I'll watch that Frontline episode at some point, and maybe it will explain your point. But my take is that the actions of Bush in the last 8 years have been essential for bringing the power abuses of Congress back into check. Especially important has been his use of signing statements which I hope the next president will continue. It's a reminder that each branch has the independent responsibility to understand and adhere to the constitution as it is written, regardless of how the other branches are interpreting the constitution.
How does ensuring that the government does not trample on peoples' rights "enlarge the power of the government"? It seems to me that when the court does something like declare abortion bans unconsitutional or gay marriage bans unconstitutional, they are defending the implied rights of citizens, not expanding the power of government. And that seems to be precisely the intent of the phrase "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The power to make abortion legal or illegal is given by the 10th amendment to the states. If it existed in the federal government at all, it would exist in the legislature. So they both expanded the power of the federal government, and subverted the separation of powers, not to mention undermined the central principle of republicanism, that laws are determined by representatives of the people.
The idea that their finding that the unborn weren't people somehow increased the rights of the people makes as much sense as saying the same thing about their earlier finding that blacks weren't people. Sure they increased the rights of slave holders and the rights of people who wanted to abort their children. They didn't do much for the rights of children or blacks though. It doesn't get any more egregious than this. This is unfettered and arbitrary government that is not answerable to the people or correctable by any non-violent means.
All it would take would be a law passed by Congress to establish that prohibition. You mean like...FISA?
No... FISA has nothing to do with establishing a right of privacy to citizens. Besides, FISA is unconstitutional and therefore void, as it gives executive powers to the judiciary branch.
The constitution says no such thing. The military is required to operate entirely within the rules spelled out by the Legislature. Without them there wouldn't even be a military.
And it's the job of Congress to provide for national defense, anyway.
No. Providing for the national defense is split between the Congress and the President. See Article II, section 2. The point is that the judiciary has no role. It cannot be given a role by Congress, because the separation of powers established by the Constitution takes precedence over any acts of congress made under it.
Because the rules in the Constitution supercede the will of the President, and it's a judge's job to interpret the Constitution.
Don't they require Civics classes in high school anymore?
Uuh, apparently not. The Constitution doesn't say that it's a judge's job to interpret the Constitution. The rules of the Constitution say that the President decides what the military does, and a judge does not.
Actually people are provided privacy by the constitution in any situation where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For instance, if I close the door on a pay telephone booth, I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This was ruled by the supreme court because the constitution is meant to protect privacy of people, not specific places and channels. So if I have a reasonable expectation of privacy, any information gathered while I have said expectation is unconstitutional. Let me see if I can find the case law on that.. been forever since civil liberties class.
Except that there is a big difference between the rights actually guaranteed by the Constitution and the grandiose constructions made of them by the Supreme Court. Only the former apply to the actions of the Congress and the President. The latter is only relevant to cases and controversies which are heard by courts. Of course, the Constitution doesn't give the Court the power to form these grandiose constructions, but it also failed to provide any checks or balances to correct it if they did.
Terrorism is a policing problem, not a military problem. You're trying to find the hidden bad guys and catch them even when they're hiding amidst a bunch of innocent people. The military is there to wear a uniform and blow the other guy up for carrying a different flag. It is designed for cold-blooded destructive ability, not for its uncanny ability to tell friend from foe.
It's a military problem. You think when we take down an Al Qaeda safehouse in Pakistan, we should be getting a warrant first and knocking on the door? Protecting the country from foreign enemies who want to destroy it, is by definition what the military is for.
Again, it's national security, not warfare. Just because the hawks are screaming "we're at war" does not make it so. I suppose you think criminal procedures should not occur for prosecuting drug felons because it's the "war on drugs".
"National security" IS the concern of the military, not the police force. It's obviously irrelevant whether or not the rhetoric involves the use of the word "war". But the country won't last much longer if we ever decide that national security is no longer a job for the military. The correct distinction is between fighting foreign enemies of our country and prosecuting domestic violators of domestic law.
