http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/whytheipccshouldbedisbanded.html

Okay, THAT was funny. Now I need to clean my screen.

I have to admit to being impressed by your faith in the IPCC report, Ophi. I freely admit that I haven’t read it, but I’m suspicious of anything that is a political compromise document emanating from the UN. To me, it is one more piece of evidence, perhaps, but certainly not a conclusive report from a trusted organization.

Trust your own mind and abilities at reasoning, Book. For no propagandist and psychological warfare expert can take that away. Everything else, such as trust in institutions and documents, can be taken away or maligned or doctored.

P and P warfare uses human trust and distrust to manipulate human behavior and thoughts. It is an insidious capability that wrecks as much destruction as the daily bomb or two. More so since a bomb can only be used a certain time before there are political repercussions while P and P can be waged 24/7.

I think in the end, Op has a very strong faith in goodfacts. As opposed to badfacts.

Link

So long as you stay within boundaries, things will be okay.

Why don’t you answer a few questions for a while?

You’re flat wrong in three ways:

1. The concern about atmospheric CO2 has ALWAYS been that it increases global temperatures. It comes from the basic physics — which of course you don’t understand.

2. The whole global cooling thing was the result of two scientists publishing a paper showing that it was a possibility under certain circumstances. The thrust of their paper was, “Hey everybody, look at this: if such and such happens, we could actually get global cooling instead of global warming!” The rest of the scientific world raised and eyebrow and ignored it because their paper really wasn’t very convincing. Then Newsweek got a hold of it and decided to make a big story out of it.

3. As I read the story, the brouhaha was created by Newsweek, and neither Time nor Science published cover stories about them. If you have evidence to the contrary, produce it.

It isn’t up to me to find errors in the underlying science:

How can you have an opinion on a scientific question if you refuse to even read the documents?

the science - if it’s actual science - is supposed to be what’s observed.

Oh, lordy, you really don’t know anything at all about science…

for every scientist who has concluded “A”, there is one who’s concluded “B”.

Oh, really? So let’s talk about Einstein’s 1905 paper. How many scientists accepted it and how many scientists concluded otherwise.

Don’t know about that one? OK, how about Gould’s punctuated equilibrium hypothesis? How many people accepted it and how many rejected it?

Or how about plate tectonics? What was the distribution of opinion on that theory? Chandresekhar’s stellar structure work? Brilloun’s paper on Maxwell’s Demon? The 1938 paper extending the correspondence principle to thermodynamics? The 1960s work on altruism and kin selection?

You really haven’t the faintest idea of what you’re talking about, do you?

Did I type that slowly enough for you? It cites, comments on and BUILDS on primary sources. If you need help with the definition, let me know.

“The fact that you admit that you’re not well-informed, and that you haven’t read the IPCC report, kinda blows away your comments on it, don’t you think?”

Uhhhhh…where do you see such an admission? The fact that you think reading a political report makes you well-informed on science does a little more than blow away your comments. The fact that you are seemingly completely unaware of your ignorance only adds to your problem.

Throughout the sixties, the concern regarding atmospheric CO2 was that it would bring about global cooling - leading to the covers of such as “Time” and “Newsweek” - and even “Science” - blithering about the coming Ice Age.

It isn’t up to me to find errors in the underlying science: the science - if it’s actual science - is supposed to be what’s observed. What you find errors in are the conclusions, and for every scientist who has concluded “A”, there is one who’s concluded “B”.

And I’ve yet to hear a conclsuion from the past dozen or so years that panned out.