From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Connors Sent: Friday, 5 March 2010 11:05 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed
On 1 March 2010 22:48, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: What I DID say is that people who are dismissing the climategate stuff and AR4 nonesense out of hand should stop - breathe - and read the material. Draw your own conclusions on the basis of having read it. … Again, I'm merely suggesting you look at the material. For what purpose? Does any of this provide any scientific evidence to suggest that what we are being told is incorrect? It provides plenty of evidence that both the IPCC and the EUA guys are far from scientific. No – it doesn’t actually address any of the scientific papers or evidence that are cited in IPCC AR4. And this is the problem I am having with all the posting you are doing. There is *nothing* you have cited anywhere that says “here is a study which shows systemic problems in upper tropospheric satellite recordings”, “here is a study which shows problems in these cited bird migration studies” etc. The IPCC doesn’t do any scientific research – they cite papers that others have written, and you have nothing to refute any of that. What upsets me is your complete inability to provide any alternative science. Why be upset? I'm just suggesting you go read the material. Please indicate what scientific material you have for us to read. The world is warming, or it’s not. It doesn’t care for the personal failings of individual scientists, or your scepticism. The best tool we have for analysing what is out there is the scientific method. So, please present some scientific research Tens of thousands of scientific papers say that ‘x’ is happening (CO2 is increasing, and that it’s caused by mankind, and that we can expect various things to happen, depending on how quickly the change happens). On the other hand you are saying “go read a bunch of emails written fallible humans in the course of years of everyday interaction”. Frankly, the former has scientific value, and the latter has value to sociologists only. *shrugs* If you don't want to read both sides of the argument then there isn't much I can do to convince you otherwise. There aren’t two sides of an argument here. You have presented no alternative. Reading emails *is not science* and pretending that it is, is simply disingenuous. Please provide some scientific alternative. Some of the stuff out of AR4 WG2 has been shown by mere bloggers to be manifestly wrong Actually, the it was pointed out by a scientist who went on to point out that it by no means detracts from the overall conclusions of the AR4. Cheers Ken
