Global Cooling

[sasguru]

and your point is ?

Please point to the scientific evidence which would make the IPCC any more credible than the NIPCC and do try to keep an open mind

Completely agree - and without having the expertise or the time to check out the science, I would go with the majority scientific consensus.

[Lucy]

Completely agree - and without having the expertise or the time to check out the science, I would go with the majority scientific consensus.

Because science is all about consensus.

[TimberWolf]

Because science is all about consensus.

It's about trying to prove theories wrong, and this report looks like good science to me. It will be interesting to see how it's received by the wider scientific community, which I do hope hasn't been economical with the truth with regard to some of the issues raised in that report, for example well chosen 'hockey stick' graphs. I used to like that graph. One slight niggle is that the institute may be funded by oil companies.

[EternalOptimist]

It's about trying to prove theories wrong, and this report looks like good science to me. It will be interesting to see how it's received by the wider scientific community, which I do hope hasn't been economical with the truth with regard to some of the issues raised in that report, for example well chosen 'hockey stick' graphs. I used to like that graph. One slight niggle is that the institute may be funded by oil companies.

But the hockey stick was good science.
It supported a hypothesis and it was falsifiable, thats good science. The fact that it was falsified merely knocks a support from under the hypothesis. When(if) all the supports are gone, the hypothesis will fold, and thats good science.
SasOcrates is making the assumption that because the NIPCC group have an agenda, all their science is flawed, thats just not true. (Maybe he can provide us with an example of a truly independant, non priori , unbiased scientific team.)

[sasguru]

Because science is all about consensus.

Don't display your ignorance. Yet again. Stick to discussions abpout make-up and the like.

[Lucy]

Don't display your ignorance.

I thought it would go with yours.

[dang65]

Why do people always seem to see environmental taxes as global warming taxes? The taxes are minor penalties for the massive mess we're making of the environment - i.e. the world around us. We stink it up, fill it with noise, clog it up wih traffic jams, cover it in filth, dig it up, chop it down, burn it and generally smash it up. We're not going to stop doing that, so it seems, and the only price we have to pay is a few extra taxes on the worst vehicles or biggest polluters.

It's funny how people will complain vehemently about people dropping litter, or throwing up outside the pub on a Saturday night, or putting graffiti on walls, or smashing up bus stops, or letting their dogs shit everywhere, but they get all huffy when they themselves have to pay taxes to compensate for the far greater damage they are doing themselves, albeit in a law-abiding way.

Forget about global warming if it bothers you so much. Just pay up for the mess you're making.

[sasguru]

.
SasOcrates is making the assumption that because the NIPCC group have an agenda, all their science is flawed, thats just not true. (Maybe he can provide us with an example of a truly independant, non priori , unbiased scientific team.)

I wasn't. All so-called science should be judged on its merits, including this piece of work. I'm saying I don't have the time to assess all the stuff that's out there and in that case I will look at at the number and quality of scientists who support one or either position, as a rough rule of thumb.

[TimberWolf]

But the hockey stick was good science.
It supported a hypothesis and it was falsifiable, thats good science. The fact that it was falsified merely knocks a support from under the hypothesis. When(if) all the supports are gone, the hypothesis will fold, and thats good science.

Someone's been doing their science homework

[EternalOptimist]

I wasn't. All so-called science should be judged on its merits, including this piece of work. I'm saying I don't have the time to assess all the stuff that's out there and in that case I will look at at the number and quality of scientists who support one or either position, as a rough rule of thumb.

Oh. ok.