Quote:
Originally Posted by REASON
I was attempting to read into what you had posted. I mentioned the IPCC because you have mentioned the IPCC - directly in the post I responded to, and indirectly when you form an argument that the readings used to determine the global average temperature can be either inaccurate or falsified.
The link you provided in the previous post only reinforces what I interpret your position to be, that the information generated by the IPCC is suspect and less convincing than what you are reading from the rejectionist point of view.
It is simply a choice you are making as you consider the information presented by both sides of the argument. I simply wonder what is actually driving your skepticism of a Nobel Prize winning panel of climate scientists, and I wonder whether it is really about the science or politics in your mind.
I'm still curious because your last post sort of avoided addressing my presumption.
Based on clear research of the information provided, do you think we should reject the notion of AGW as informed by the IPCC and continue burning fossil fuels at the same rate or more than we are now?
|
Sigh....
Again, no comment on the data quality questions. Focus on the messenger, rather than the message.
