| Rath said: Well I don't see how you can use Reiter - a single man - as proof that the entire IPCC is not scientific. There will always be criticisms from individuals of any large body. In any case I don't see how you can say that very few real scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming when the national academies of the following countries have signed joint statements that it is the case. Australia Belgium Brazil Caribbean Canada China France Germany India Indonesia Ireland Italy Japan Malaysia Mexico New Zealand Russia South Africa Switzerland United Kingdom United States Now I'm not saying that the consensus means that its definitely true, I'm just rebutting HappySquirrel's point that; "Very few "real" scientists will make the claim that increases in man made CO2 are leading to long term cataclysmic changes to the climate based on a short term warming trend and unproven climate models." I actually hadn't realised that it was HS who posted that not you. So I should actually have said I think HS is ignorant of the current opinion on climate change. |
First of all I never said my claim rested on one person or was based on one person. I gave one person's interactions with the IPCC as an example and as a basis for presenting factual information about the IPCC. The information it included were things beyond mere anecdote however and go to IPCC policies. Things such as how the IPCC reverses the normal peer review process so that the peer reviewers have the burden of scrutiny rather than the lierature they are reviewing. Don't you think that says something? I know you probably aren't overly familiar with peer-review process but this is the equivalent of declaring that for a specific election you're going to make everyone cast their ballot publicly and have it recorded for everyone to look up who voted which way. Were you even aware of this extreme policy before you placed your faith in the IPCC's proclaimation? It perverts the process by not only violating the entire point behind the way the peer-review process is set up but completely reversing it and giving anonymity to those who make claims (this is truly absurd). What the IPCC uses as a peer review policy is a fact, and I believe it is extremely indicative of their approach to the issue.
Second, did you read the bits I bold quoted at all? In them it explains how Reiter contacted the IPCC and they told him they were a governmental body made up of government officials. So if anything I'm saying the IPCC is an authority on what the IPCC is. Or would you disagree with that? In that exchange he was told to check their "principles and procedures" and what he found was that to be a "top scientist" there was "no mention of research experience, bibliography, citation statistics or any other criteria that would define the quality of 'the world's top scientists.'" at least one of which would be required to make any assertions about "top scientists".
At best the IPCC is overstating the credentials of the experts it has assembled, at worst they are deliberately misleading people into thinking they have a air-tight case when nothing could be further from the truth. You're a prime example quite honestly. I can present you with a myriad of evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not happening, and in fact I already have presented one such fact in this thread. How have you responded to that? Do you even have an interest in a detailed debate at all or is your pressence just to assert what you "know" to be true? Are you assuming that even if you don't quite follow what someone is saying that they're wrong for no other reason than someone else told you what you believe? That despite another's ability to logically and reasonably explain why their position is correct you would choose to ignore it in favor of believing a position for which you are ignorant of the actual detailed justifications?
That is a serious question: In what capacity are you participating in this thread? As someone who wants to just chant their position like a mantra or someone who wants to contribute to a factual discussion? You'll have to forgive the bluntness but after a couple dozen of these threads where someone predictably trots out "CONSENSUS CONSENSUS CONSENSUS" for the 50th time it grows old and I like to spend as little time on that childish rubbish as possible.
Third, a list of nations that have signed onto the IPCC report is further evidence of how it is a government body and not a scientific body. Not to mention that your initial responce to me was actually a wikipedia page on consensus in the climate debate. I don't normally accept what wikipedia has to say about any subject as gospel...much less climate change which has attracted a hardcore group of zealots who patrol those pages. In any case I actually have read the "consensus" page at wiki before because I find it worthwhile to know what those who disagree with me have to say, which is why I get involved in all of these debates (I'll either teach someone something or be tought something, either way its a good use of time). In fact the last thread on AGW I got a link to [Bamber et al 2007] which lead me on quite a literature road trip and I ended up with a much better understanding of ice sheets and the knowledge of why Bamber et al was wrong (you can see [Ollier-Paine 2009] for why, the short version is Bamber et al worked from a bad understanding of ice sheet melt mechanics and made a few erroneous assumptions).
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
