Why is it that so many with opinions on climate change have never bothered to read the most recent IPCC report?
Firstly, a *lot* of money goes into climate change research - it's one of THE best funded global inter-disciplinary research programs in existence at the moment with several hunded million dollars invested annually. This research outputs *hundreds* of research papers per year, some into the leading peer research journals. In this context, *one* NASA report is a drop in the ocean - in fact, the *entire* output from NASA is fairly small in proportion to the annual output.
Put simply, even if NASA were inventing all of its output, it wouldn't actually matter much to "scientific consensus".
Secondly, here's a major wakeup call: Nowhere in the (most recent) IPCC report does ***ANYONE*** claim that climate change is definitely man-made. In fact, the most recent report clearly says that HALF of total culmulative radiative forcing is UNEXPLAINED. This doesn't mean it isn't man-made, just that no one actually can prove it one way or another. Chances are a good chunk ISN'T man-made and the report explains how and why.
The IPCC report is a best attempt at a consensus of current scientific position. If a few more people with strong opinions on climate change bothered to not be so ignorant, the world would be a considerably better place. Unfortunately it's too easy to claim there are secret plans to take over the world or strip people of their rights blah blah etc.
In fact, people should worry considerably more what happens when fossil fuel price rises cause food and clean water price rises. Current projections have about 2bn people dying in famine and that will provoke large scale public disorder (i.e. read introduction of curfews and police state powers even in the West). This process is projected to begin by 2012- 2013 plus or minus two years.
Cheers, Niall
On 4 Dec 2009 at 9:19, Carsten Agger wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 07:51 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
The link I posted (http://www.abv.org.uk/node/47) contains
references
about the NASA fakery. I gave up in frustration to find any
debunking
attempt based on anything more than fuzzy feeling, and the
debunking
of the leaks is just was weak. Maybe you have some good debunking
of
the NASA fakery that will convince a skeptic?
The reference in your link is to this posting:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964
I believe there's a good round-up of this sort of criticism here, although it doesn't address that specific article:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mountains-and-
mole
hills/
Seriously, the notion that NASA would be faking its temperature
data to
achieve (what?) political ends requires a conspiracy of the
magnitude of
9/11.
(The physical laws which would dictate that a substantial increase
of
greenhouse gases like CO2 leads to higher temperatures are really
very
simple: The Planck radiation law, the Stefan Boltzmann equation and
the
notion of emissivity as influenced by the presence of greenhouse
gases.
Global warming basically follows from the discoveries of John
Tyndall
(1820-1893) and Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927), but I suppose they
were in
on the conspiracy too?).
best regards,
Carsten
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion