Posted by Michelle Steiner on April 20, 2009, 8:14 pm
To those who seek to denigrate and diminish the effects of global
climate change, it is a political issue; therefore they believe that all
views opposing theirs on the subject are politically based.
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the GOP did to America.
Posted by David T. Johnson on April 20, 2009, 9:20 pm
Was Istoben wrote:
The IPCC is not a scientific body, but a political one. Their entire
raison d'etre is to compile information on global climate change that
supports their political objectives. Any 'peer review' that they claim
to have done was done by other non-scientists of a like mindset. In
contrast to that, a scientific organization does not have a political
view but exists to provide a means of publish and exchange techical
information regardless of what 'political' view it might support or
disprove. Real peer review does not address the popularity of the
results or conclusions but the soundness of the process which was used
to arrive at them.
The 'mix of gases' in the atmosphere, the habitable land mass, the
evoluion of humans, and human population growth are all topics unrelated
to the alleged 'greenhouse gas' impact of CO2, although your reference
to them suggests a philosphical orientation that the
'CO2-is-killing-planet-earth' bunch often shares as some sort of ersatz
religion which seems to expound on the evilness of mankind's changes to
Posted by Was Istoben on April 20, 2009, 9:48 pm
No, it is a scientific body.
Doesn't it seem strange to you that scientists from so many different
nations have the same political objective? What would that political
Any 'peer review' that they claim
Not true. The work of these scientists is subject to scientific review.
You are putting a political label on science. They have no political
Our National Academy of Sciences endorsed their findings.
I'm disappointed that you make such stong yet completely unsubstantiated
statements. From time-to-time one of the few scientists that disagree with
the IPCC published a filing contradicting their work. Each and every one of
these challenges has proven false through scientific review. Even the
infamous "hockey stick" controvery was laid to rest by our own Academy of
Sciences. Still, there are people like you who cling to junk science for
reasons I cannot fathom. I'll give you this: If you are wrong and we do
nothing the cost in lives and dollars will be higher than anything
civilazation has faced to date. If the IPCC is right and we do something,
we will be free from the yoke of middle east oil and healthier in the
absence of atmospheric pollutants. Take your pick.
Posted by David T. Johnson on April 21, 2009, 4:23 am
Was Istoben wrote:
Do you even know what 'science' is? Scientists ask questions, formulate
hypotheses to attempt to answer their questions, and conduct
experimental studies to test their hypotheses. If they find something
new or interesting, they write about what they've observed and publish
it so that others can benefit from their work. 'Politicians' gather up
information to support their agenda, commission reports to validate
their position, collect helpful endorsements from political allies,
declare further investigation to be unneeded, and strike out at anyone
that disagrees. Now which category do you think the IPCC and their
'report' fits into?
CO2-is-warming-the-world fans look at a warming climate and increasing
CO2 concentration and conflate the two with a circular reasoning process
that goes like this:
1) A rising CO2 concentration will cause an increase in the average
2) The average global temperature has increased.
3) Therefore, the rising CO2 concentration caused an increase in the
global average temperature.
I'm looking forward in the next few years to seeing how the
CO2-is-warming-the-world fans ill explain our presently cooling climate
that began in 2007. I expect their 'explanation' to include a tap
Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52
and Sea Monkey 1.5a
Posted by Was Istoben on April 21, 2009, 12:48 pm
Exacty. This is precisely what the IPCC has done.
'Politicians' gather up
Clearlly the IPCC fits into the first category. Read their latest report.
If it is too technical for you, read their executive summary.
Regarding your second paragraph, please explain how a group of scientists
from dozens of different nations managed to agree on a political objective
and tell us what that objective is? Frankly, you sound a bit paranoid to
me. Are you thinking they stand to gain something by reporting the
consequences of carbon emissions? If so, what?