The Republicans are organized, competent and extremely dedicated to destroying everything America stands for in order to install a fascist theocracy. Anybody who supports the Republcans and doesn't want exactly that is either a liar or a fool. Claiming that the Democrats have as bad of ideas as the Republicans would be more defensible, but still wrong, however they aren't competent enough to get them done.
First, a brief history lesson. One of the central tenets of fascism was the abolition of religious institutions and the formation of a secular state. So "fascist theocracy" is an oxymoron. Republicans want the opposite. The most "extreme" of us even want to restore religious freedom to schools. The thing that Republicans have most in common is a desire to return to an adherence to the Constitution. So saying that we're "dedicated to destroying everything America stands for" is kind of insane. We're only dedicated to destroying the cancer that has been eating away at the Constitutional form of government from within the Judicial and Legislative branches for the last hundred years and more.
It's apparently 'reasonable' to monitor everyone in time of war. Luckily, we're always at war.
There are two completely different standards for the conduction of war and the enforcement of criminal law. This is why it is important that they are kept separate. What is reasonable for a cop is different from what is reasonable for the NSA. It is reasonable for us to make EVERY effort to listen to foreign terrorists, whether they're inside our borders or outside.
As for eavesdropping in general, I don't see the 4th amendment as addressing it at all. It's addressing disruptive searches. Despite the SCOTUS's opinion to the contrary, I don't think that the 4th amendment prevents arbitrary warrantless domestic wiretapping for law enforcement.
It could be (and obviously is) argued that there is a fundamental right to privacy that implies that the government should be unable to attempt to obtain any non-public information about us without meeting the standard of probable cause -- but that does not seem to be addressed by the 4th amendment. All it would take would be a law passed by Congress to establish that prohibition. I'm personally skeptical that there exists any such fundamental right, or that there is any utility to having such a right enforced. It seems that anyone, either a private citizen or a government, should be free to attempt gather whatever information is of interest to them. And individuals should be free to attempt to secure any information that they want to be kept secret. It is the actions that affect others, both of individuals and governments, which should be restricted.
Frankly, I don't care if they listen in on suspected terrorist phone conversations.0001% as much as I care about the fact that they are trying to pass laws to make it legal after the fact.
So where do I recruit an army?...NO CARRIER
It was never illegal in the first place. They are only granting civil immunity after the fact. You can still sue the government if you think they've listened to you unconstitutionally. In my view, there's nothing even remotely unconstitutional about it.
Of course, you're going to get even more depressed when you realize that if it ever did come to violence, my side owns most the guns.
Except that the President can't start a war. The right to declare war is given to Congress alone.
Yeah, as long as you have a dictionary that defines "declare" as "start." You might also want to tell it to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They both started undeclared wars. Probably because the Constitution gives the president the undivided power of command and control over the armed forces.
You're forgetting that the Constitution gives Congress the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States. That's where all that stuff falls under.
WOW! It does no such thing! It merely states that having a Constitution is beneficial for the general welfare of the people! The phrase is nowhere used in the enumeration of powers to any of the branches of government!
Yeah, I didn't see anything in there about phone lines either. Did find this though:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.
If it's not in the Constitution, the federal government's not allowed to do it, fancy that.
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power...To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.
The only branch of government that is forbidden, by exclusion, from being part of the process of gathering military intelligence is the JUDICIARY.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." What the framers are telling us here is to pay attention to the spirit of the Bill of Rights, not just the letter. There is no right of privacy explicitly recognized in the Bill of Rights, but the SCOTUS has found it in the "penumbra" of various provisions of the Constitution. This kind of language makes a strict constructionist spit, but you have to restrain the government from attacking the underlying interests protected by the Bill of Rights, otherwise the Ninth Amendment means nothing.
