While I accept the work of the IPCC, the links that you gave me were to a site that even calls themselves environmental activists. If I were to link you to the site of a friend of mine, say David Deming, you would be screaming "a pawn of big oil! foul". I had asked for a debate free of politics. It cuts both ways, my friend.
The part of it that is science is good, and I respect the comments of Dr. Dessler. Please, no politics. Politics has no role in science. On Jan 9, 5:41 pm, Jim Torson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 12:53 PM 1/9/2008, sploo.laroo (Eric) wrote: > > >okc, > > >I think it may be helpful to explain why the IPCC is a good place for > >you to go to address your question. > > Here is another discussion of why the IPCC should not be > dismissed: > > http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/02/02/dessler/index.html > > You're Getting Warmer > > The scoop on the new IPCC climate-change report > > By > <http://www.grist.org/cgi-bin/search.pl?query=gristauthor=%28Andrew%20...>Andrew > Dessler > 02 Feb 2007 > > [Here are some excerpts:] > > What is the IPCC, and what's the deal with its new report? > > When climate change emerged as an important environmental issue in > the late 1980s, the world governments' first response was to > establish an international body to produce summaries of scientific > knowledge of climate change. That body is the Intergovernmental Panel > on Climate Change. The IPCC has completed three major reports since > its formation, in 1990, 1995, and 2001, and throughout 2007 will > release its Fourth Assessment Report (hereafter referred to as the AR4). > > ... > > The IPCC reports are widely regarded as the authoritative statements > of scientific knowledge about climate change, and as such they carry > enormous weight in both the scientific and policy communities. The > immense credibility of the IPCC's reports arises from the credible > process that produces it. The reports are based on the peer-reviewed > literature and are written by hundreds of expert climate scientists > from over 100 countries. The reports then go through multiple layers > of review, including expert peer review by thousands of climate > scientists who were not authors of the report. > > The IPCC's Third Assessment Report, published in 2001, then went > through review by a blue-ribbon panel convened by the U.S. National > Academy of Sciences, which endorsed its findings. The conclusions of > the IPCC reports have also been endorsed by the American Geophysical > Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Association > for the Advancement of Science, and others. > > The resulting IPCC reports are accepted worldwide as the best > summaries of what the scientific community knows about climate change > and how confidently we know it. > > [Visit the website for the complete article] > > Andrew Dessler is an associate professor in the Department of > Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University; his research focuses on > the physics of climate change, climate feedbacks in particular. He > blogs at <http://gristmill.grist.org/user/Andrew%20Dessler>Gristmill. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
