Little by little the myth dies ... and now it turns out that maybe as few as 52 scientists contributed to the IPCC reports:
Yeah, 177 science bodies were put out by 52 researchers?!?
HAH!!! See this, stunned fuck:
This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.
The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ...
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
... in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?
(Addendum: One could legitimately argue that such policy statements by necessity hide possibly legitimate internal debate while trying to present unity of position. Science is ultimately determined in peer reviewed journals. Fortunately, there is a bit of research that looked specifically at this very question -- the subject of another guide entry.)
From the comments:
I don't believe it's a fact. I have grave misgiving about the IPCC, as do many people far closer to the IPCC than I. So, I don't believe in working toward fixing a non-problem. Try me on factual environmental issues though, and you might be surprised at my response.
How about if I do?
You have grave misgivings. So f***ing what? As to which people are 'closer to the IPCC'??
You always believe the minority? Why don't you go ahead and introduce us to your friends that you seem so familiar with, the 'ones much closer to the IPCC'.
There are the IPCC, they are not close, they are it. I believe them over you, and I can also evaluate raw scientific publishings. I also remember reading in the mid seventies about the build up CO2 in our atmosphere, and that this would happen, and I also remember exact predictions of when and what would happen.
You got any BS 'authorities' that have that record? Because if you don't have alternate climate models that predict this and then show it as an anomaly, or random fluctuation, then STFU.
And I mean taking into account not only CO2 levels and the correlations to the melting of glaciers and north polar ice, but explaining what the next twenty years will be like based on sound extrapolation.
Do it, MoFo.
You can't. I know you can't.
No comments:
Post a Comment