| Rath said: As I said earlier my post was only a rebuttal to the claim that very few real scientists support anthropogenic climate change, I believe that many real scientists do think anthropogenic climate change is happening and have been posting to say that this is the case. Those are not nations that are signing the report, its the national academies of those nations - things like the Royal Society. Scientific organizations - not governments. You're arguing against me on a subject I'm not arguing for in is topic. I never claimed that consensus made it true, I'm claiming that the large amount of support in the scientific establishment for anthropogenic climate change proves that very many real scientists do believe it to be happening. I honestly don't want to be drawn into a debate on climate change because I know that I would be woefully under prepared - I do not have an extensive knowledge of the subject and as such am willing to leave it to people who have a better understanding of it to debate it. Just to summarise - this entire post train came from me arguing against this post; "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." That's the only thing I was arguing against - not on the claim of whether it is happening or not. |
So you only posted to make a tangential point about an issue you openly claim to know very little about?
Meanwhile the body you point to for your example of how there is scientific consensus has openly debased the meaning of science with their review process and you see nothing wrong with it? Do you actually believe the IPCC is deserving or requiring of a special peer review process where the people who review a paper need to be scrutinized but the people who are picked by the IPCC to contribute do not need scrutiny...and don't even have to put their name on their work during that process?
Furthermore, do you see nothing wrong with the fact that what the IPCC calls its group of "top scientists from around the world" are not actually held to any standards that would be indicative of such a group? And that on at least one occasion "rent-a-scientists" (for lack of a better term) have been used to fill in when a true expert of renown in his field was willing and able to handle the duties but turned away so that those with nearly zero knowledge of the field could have a go at it?
If you can honestly say none of that even phases you then you will have made a better case for AGW being a religion than I ever could. Of course not everything IPCC is terrible and I'm not even suggesting they should be ignored (although they should follow normal peer-review standards at a bare minimum). What I am doing, however, is making the point that placing your faith blindly in a single organization, particularly one that is so biased, is willful ignorance. You don't know why you believe what you do...you just do and you can always point to the trusty IPCC who can know why you believe the way you do ....for you. This concept is so prepostrous to me....but maybe I'm the abnormal one for thinking that an uninformed opinion is worth even less than the effort you put into it. And even then I'm at a loss as to why a one-legged man would enter an ass-kicking contest to begin with.....but I digress....
Finally, what HappySquirrel said is absolutely true. There is absolutely nowhere near a consensus saying that AGW is going to cause catastrophic warming. There is still significant debate about whether it is even anthropogenic but beyond that there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the debate about the severity of any potential impacts is about as far removed from the notion of "settled" as it possibly can be. We could debate till we're blue in the face about a consensus of mild anthropogenic warming (there really is no authority on the idea of a consensus...mostly because it isn't a real metric)....but when you qualify it as "catastrophic" you're just plain wrong to think there is a consensus.
@Kasz,
It's specifically to do with the IPCC review process.
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