Yeah, it makes us spit because it's INSANE, IRRATIONAL, and COMPLETELY CONTRARY to what the founding fathers said about the amendment. The amendment is there to ensure against people trying to use the enumeration of rights as if it were a comprehensive enumeration as rights, thereby enlarging the powers of the government. Instead the amendment itself has been used like you have suggested by the SCOTUS as an excuse to claim broad interpretational freedom over the Constitution to greatly enlarge the power of the government in that manner, and in particular the unelected branch of the government. This is precisely the reasoning that has undone everything that the Constitution was supposed to provide for the people.
The SCOTUS might declare it illegal, but the Executive will simply ignore it.
Let's hope so. All it will take is a spineless president to get elected next who is intimidated by the SCOTUS, and we're doomed. The real crisis here is in the expansion of judiciary influence. I assume that military spying has always been a borderless endeavor, so I don't see anything new there except new technology.
The powers that be can do thier survelience, then after it has been done and while they are acting on that information go to a court and say "Hey, we spied on these people, here's why and here's why we couldn't wait to ask you before we did it; do you think that we were right to do so?"
I guess that really boils it down right there. It begs the question of -- Why is a judge in charge of what the NSA should be doing when the Constitution says that the president is in charge?
That's why you're allowed up to 72 hours AFTER to file the correct paperwork with the FISA court.
I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if you're allowed 10 years to file the paperwork. It's insane to apply criminal standards of probable cause to the process of gathering military intelligence. It's only our extreme arrogance that lets us even consider this.
It's called "checks and balances". It was a key point in the founding of our government. It WAS a key point. And it was agreed to by people who had put their own lives on the line when they signed our Declaration of Independence.
The most crucial aspect of checks and balances is the separation of powers. No branch of government has influence over all aspects of government. Control over most aspects of government is split in some manner between two of the three. Checks and balances break down when the separation of powers fails to be respected. The judicial branch of government is given by the Constitution NO power over the conducting of warfare or the gathering of military intelligence. The continued expansion of judiciary power into all aspects of government is precisely the currently impending point of failure of the constitutional system of checks and balances.
The broad wiretapping program is part of a serious (and so far successful) campaign by Cheney and his compatriots to expand the powers of the executive branch. While Congress continues to have their efficacy whittled away by the administration, they sit back and let him do it!
Huh? How does the wiretapping program divert any power from the legislative branch to the executive? It is done as part of the execution of military intelligence gathering, which has always been the purview of the executive branch. If it was being done for law enforcement, that would raise Constitutional issues, but it would still be part of the purview of the executive branch. So I don't understand the argument.
So what's left? Why is Congress bowing down to this monster at their own expense? I can't understand why the Republicans in Congress support such an unpopular tyrant, much less the Democrats. Congress looks like a bunch of whipped dogs. Do none of them have the balls to start giving our government some semblance of repair and restoration?
Aside from the fact that the president is still more popular than Congress, they support wiretapping of terrorist conversations because it is their responsibility to provide the legal framework for the protection of the country. Still don't get why you think it's "at their expense."
All the people can do is vote at elections, which makes us powerless when the people we voted for wont do anything.
The power that we gave ourselves when we adopted the Constitution is the power to vote out any representatives who fail to act in the best interest of people, or who fail to uphold the Constitution. That's why their jobs are put on the chopping block every 2 years.
I'm not sure how immunity can be granted when it clearly go against the US Constitution, given that the president takes an oath "to uphold the United States Constitution", doesn't this mean he's in breach and therefore liable of contempt?
Huh? How can it "clearly" go against the US Constitution? I can only guess you're referring to the prohibition against "unreasonable searches." But how is it clearly unreasonable to eavesdrop on phone conversations between suspected or known international terrorists and people residing within the US? I can't imagine a good argument for why that would even be "unreasonable", let alone "clearly unreasonable."
1. The IPCC takes it's input from PR-papers where the results have also been reproduced by other PR papers. A six moth old paper with no independent reproduction will not cut it.
