs during the industrial revolution. This leads me to suggest the starting temps used in IPCC projections are actually lower than they would have been if sulphur had not acted as a global coolant?

Amounts of anthro aerosols have, like CO2, built up slowly. The effect of aerosols on the global temperature has, i suspect, only been noticable for a century or so.

My third area of concern is that at no time in history can high solar activity be matched with a large hole in the Ozone layer and therefore its combine effects on GW cannot be fully understood?

Ahh, the old 'I want proof' argument re worded. Sorry, proof isn't available.

http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.18.jpg

http://www.volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?faq=06

First link to the 2001 IPCC, second one I like B)

Given that I've been shot down and stamped upon on more than the odd occasion because of my ignorant, silly, heretic ideas and thoughts, I'd have thought there would have been more activity from the pro camp too. Can we issue a clarion call to all pro AGW'ers? Explain why all us sceptics are wrong please.

Oh, perlease :lol: No one has called you silly, heretic, or ignorant. But, I you want to feel persecuted then carry on all the same...

[jethro]

Oh, perlease :lol: No one has called you silly, heretic, or ignorant. But, I you want to feel persecuted then carry on all the same...

Edited June 19, 2007 by jethro

[Devonian]

Oh, perlease :lol: No one has called you silly, heretic, or ignorant. But, I you want to feel persecuted then carry on all the same...

As it happens, they have. When I first started posting on here the threads were dominated by the pro camp, sceptics were shot down in flames time and again. Thankfully,as time has progressed, more and more people who question the perceived current wisdom have dared to put their head above the parapet. In no way do I feel persecuted but I am somewhat bemused as to why, when given the chance, do the pro camp decline to discredit the so called nonesense that we sceptics site as reasons for our questions? All too often sceptics are dismissed with one line comments, what I had hoped for on here was for a more scientific approach as to why all the links in the sceptic links thread are wrong. So far, it has been unforthcoming; why is this?

In my case lack of time. I really do, though, think reading the collated and collected science of the current IPCC reports a very good way to go.

Here's a link for the 2nd report on the House of Lords Select Committee on the Economics of Climate Change; it is primarily, as to be expected from it's title, an economic report but it has a summary paragraph beginning on page 70 where it raises considerable concerns about the IPCC report. I would like to draw your attention to point 171 in the summary: [/i]We can see no justification for an IPCC procedure which strikes us as opening the way for climate science and economics to be determined, at least in part, by political requirements rather than by evidence. Sound science cannot emerge from an unsound process.

No link?

But this is interesting. Why some people trust people others mistrust and vice versa is I guess the essence of this debate. Why is this House of Lords report more trustworthy than the IPCC IYO? I find some politicians (not scientists) saying there is politics in the IPCC rather unconvincing. But, I guess the idea is those politicians don't have agendas...

My view is that the weight of the evidence points one way.

Edited June 19, 2007 by Devonian