Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
The IPCC is a political organization which does not allow descent in the ranks on global warming, this is documented and I addressed one scientists concern /resignation over it earlier in the thread. Saying we increased greenhouse gasses is not an issue, we have, what the effect is, is the issue.
Scientific bodies? No, not off the top of my head. As you are well aware scientific bodies are political organizations based around money, be it the AMS or the ADA. I do have things like this though.
I suppose these people are all unqualified to analyze the data as well.
|
Ustwo...in fact, the IPCC does allow dissenting opinions, so your initial premise is incorrect.
A group of 60 scientists around the world representing a minority opinion should be heard. That is why the IPCC recommendations represent a consensus and not unanimous recommendations.
Beyond that, on the surface, these people certainly seem qualified to analyze the IPCC data. I would be interested in seeing where they might receive funding.
But IMO, its a bit disingenuous to assign political motives to those scientists and scientific bodies that endorse the IPCC recommendations and not to scientists who disagree (some of whom may be industry funded).
I assume you believe the latter group (dissenters) is somehow more pure than the former (endorsers). Why doesnt that surprise me?
update: I just searched one name on your list at random.
Timothy Francis Ball, Ph.D., is a retired university professor and global warming skeptic. He heads the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and formerly headed the activist organization Friends of Science, which was funded by energy industries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball
So why is he more credible and not politically motivated?
Or Arthur B. Robinson, Founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...e_and_Medicine
Credible? Not politcially motivated?