Even if every paper that the IPCC used as "input" constituted perfect and pristine science, that does not make their conclusions scientifically sound, nor does it mean that they are conducting "science" at all. For example the reports are filled with their quantified uncertainty language, where "very likely" means a > 90% probability, etc. None of these uncertainty assessments are footnoted, and in fact they are results of negotiation and voting among the various representatives. Now, if they are just providing us with a summary of the available science, then that is fine. But we should be talking about them at all then, we should be talking about the actual scientific studies they're summarizing, as they wouldn't be drawing conclusions not in those studies. However if they're being purported to be conducting science, then voting on the uncertainty is INSANE. Scientific uncertainly is numerically derived, and can be quantifiably justified. It is not the subject of a VOTE!
"Show me ANYTHING consistent with the scientific method that would lead you to believe that an increase of CO2 from 280ppmv to 380ppmv is capable of causing a measurable increase in average atmospheric temperature."
Refer to the sources for the attribution diagram (figure 2) in the 2007 IPCC SPM, they are too numerous to list here.
Okay, as far as I can find, there is no direct attribution for fig 2 of the 2007 IPCC SPM, but it refers to figure 2.20(a) from section 2.9 of the full report. Figure 2.20(a) also gives no attribution, but refers to table 2.12 and 2.11. Table 2.12 gives no sources, but 2.11 informs us: "Uncertainty assessment of forcing agents discussed in this chapter. Evidence for the forcing is given a grade (A to C), with A implying strong evidence and C insufficient evidence. The degree of consensus among forcing estimates is given a 1, 2 or 3 grade, where grade 1 implies a good deal of consensus and grade 3 implies an insufficient consensus. From these two factors, a level of scientific understanding is determined (LOSU). Uncertainties are in approximate order of importance with first-order uncertainties listed first." Okay, so they've apparently voted again based on how much consensus there is in their opinion. Still no reference to any science. Looking through the text, it's is section 2.2 that deals with the radiative forcing. After wading through MANY statements about how "LLGHGs are the largest and most important driver of climate change," of which NONE provided any reference, I finally found the reference for the radiative forcing that the IPCC is attributing to CO2. It is an adjustment of the number provided by Ramaswamy et al (2001). That's it. After some searching, it appears that Ramaswamy et al (2001) is actually the radiative forcing chapter of the Working Group I version of the IPCC report!!!! So on to the WG 1 report section 6.13.1. The section provides us with a forcing number, but does not do us the courtesy of telling us how it was derived. It does tell do us the courtesy of telling us again that "the uncertainty range, as employed in this chapter, is not the product of systematic quantitative analyses of the various factors associated with the forcing, and thus lacks a rigorous statistical basis." No kidding. When you make up a number, you sort of have to guess the the uncertainty of the number. So, I've rediscovered what should obvious to everyone. That the IPCC reports are not scientific papers. Though they make references to actual scientific papers on various technical points, they are filled with big and empty claims that are given no attributions or references. Such a work would be laughed out of any scientific journal, not to mention any college classroom. I can't understand how anyone can read it an
I dispute your contention that there is NOT a scientific concensus that human-introduced greenhouse gases are the cause of the observed warming.
But there is direct evidence of the lack of consensus. There are more than a few highly placed and highly respected climatologists (particularly ones that don't require grant money to keep their jobs), who strenuously and articulately oppose the so-called consensus view. That in itself invalidates the idea of a consensus. I also don't buy that 95% of climate scientists believe in human-caused climate change. Where is that number coming from? I would welcome a well-conducted recent survey of climate scientists' opinions, but I'm not aware of any. The surveys of the climate science literature in the last 5 years shows an roughly equal number of climate studies that directly oppose the "consensus" view as studies that directly support it.
If you want newspapers to take sides, and stop giving credibility to the opposition, what evidence are you suggesting they base that action on?
