It's not only the IPCC that have formed these opinions. The Australian scientists are doing their own research. The Australian Antarctic Division are studying Antarctic ice melts, and they have come to their own conclusions about that topic. If the ice melts are happening, we have a problem, regardless of whether this is climate change or climate-continuing-along-a-pre-existing-path.
Or are they all the same as well? On Wed, Feb 24th, 2010 at 9:45 AM, David Connors <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24 February 2010 08:09, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think you miss the point. It's not about whether or not we should > have a > > debate about it. > > > It depends on your point of view I guess. I'd argue any day of the > week that > debate is a healthy part of any democracy. If an ex-railroad engineer > is > qualified to run the IPCC, then I think my status as a software > engineer at > least entitles me to have an opinion. :) > > > > Only the > > scientifically proven facts are important, > > > If that is the case, then you cannot draw any conclusions on AGW > currently > as the field is too young. Anything to come out of the field of > dendrochronology is far from a fact by any standard definition of the > word. > Theories and hypotheses abound - but precious few proven facts. > > > > not heresay based on heresay based on heresay. And the > > skeptics can't simply pick and choose the points that they are > going to > > argue about without looking > > at the overall picture. It all comes down to who you trust to > interpret the > > data. And I put my > > money on the scientists, no matter how much mud gets thrown at > them. > > > > Like I said, it depends on your point of view and I suspect that you > and Ken > and I would never agree at any rate. I'd probably have a different > opinion > if the IPCC, Hadley, GISS etc guys were the great edifice of well > studied > and objective science. Sitting on the outside though, they appear to > be a > pretty politically motivated bunch who are FAR from idealised > objective > scientists. > > Check out the UEA mail leaks as it does not sound like you have. It > is > really eye popping reading. Conspiracy to delete data, fudge data > and > models, ensuring the deletion of mail at Hadley and uPen on > impending > assessment report findings, constant withholding of data and source > code > preventing independent verification of findings, conspiring to > illegally > block perfectly valid freedom of information requests - it is all > there if > you want to have a long read. These are not bit players on the fringe > - > we're talking about the core "team" - Jones, Mann, Briffa, > Trenberth, > Schmidt, et al. > > Of course, that does not disprove the central tenants of AGW theory > however > I think it is naive (as I learned in reading about this stuff over a > number > of years) to assume that the handful of core researchers driving most > AGW > research are beyond reproach. > > There is a LOT of heat on the citations in AR4 and almost none of it > has > come from within the established scientific community. Hell, even > Greenpeace > Britain are calling for Pachauri's head. > > Anyway - this has been fun but I have a metric pant load of work to > do over > the next few days. > > -- > David Connors ([email protected]) > Software Engineer > Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com > Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 > 417 > 189 363 > V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors > Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact >
