They myth that is man made global warming.

[Final-Fan]

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:

Final-Fan said:

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:
scientific individuals != scientific organizations

The Polish Academy of Sciences isn't a scientific orginzation?

Now this is an actual answer.  I'll look into it.  

The Polish Academy of Sciences, based on a very brief search, certainly appears to be a scientific organization of national or international standing and considerable repute.  

I presume the dissention you attribute to them lies in their recent 10-point statement?  

(Quick refresher:  The statement that Wikipedia says isn't disputed is "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.") 

I think the most relevant part of the PAS's statement is "That is why far-reaching restraint needs to be kept regarding blaming, or even giving the biggest credit to man for the increased level of emissions of greenhouse gases, for such a theory has not been proven".

The IPCC statement (judging by the portion quoted) is basically saying that the evidence is both becoming stronger and more certain.  The PAS statement is saying that the evidence needs to be stronger before some drastic steps now being proposed are justified.  

It seems to me that the PAS statement is (A) not incompatible with the IPCC 2001 statement, and (B) mainly aimed at policymakers who may be tempted to take "radical and expensive economic measures aiming at implementing the emission only of few greenhouse gases, with no multi-sided research into climate change" based on "politically correct lobbying, especially on the side of business marketing of exceptionally expensive, so called eco-friendly, energy technologies or those offering CO2 storage (sequestration) in exploited deposits".  

The PAS, it seems to me, is just trying to put some brakes on a potential runaway political train, not dissenting with the actual science of the IPCC.   

That's largely irrelevent. 

They're saying the proof isn't there yet.  Therefore dissenting those who claim their is concrete proof.

An alternate theory is not needed for disent.  Simply saying "We don't know yet... you don't really have proof" is disent.

So ... "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" is a claim of "concrete proof"?  
And I never said anything about needing an alternate theory.  That sounded ... largely irrelevant  

I'm guessing you haven't had much expierence with researchers.

The creedo of the researcher is "Speak heavy, write soft."

EVERY research paper ever written.  Or every good one uses speak like that.

I could be writing an article about how i did a study that seemed to show that people like Icecream better then killing kittens and it would be phrased....

"The research i've collected, along with previous studies and research seems to suggest that most people perfer icecream of just about any flavor to murdering young kittens."

It's just how your taught to write research papers... even if the ones where confidence is really needed like consumer research.

I guess I'd have to read the whole thing to say whether it's fair to say that the IPCC paper claimed "proof" (keeping in mind how seriously scientists take that word, and the PAS statement did use it).  I don't plan to for the sake of this thread.  But you're saying they definitely did?  

I'm sure they were claiming "proof" in the way the man on the street would use the term, but in the way a scientist would?  Not so sure.