Quote:
Originally Posted by pmaust
Yes I have looked it over. But it isn't reasonable to use the IPCC data or conclusions proposed in the IPCC reports as proof of itself.
|
I agree. The reason the IPCC data is quoted so much is because the reports are based on peer-reviewed data. The sheer volume of the data they use is a good indicator of the validity of their assessments.
Quote:
|
It needs to be contrasted with other out side sources.
|
Here's a quote from wiki:
Quote:
|
The IPCC does not carry out research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena.
|
So you see, the IPCC uses outside sources, as long as they are peer-reviewed. If they didn't, they would have nothing to say.
Quote:
|
And clearly the IPCC has been wrong before.
|
The IPCC reports are based on scientific knowledge available at that time. As new studies change variables in models or make other predictions, the assessments vary as well.
To quote Carl Sagan: "There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right."
Skeptico: The appeal to science was wrong before
Meaning I'm all for mitigating or abandoning our impacts. (eg coal burning)
Quote:
|
Contrast of two views. RealClimate is a strong advocate for a particluar point of view and there is nothing wrong with that. But you have to take it for what it is.
|
I agree, but do not forget that the point of view they take is the same view the vast majority of scientists take.
Quote:
There are other points of view and I like hearing both sides of a debate. 
|
I do too.
