[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by Micah Foehammer Partially true. The IPCC in and of itself does not conduct their own research. The data comes from a myriad of sources; some from government agencies, some from independent researchers. It's not true that the data isn't evaluated. Some of the data that the IPCC uses comes from previously peer-reviewed literature. It has already been pre-screened if you will. To suggest that the IPCC didn't sift thru the data sets without some form of screening is silly imo.

In the link I provided pages ago, it discusses how the IPCC evaluates the data, builds a preliminary report, and then submits that report to another panel for final editing. It also states in that article how some of the people on the panel that actually compiled the report don't agree with who, and how that report gets edited before it's submitted. I cannot recall specific examples, but some were given in the liner notes to that chapter. What did stick with me was that the report was adjusted either conservatively or liberally, according to who was complaining about content. In fact, good ol' GW got one chairman fired. That's a little too much influence on what's supposed to be a neutral "find the facts and publish them" organization, wouldn't you agree?

It's also not true that the IPCC members stand to lose money if they don't toe the IPCC line. Scientists who participate in the IPCC assessment process do so without any compensation other than the normal salaries they receive from their home institutions.

In the context of my post, it's not the IPCC that will lose money based on what's in their reports, it's governments, and as I indicated above, when the leader of one country can cause the chair to lose his job, there's something flawed with the system.

Of course there isn't full agreement on the issue. Simply looking at the myriad of new papers being published and the ongoing scientific debate should be ample proof of that. Does that mean the underlying science is wrong? No. It simply means that climate scientists don't fully understand all the working parts yet.

...and yet, I have been assured time and time again, in this very thread, that they are in full agreement. I have been told that I can, if I doubt that, start calling all the major universities, and do the research to prove that they aren't, despite the fact that this very thread exists because somebody didn't agree. Good, bad or indifferent, the source was shot down as "having an agenda".

Setting aside the hyperbole on "the most brilliant minds in the world" , do you really have any idea how complex climate theory can be?

Yeah, I do. However, the quote in quotations in your post isn't mine. However, I don't buy the fact that the guy that looks at the data, and can't even tell me if it's going to rain, while it's raining, is more of a genius than the guy that built the Hubble Telescope. Yes, it's an extreme example, but it gets the point across. Again, despite claims that we would, we have not had the "worst year for hurricanes ever" that was predicted. Despite claims to the contrary, the Ozone layer did repair itself, and come to find out, wow, it's been repairing and destroying itself for like ever. The "instant gratification" that scientists with an agenda, Let's sell our new aerosol propellant, have claimed really cracks me up. If we'd done as much damage as they said we were doing, the ozone layer would be gone by now, even with the changes to propellents, since we all know these things won't turn around over night. Like TL said, "they just happened to have a new propellent to put on the market" when the scare went out. Isn't that an agenda?

The unfortunate thing here is that yes, when taken in context with the general premise of GCC science, that mankind is responsible for CC, it does tend to invalidate most of the science. After all, that's not how science works, and we all know that. That we are a contributing factor cannot be denied, but that doesn't mean we're the root cause, and frankly, that's what GCC scientists are out to prove. In the process, they hope we'll ignore the fact that the earth has been through much more radical changes in it's climate that anything they are predicting. In fact, they are gambling on most of their audience not knowing that at all. While the IPCC may not get paid, the people that actually do the research they evaluate do.

Serious snip is serious, and done for TL'DR purposes.