Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaveMatrix
...tear any evidence to shreds (which is easily done, no matter how compelling the evidence)...
|
I would like to see this assertion proven. Please 'tear apart' the evidence supporting the theory of a heliocentric solar system. Or the theory of gravity. Or the theory of evolution even, if that's your favourite.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
Do you seriously believe he has any more credibility on this subject than, say, the IPCC?
|
Speaking of the IPCC, I'm curious to know; have you read the report? Not saying I disagree with you, I'm just wondering.
Personally I think this, like many things, gets hyped completely out of proportion. Yes, global average temperatures are rising. We know this. The IPCC has shown to a reasonable degree of probability that the cause of this warming is partially anthropogenic (caused by humans). They arrived at that conclusion largely through meta-analysis and synthesis of hundreds of seperate reports. This is an indication that there
may be something to the assertion that global warming is a man-made phenomenon.
I'm not invested enough to go through the sourced articles in the 2001 report, but I think it's interesting that meta-analysis was the main source of concern, given that meta-analysis is somewhat unreliable.
I found it interesting that the IPCC highlighted the flaws in their own analysis method multiple times; in particular they showed two different numbers for the degree to which warming has impacted various species, citing different exclusion factors used to arrive at the separate conclusions.
Basically, global warming at this stage should be categorized as a hypothesis. Initial analysis of trends does show a correlation between anthropogenic factors and increased global temperatures, but the conclusion that we're destroying the planet by driving our cars too much is far from certain.
On the other hand, global warming does make a
great political platform.
Take from that what you will.