Yes, we do. That's the whole point: during the modern global warming period, the directly measured solar irradiance trend has not changed in a way that can account for the observed warming. (Indeed, it stayed pretty much flat right when the late 20th century warming really took off.)
We only have something that comes close to looking like a global trend over the full hundred years that we have direct measurements for. Satellite maps to approximate the total global energy input and output can't be for more than what -- 10 or 20 years?
Slashdot Mirror
I'll watch that Frontline episode at some point, and maybe it will explain your point. But my take is that the actions of Bush in the last 8 years have been essential for bringing the power abuses of Congress back into check. Especially important has been his use of signing statements which I hope the next president will continue. It's a reminder that each branch has the independent responsibility to understand and adhere to the constitution as it is written, regardless of how the other branches are interpreting the constitution.
The power to make abortion legal or illegal is given by the 10th amendment to the states. If it existed in the federal government at all, it would exist in the legislature. So they both expanded the power of the federal government, and subverted the separation of powers, not to mention undermined the central principle of republicanism, that laws are determined by representatives of the people.
The idea that their finding that the unborn weren't people somehow increased the rights of the people makes as much sense as saying the same thing about their earlier finding that blacks weren't people. Sure they increased the rights of slave holders and the rights of people who wanted to abort their children. They didn't do much for the rights of children or blacks though. It doesn't get any more egregious than this. This is unfettered and arbitrary government that is not answerable to the people or correctable by any non-violent means.
No... FISA has nothing to do with establishing a right of privacy to citizens. Besides, FISA is unconstitutional and therefore void, as it gives executive powers to the judiciary branch.
No. Providing for the national defense is split between the Congress and the President. See Article II, section 2. The point is that the judiciary has no role. It cannot be given a role by Congress, because the separation of powers established by the Constitution takes precedence over any acts of congress made under it.
Uuh, apparently not. The Constitution doesn't say that it's a judge's job to interpret the Constitution. The rules of the Constitution say that the President decides what the military does, and a judge does not.
Except that there is a big difference between the rights actually guaranteed by the Constitution and the grandiose constructions made of them by the Supreme Court. Only the former apply to the actions of the Congress and the President. The latter is only relevant to cases and controversies which are heard by courts. Of course, the Constitution doesn't give the Court the power to form these grandiose constructions, but it also failed to provide any checks or balances to correct it if they did.
It's a military problem. You think when we take down an Al Qaeda safehouse in Pakistan, we should be getting a warrant first and knocking on the door? Protecting the country from foreign enemies who want to destroy it, is by definition what the military is for.
"National security" IS the concern of the military, not the police force. It's obviously irrelevant whether or not the rhetoric involves the use of the word "war". But the country won't last much longer if we ever decide that national security is no longer a job for the military. The correct distinction is between fighting foreign enemies of our country and prosecuting domestic violators of domestic law.
First, a brief history lesson. One of the central tenets of fascism was the abolition of religious institutions and the formation of a secular state. So "fascist theocracy" is an oxymoron. Republicans want the opposite. The most "extreme" of us even want to restore religious freedom to schools. The thing that Republicans have most in common is a desire to return to an adherence to the Constitution. So saying that we're "dedicated to destroying everything America stands for" is kind of insane. We're only dedicated to destroying the cancer that has been eating away at the Constitutional form of government from within the Judicial and Legislative branches for the last hundred years and more.
There are two completely different standards for the conduction of war and the enforcement of criminal law. This is why it is important that they are kept separate. What is reasonable for a cop is different from what is reasonable for the NSA. It is reasonable for us to make EVERY effort to listen to foreign terrorists, whether they're inside our borders or outside.
As for eavesdropping in general, I don't see the 4th amendment as addressing it at all. It's addressing disruptive searches. Despite the SCOTUS's opinion to the contrary, I don't think that the 4th amendment prevents arbitrary warrantless domestic wiretapping for law enforcement.
