Thinking about this thread and really wonder exactly what point MF is trying to argue.
Sometimes he seems to be saying global warming isn't occurred. Sometimes he seems to be saying that global warming is occurring but it's because something other than CO2.
Sometimes he seems to be saying that scientists shouldn't be allowed to advertise the significance of their results (except when it says what he wants to hear).
Sometimes he is saying that the scientific community has a non-scientific agenda and suppresses any research that runs against it (yet he knows that's not true since he quotes data that shows flaws in earlier works).
Sometimes he says he backs scientific method and new discoveries. Sometimes he says scientists should be ignored because their new research shows advancements on their old work.
Really, he is saying nothing except that he doesn't trust science or authority in general.
Total bullshit.
Rather than wasting everyone's time going through all of the misrepresentations (which, sadly, I now believe to be intentional), let me state what I have actually said:
-- I accept that the climate changes, as it has always changed over the 4.5-billion year history of the planet. Everyone accepts that (I hope).
-- I accept that there were periods in the late 20th century where the planet warmed.
-- I do not accept the idea that correlation proves causation.
-- I am skeptical of the evidence-challenged claim that man-made CO2 is a primary driver of changes in the climate.
-- I reject political talking points that people try to use as a substitute for scientific evidence (eg., the phony claims of a "consensus").
-- I have
never questioned the right of the IPCC to release its reports or to publicly speak about them. However, I absolutely do challenge the idea that the IPCC reports must be treated as gospel, or that they are free from political/activist agendas. No serious observer believes that.
-- I
never asserted that research was being suppressed. I did say the IPCC has minimized the reporting of results it doesn't like (in the Summary for Policy Makers), and that the IPCC has made baseless statements in its Summary for Policy Makers (eg., the claim that the warming trend from 1951 to 2010 "agrees" with the predictions).
Go back and look at my posts. Rather than relying on talking points or propaganda, I have looked at the actual evidence.
Using primary sources (eg., the IPCC reports), I have examined -- in detail -- how the IPCC's predictions compare with the empirical results. Unlike others (eg., Groggy), I have quoted the IPCC's predictions and the results correctly.
The empirical evidence leads to a clear conclusion: The IPCC's predictions, based on computer models that many people (including me) feel are oversimplifying how the Earth's climate works, have been spectacularly wrong.
I reject political talking points and accept the scientific results. I wish basketcase would agree to do the same.
