elwoodblues

moon, it tells me a lot that you profess such confidence in that loaded piece of one-sided garbage. I've seen more refutations of the conclusions... Specifically, if my memory serves, the report hinges on a graphic that shows a 'hockey-stick' rise in temperatures over the last century or so. It utterly ignores the fact that we're coming out of a mini-ice-age, and that rising temperatures should be normal. This is just off the top of my head, mind you; I haven't the time right now to look it up.

The document gives no voice to the theories and evidence that contradict global warming. Sometimes it mentions it, but never goes into detail. It's a smear, a slur, a slander against the entire industrial revolution.

Even though some elements in it are good science, they are robbed of their validity by the simple act of IGNORING any evidence that contradicts it's goals and conclusions.

If you really want to dispute the paper, I'll engage you on it. But I haven't the time for the research yet. I'll address it over the weekend, if you so desire. I'm giving you fair warning, though: The IPCC report is fundamentally flawed. I advise you to do your own research on it. Not just on this iteration of the report, but on its' predecessors. They're flawed, moon. If I were you, I'd pick a different body of evidence, because I CAN thrash this one.

There's good environmental science out there. I'm not saying there isn't. But the IPCC report just isn't good science.

Morat

Why is it that the global warming debates always end up sounding like a slightly more intelligent Creationism debate?

Accusations of bias, of ignoring evidence, of contradictory theories...

Just out of idle curiousity: What reason would the IPCC have to slant their report?

Brian63

After only skimming this thread, it seems a better fit under Science & Skepticism than Politics, despite global warming being a controversial political issue.

Brian

moon

When did I profess confidence?

The IPCC has issued scientific reports that should be evaluated on their scientific merits. What I find annoying about you is that you don't ever address the scientific reports, but make these broad statements without any evidence. You say, "The theory is provable with just about ANY data set you come up with, and even when it isn't, it still SOUNDS good enough to believe." Yet you offer no evidence to support this claim. You don't even point to any studies that this claim applies to!

I would just like to see you address the actual scientific reports for once.

LeftCoast

And exactly how have you, elwood, determined that the IPCC report is a "loaded piece of one-sided garbage". The fact that you would state that tells me that you have not read the report. It is far from one sided, and does not go into histrionics, but rather lays out the evidence for the recent increase in average global temperature and the multitude of possible causes. The basic conclusion of the report was rather simple. While there is still some uncertainty as to the overall cause of global warming, it is a fact that the mean global temperature has been rising, and the data would indicate that there is a significant probability that human beings are one of or the most important contributing factors.

I think you've just been reading the screeds by the polyanna-head-in-the-sand-who-cares-about-tomorrow-I-just-wanna-make-money crowed.

It's a slander against the "entire industrial revolution" only to those who are so locked into their "the free market can solve any and every problem" mind-set that they cannot see the forest for the trees. Pointing out that anything has had negative consequences is a slander only to those "true believers" who will not accept the fact that just about everything has a down-side.

And how did you determine that the IPCC report ignored any evidence that contradicted it's goals and conclusions?

I've heard this from you before Elwood, do you think you can follow through this time?

And exactly who is doing that "good science", Elwood? From what I've seen, the people on the "there's no problem" side look remarkably like creationists - spending most of their time looking for inconsistencies within and between reports by real climatologists and using that to try and claim that the whole idea of global warming is just bunk.

Daggah

I agree...moving it to S & S.

Francois Tremblay

It is a mindless confusion to put in climatology with creationism. One is based on science, the other on religion.
There are real climatologists which publish non-politically-biaised studies about the climate. Most of them find that global warming is mostly natural and difficult to measure - it is doomsday claims that should make us skeptical (if only for the reason that they always fail - Adam Smith, anyone ?)

Here are some recent articles...
<a href="http://www.sepp.org/scirsrch/EOS1999.html" target="_blank">http://www.sepp.org/scirsrch/EOS1999.html</a>
(a global examination of the papers on the subject)
<a href="http://www.heartland.org/studies/ieguide.htm#1" target="_blank">http://www.heartland.org/studies/ieguide.htm#1</a>
(about the global agreement amongst climatologists that global warming is not a threat)

Also here is a recent press release by Fraser Institute.
<a href="http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?snav=nr&id=431" target="_blank">http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?snav=nr&id=431</a>

[ February 28, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

moon

There is a similarity, however, between creationists and global warming deniers. The actual scientific studies done show that global warming is a serious problem. Those who deny that global warming is happening rely on the same obfuscation techniques that creationists use.

The article you linked to, about the 17,000 "scientists" is a case in point:
<a href="http://www.heartland.org/studies/ieguide.htm#1" target="_blank">http://www.heartland.org/studies/ieguide.htm#1</a>

First of all, the 17,000 "scientists" included mostly just people who had a bachelor's degree in a science related area. Secondly, global warming is not determined by a poll. We have to evaluate the actual scientific evidence on its merits.

If you scroll down to the end of the article, you will see that they advocate "more research, lower taxes on capital, less regulation, targeted investments." One of the results of this strategy, they claim, is "insurance against global warming." So, first they claim that global warming is not a threat, and then they claim that tax cuts and de-regulation will provide insurance against global warming, in some nebulous way. Then they have a list of things you can do to "stop the global warming treaty." Apparently the "global warming treaty" won't offer any insurance against global warming, which they admit would be something desirable.

It is not over-reaching to say that these people have an agenda, and it is not science.
You imply that the numerous studies showing global warming to be a threat are all politically motivated. This is shear paranoia.


...still waiting for some actual science from the global warming deniers...

Francois Tremblay

But do you have any ? I've seen many studies that say it isn't a serious problem, and that our current climatic models are flawed, but none that predict a dire future. I'm not a climatologist, but so far it seems to me that the evidence is pretty obvious. Do you have expertise on the subject, and can give us your own interpretation ?

PS you didn't comment the article about the state of science on the matter. It is a lot more substantial than the list of scientists.
While the question is not whenever there are more scientists who think one or the other, it does indicate that it is not an idea as received as it is supposed to be by the media. Since the "paranoia" side has very few climatologists either, their expertise is pretty much equal.

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

Morat

*shrug*. If you want just an general idea of what the science is like, look at it this way:

George Bush put together a panel to "study it". He choose the makeup of this panel, and it was more or less designed to give him a certain answer, regardless of the facts.

They gave him the wrong answer anyways, and said that it was a serious problem.