It could be (and obviously is) argued that there is a fundamental right to privacy that implies that the government should be unable to attempt to obtain any non-public information about us without meeting the standard of probable cause -- but that does not seem to be addressed by the 4th amendment. All it would take would be a law passed by Congress to establish that prohibition. I'm personally skeptical that there exists any such fundamental right, or that there is any utility to having such a right enforced. It seems that anyone, either a private citizen or a government, should be free to attempt gather whatever information is of interest to them. And individuals should be free to attempt to secure any information that they want to be kept secret. It is the actions that affect others, both of individuals and governments, which should be restricted.
It was never illegal in the first place. They are only granting civil immunity after the fact. You can still sue the government if you think they've listened to you unconstitutionally. In my view, there's nothing even remotely unconstitutional about it.
Of course, you're going to get even more depressed when you realize that if it ever did come to violence, my side owns most the guns.
Yeah, as long as you have a dictionary that defines "declare" as "start." You might also want to tell it to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They both started undeclared wars. Probably because the Constitution gives the president the undivided power of command and control over the armed forces.
WOW! It does no such thing! It merely states that having a Constitution is beneficial for the general welfare of the people! The phrase is nowhere used in the enumeration of powers to any of the branches of government!
To me, a caring and sharing society would be one where people are only generous with their own money, not with other people's money.
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power...To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States.
The only branch of government that is forbidden, by exclusion, from being part of the process of gathering military intelligence is the JUDICIARY.
Yeah, it makes us spit because it's INSANE, IRRATIONAL, and COMPLETELY CONTRARY to what the founding fathers said about the amendment. The amendment is there to ensure against people trying to use the enumeration of rights as if it were a comprehensive enumeration as rights, thereby enlarging the powers of the government. Instead the amendment itself has been used like you have suggested by the SCOTUS as an excuse to claim broad interpretational freedom over the Constitution to greatly enlarge the power of the government in that manner, and in particular the unelected branch of the government. This is precisely the reasoning that has undone everything that the Constitution was supposed to provide for the people.
Let's hope so. All it will take is a spineless president to get elected next who is intimidated by the SCOTUS, and we're doomed. The real crisis here is in the expansion of judiciary influence. I assume that military spying has always been a borderless endeavor, so I don't see anything new there except new technology.
This may sound pedantic, but it's not: SCOTUS has NO power to review ISSUES. It ONLY has power to review CASES.
I guess that really boils it down right there. It begs the question of -- Why is a judge in charge of what the NSA should be doing when the Constitution says that the president is in charge?
I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if you're allowed 10 years to file the paperwork. It's insane to apply criminal standards of probable cause to the process of gathering military intelligence. It's only our extreme arrogance that lets us even consider this.
The most crucial aspect of checks and balances is the separation of powers. No branch of government has influence over all aspects of government. Control over most aspects of government is split in some manner between two of the three. Checks and balances break down when the separation of powers fails to be respected. The judicial branch of government is given by the Constitution NO power over the conducting of warfare or the gathering of military intelligence. The continued expansion of judiciary power into all aspects of government is precisely the currently impending point of failure of the constitutional system of checks and balances.
Huh? How does the wiretapping program divert any power from the legislative branch to the executive? It is done as part of the execution of military intelligence gathering, which has always been the purview of the executive branch. If it was being done for law enforcement, that would raise Constitutional issues, but it would still be part of the purview of the executive branch. So I don't understand the argument.
Aside from the fact that the president is still more popular than Congress, they support wiretapping of terrorist conversations because it is their responsibility to provide the legal framework for the protection of the country. Still don't get why you think it's "at their expense."
The power that we gave ourselves when we adopted the Constitution is the power to vote out any representatives who fail to act in the best interest of people, or who fail to uphold the Constitution. That's why their jobs are put on the chopping block every 2 years.
