Robert wrote:Bootstrap wrote:If we dismiss the IPCC, scientific associations, scientific journals, what is taught in universities, etc., then you essentially give up on any attempt to treat this as a scientific question that is being studied seriously by a scientific community. So far, I don't hear anyone suggesting a reasonable alternative to these mainstream scientific resources.
Science muddled through and forward long before the IPCC came about. It would do the same without them.
Yes, it did and it does.
All the IPCC does is ask scientists to work together to summarize the results of what science says, using a fair and open process. It conducts no research of its own. It does not fund the research it summarizes. It does not publish or control the scientific journals that publish research. The entire budget of the IPCC is only about 6 million dollars a year, much smaller than many American thinktanks. And this budget is less than 10% of the amount
of dark money put into funding denial by people or organizations who did not want people to know they were behind it.
Much of the research funding comes from individual governments. For instance, the United States spent $11.6
billion on "funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation" in 2014 according to the GAO, that completely dwarfs the $6
million budget of the IPCC. They were funding these things before the IPCC existed, and continue to fund them now.
And the American scientific associations - which existed long before the IPCC - think
the IPCC is getting this right. Look at this link, it gives statements from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, Geological Society of America, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and U.S. Global Change Research Program all provide quotes in keeping with the IPCC.
Robert wrote:The truth might be found sooner. If millions were not being dumped into the field trying to prove that does exist, the real facts and truth might filter up a little sooner. Honest questions and data would be considered.
How much of the IPCC reports have you actually read?
To me, it looks like it looks at the known facts exhaustively, asking pretty much all the questions a group of hundreds of scientists ask when they work together to summarize what we know.
Are there specific sections that you would like to discuss where you believe they are not asking the right questions or ignoring important research? When I read a section in the latest report, I'm usually impressed that they have looked at many different kinds of evidence, taken disagreements into account, and summarized a variety of opinions, ranges of possible outcomes, etc. Is there a particular section where you would claim the report is not in keeping with mainstream science at the time the report is written, or that it fails to adequately discuss important views?
Robert wrote:The IPCC DOES have an agenda. Climategate proves that. The same people are there, they are just manipulating things better. If they did not have an agenda. then Climategate would have never happened. No, I do not trust their process. Please find another source to support your position. They are a discredited, tainted source. Big money is behind them.
Wait a second - do you know what Climategate is, or who was involved in it? They didn't work for the IPCC.
Climategate was about four researchers at the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit, they did not work for the IPCC, they were simply authors of some of the papers the IPCC summarized. Their emails were illegally hacked, and showed these scientists in a bad light, but the IPCC papers are based on the literature as a whole, not the work of any one group of scientists. And when you say "the same people are there", they were never running the IPCC in the first place.
And if you look at some of the claims people are making about Climategate, they often rely on taking quotes out of context to make them mean something different from what they mean in context.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ion-answer
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ptics-lies