Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I'm still trying to get a handle why Ustwo and Seaver believe that the hundreds (if not thousands) of scientists who contributed to the work of the IPCC ...as well as the top 15 national academies of science in the world, 50+ other national and international bodies, etc...have no scientific integrity (they are "political")...
...yet the far far smaller number of scientists who are of a minority opinion (many with easily identifiable conflicts of interests with their work supported by energy interests) are credible and apolitical.... and the fact that no scientific body of any stature anywhere in the world support or endorse that minority position.
|
I didn't know science was based on democratic principles. I base it on data, hard data, not fuzzy data. Apparently the whole 'hurricane' thing was wrong, perhaps Al Gore was a bit premature blaming the catastrophe in Burma on global warming after all.
Quote:
|
This year the IPCC, for the first time, has categorically linked global warming to an increase in hurricanes stating that there was an observational increase in the number of cyclones since 1970 in correlation to increased sea surface temperature. Caribbean meteorologists and consultants writing in Caribbean360 have agreed with the IPCC assessment and pointed out that more intense tropical cyclones have been reported in the past 15 years (1990-2005) than in the previous 15 years (1975-1989) with the greatest increases in the North Atlantic. They argued that the only contributing factor was global warming.
|
Well golly looks like your body of scientists was wrong.
Do you expect me as a scientist, and I am a scientist, even if I am no longer working in the environmental sciences, to say 'well the evidence says this, but these people all seem to think something else so I better back down and agree'?
You have the avatar that dissent is patriotic, and yet because I do not abide by the thought of mass bodies that the fault must be with me? I am not alone, there are very distinguished scientists who share my position, and that number is growing.
The last half of my day today was looking at scientific, peer reviewed and published papers, that were wrong. These are on systems far less complex than the global environment, but still they were wrong, and provably so. I reserve the right to review such studies, like the one I investigated that will posted above and come to my own conclusions as a formally educated environmental scientist.
Amusingly while reading another global warming article a couple of days ago the scientist in question stated the reason we haven't seen the rise in temperature predicted was in fact we should be entering an ice age phase. Wouldn't it be ironic if we were in fact warming the planet and in so doing we were holding off the next ice age? Global cooling would be far more catastrophic for humanity than any projected warming trend. Now I don't agree that this is the case, but it is food for thought, don't you think?