View Single Post
Old 11-07-2013, 12:33 PM   #17
Tommycat
>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,578
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isaac Clarke View Post
Not an ad-hom because it was a corollary to the fact that they didn't understand the science, which I explained above. And, there is no reason to be skeptical of the IPCC, other than "hunches" and "conspiracies". Or, you could try the long-debunked "Climategate" nonsense, but that won't get you far. Nope, there really isn't a reason to distrust the IPCC, whose staff are not even paid (well, the vast majority).

They don't claim 100% consensus, either.

The real reason I started this thread was not to proclaim my "unequivocal belief" in the IPCC, I started it to state my anger that the USA and other major powers aren't doing much to cap carbon emissions.
Actually it IS an ad-hom to call the paper names. If you claim the paper does not have the science right, that's fine. But calling them the Daily Fail is an ad hom.

I don't agree that much needs to be done. Global climate change occurred before man, and in much greater frequency than current trends. We've been blessed with a rather long period of stability. And with Mars temps rising at similar rates as Earth, it seems a bit early to say it's settled. I'm not claiming that man doesn't contribute to warming. Just that it's too early to claim anything is settled, and quite a few seem to be doing exactly that. Do keep in mind that we are still emerging from the "Little Ice Age" and have not returned to the temperatures from before that.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,