"Dan Luke" wrote in
:


"Eeyore" wrote:


So, on that basis you can wave away the scientific consensus on the
subject?

Alleged (and alleged is all it is)

Really?

======================
Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686


IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major
scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears
directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example,
the National Academy of Sciences report, 'Climate Change Science: An
Analysis of Some Key Questions', begins: "Greenhouse gases are
accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities,
causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to
rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a
fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes:
"The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last
50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the
scientific community on this issue."

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American
Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding
that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

======================

Perhaps you can offer some evidence in refutation of the above.



'consensus' proves nothing.

Correct. But to wave it away on no empirical basis is foolish.


I suppose you'd wave away the very well argued objections to the IPCC
case ?

Indeed not. I have spent a good deal of time examining such
objections, and have not found any that are destructive to the case
made in IPCC 4AR.

I'd be grateful if you could post links to some that you think are
'very well argued.'


convincing and scientifically sound case wouldn't need to rely on
making such
claims.

You mean claims like the one made by deniers that all the IPCC
scientists are distorting the findings so they'll get paid?


Just in case you didn't know, Graham is a known net-kook. He spends most
of his time on usenet whining about other's behaviour and netkkoping
them, only to be TOSsed himself...



He's your standard issue facist k00k.


He is fun though! Some of the e-mails my provider has passed on to me
are just priceless.





Bertie