Quote:
Originally Posted by PBzeer
Okay, let me see if I have this right. It isn't global warming that is the problem, but the POSSIBLE effects of gw on mankind that is the problem. We ascertain what these POSSIBLE effects are by reading the report of the same organization that recently admited to getting the AIDS thing wrong. A report, not written by the scientists whose findings are used, but by a committee of bureaucrats. We are to assume that this report, written by a political organization, has no political purposes, merely a concern for mankind (somewhat similar I would imagine to their concern over the genocide in Darfur).
|
Instead of "possible" effects, "highly probable" effects. Also, you're black-boxing the climate science community, black-boxing the UN, and conflating the two unknowns (to you) in your mind.
There is (much) more to AGW theory (again, "theory" used in the scientific sense) than the IPCC report. Most climate scientists agree that IPCC is too conservative in it's conclusions and weighting (though agree with the raw data).
AGW has widespread scientific support. You are being duped by ExxonMobil (and others) into thinking there is a scientific dispute of the basic science. There isn't. As proof, find me a recently published university meta-study skeptical of AGW theory. You won't.
It's the same blatant wedge strategy used by the tobacco companies. It depends on the public not being able to discern between a scientific argument, and an argument which merely sounds scientific.