Huh? How can it "clearly" go against the US Constitution? I can only guess you're referring to the prohibition against "unreasonable searches." But how is it clearly unreasonable to eavesdrop on phone conversations between suspected or known international terrorists and people residing within the US? I can't imagine a good argument for why that would even be "unreasonable", let alone "clearly unreasonable."
Even if every paper that the IPCC used as "input" constituted perfect and pristine science, that does not make their conclusions scientifically sound, nor does it mean that they are conducting "science" at all. For example the reports are filled with their quantified uncertainty language, where "very likely" means a > 90% probability, etc. None of these uncertainty assessments are footnoted, and in fact they are results of negotiation and voting among the various representatives. Now, if they are just providing us with a summary of the available science, then that is fine. But we should be talking about them at all then, we should be talking about the actual scientific studies they're summarizing, as they wouldn't be drawing conclusions not in those studies. However if they're being purported to be conducting science, then voting on the uncertainty is INSANE. Scientific uncertainly is numerically derived, and can be quantifiably justified. It is not the subject of a VOTE!
Okay, as far as I can find, there is no direct attribution for fig 2 of the 2007 IPCC SPM, but it refers to figure 2.20(a) from section 2.9 of the full report. Figure 2.20(a) also gives no attribution, but refers to table 2.12 and 2.11. Table 2.12 gives no sources, but 2.11 informs us:
"Uncertainty assessment of forcing agents discussed in this chapter. Evidence for the forcing is given a grade (A to C), with A implying strong evidence and C insufficient evidence. The degree of consensus among forcing estimates is given a 1, 2 or 3 grade, where grade 1 implies a good deal of consensus and grade 3 implies an insufficient consensus. From these two factors, a level of scientific understanding is determined (LOSU). Uncertainties are in approximate order of importance with first-order uncertainties listed first."
Okay, so they've apparently voted again based on how much consensus there is in their opinion. Still no reference to any science. Looking through the text, it's is section 2.2 that deals with the radiative forcing. After wading through MANY statements about how "LLGHGs are the largest and most important driver of climate change," of which NONE provided any reference, I finally found the reference for the radiative forcing that the IPCC is attributing to CO2. It is an adjustment of the number provided by Ramaswamy et al (2001). That's it. After some searching, it appears that Ramaswamy et al (2001) is actually the radiative forcing chapter of the Working Group I version of the IPCC report!!!! So on to the WG 1 report section 6.13.1. The section provides us with a forcing number, but does not do us the courtesy of telling us how it was derived. It does tell do us the courtesy of telling us again that "the uncertainty range, as employed in this chapter, is not the product of systematic quantitative analyses of the various factors associated with the forcing, and thus lacks a rigorous statistical basis." No kidding. When you make up a number, you sort of have to guess the the uncertainty of the number. So, I've rediscovered what should obvious to everyone. That the IPCC reports are not scientific papers. Though they make references to actual scientific papers on various technical points, they are filled with big and empty claims that are given no attributions or references. Such a work would be laughed out of any scientific journal, not to mention any college classroom. I can't understand how anyone can read it an
But there is direct evidence of the lack of consensus. There are more than a few highly placed and highly respected climatologists (particularly ones that don't require grant money to keep their jobs), who strenuously and articulately oppose the so-called consensus view. That in itself invalidates the idea of a consensus. I also don't buy that 95% of climate scientists believe in human-caused climate change. Where is that number coming from? I would welcome a well-conducted recent survey of climate scientists' opinions, but I'm not aware of any. The surveys of the climate science literature in the last 5 years shows an roughly equal number of climate studies that directly oppose the "consensus" view as studies that directly support it.
If you want newspapers to take sides, and stop giving credibility to the opposition, what evidence are you suggesting they base that action on?
We only have something that comes close to looking like a global trend over the full hundred years that we have direct measurements for. Satellite maps to approximate the total global energy input and output can't be for more than what -- 10 or 20 years?