I'll complete your statement of their role.. " The role........mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies. "
You could also read this, https://www.ipcc.ch/organizati... - its an inter-governmental organisation rather than political, to me Political implies a single government.
It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies.
Models get refined all the time, its only a model after all. True that they can't predict the future because they can only work on current knowledge and extrapulate the "future" on current trends if they continue as they are now. They cannot guess if, how or when a solution will be put into practice that mitigates the causes as we know them now
There are skeptics elsewhere in the world but they are not treated with any reverence because most of the them are non-scientists with an opinion and not a fact. it just seems that the US skeptics, who are just as opinionated without facts, are revered for some reason other than common sense.
So the solution offered by the politicians is shit, what a surprise. Politicians only think short term these days and solutions for climate change are long term. The solutions are slowly coming on line in spite of the politicians lack of balls.
Nature has been known to sometimes print dodgy articles, so you'll need to get more verification before making a claim, search for "Nature magazine controversies"
The point is that you are proving Manns point, you can't attack all the scientists and their body of work so just try to discredit one with ad hominem attacks which is the aim of anyone anti-climate science (and other sciences).
Quote from the article " This is a classic ad hominem attack, consisting of innuendo and obfuscation, often focusing on irrelevant items, whose net effect is to direct attention away from the merits of an argument and instead to the character of the person making it. This approach appeals to feelings, emotions, and prejudices rather than intellect, exactly the point when the attacker is on the wrong side of the facts. This approach is not held in high regard by those interested in reason and rationalism, based as it is upon tenets that are the opposite of science"
Capitalists want to improve efficiency of the manufacturing process so its cheaper and they get richer. Try reading http://cleantechnica.com/ for a while and see how the incumbent fossil fuel utilities and their government poodles are trying to put as many road blocks in front of the progress of solar use in their areas.
yawn......all his reports have been vindicated time and time again. so try reading and comprehending, but as i guess you are a fox news believer, that won't happen especially there is a link in the summary
aaahh.. a non-user with an opinion. not being a programmer doesn't stop you from reading and learning. OSS is for everyone but being a sideline whining smartass is frowned upon.
"Why would you automatically assume someone who carries a firearm wants to randomly shoot up people?" - people won't but they would be scared of him/her to use it in the most trivial of cases because if he/she is carrying in the first place to go shopping then he/she is basically an idiot
"Atheists in the scientific communities who like to continually bash and make fun of everyone different then them. " - i think that you'll find that its the posters in forums like this that do that, not scientists.
"Who like to take science, and pretend that it disproves God" - no, they say God is more and more improbable.
"that is says that every religious person is ethically and intellectually inferior to themselves." - you must work for Fox news
some people just don't deserve to breathe. is it always the same twat always posting this shit or is there more than one single brain cell moron out there?
So they use figurative language when it suits - genesis and the origin of the universe and man are all now figurative? dangerous stuff messing with a book that is supposed to be God's word. It quite amazing how they decide which bits of Gods word are figurative and what is real godly stuff, they are spinning worse than politicians and artists.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll complete your statement of their role.. " The role ........mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies. "
You could also read this, https://www.ipcc.ch/organizati... - its an inter-governmental organisation rather than political, to me Political implies a single government.
It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies.
Models get refined all the time, its only a model after all. True that they can't predict the future because they can only work on current knowledge and extrapulate the "future" on current trends if they continue as they are now. They cannot guess if, how or when a solution will be put into practice that mitigates the causes as we know them now
There are skeptics elsewhere in the world but they are not treated with any reverence because most of the them are non-scientists with an opinion and not a fact. it just seems that the US skeptics, who are just as opinionated without facts, are revered for some reason other than common sense.
Just a question or two. whats your definition of a significant rise and why only use the "last 18 years" as a measure?
So the solution offered by the politicians is shit, what a surprise. Politicians only think short term these days and solutions for climate change are long term. The solutions are slowly coming on line in spite of the politicians lack of balls.
Nature has been known to sometimes print dodgy articles, so you'll need to get more verification before making a claim, search for "Nature magazine controversies"
The point is that you are proving Manns point, you can't attack all the scientists and their body of work so just try to discredit one with ad hominem attacks which is the aim of anyone anti-climate science (and other sciences).
Quote from the article " This is a classic ad hominem attack, consisting of innuendo and obfuscation, often focusing on irrelevant items, whose net effect is to direct attention away from the merits of an argument and instead to the character of the person making it. This approach appeals to feelings, emotions, and prejudices rather than intellect, exactly the point when the attacker is on the wrong side of the facts. This approach is not held in high regard by those interested in reason and rationalism, based as it is upon tenets that are the opposite of science"
Capitalists want to improve efficiency of the manufacturing process so its cheaper and they get richer. Try reading http://cleantechnica.com/ for a while and see how the incumbent fossil fuel utilities and their government poodles are trying to put as many road blocks in front of the progress of solar use in their areas.
ooooo no-one had morals in anti-Vietnam protests?? thats a large claim (and an insult) and needs a citation and report to back that up
yawn......all his reports have been vindicated time and time again. so try reading and comprehending, but as i guess you are a fox news believer, that won't happen especially there is a link in the summary
aaahh.. a non-user with an opinion. not being a programmer doesn't stop you from reading and learning. OSS is for everyone but being a sideline whining smartass is frowned upon.
so why weren't you reading the source? its there for you to do so...
Why don't you get your dick out of your hands and help out?
"Why would you automatically assume someone who carries a firearm wants to randomly shoot up people?" - people won't but they would be scared of him/her to use it in the most trivial of cases because if he/she is carrying in the first place to go shopping then he/she is basically an idiot
that would be great when they all want to be heroes and let off shots and ventilate the fuselage
"He's a grade A loon." - careful, you are projecting too much
inoperative bit, you mean
if someone publicly lied about you, would you ignore it or sue?
"Atheists in the scientific communities who like to continually bash and make fun of everyone different then them. " - i think that you'll find that its the posters in forums like this that do that, not scientists.
"Who like to take science, and pretend that it disproves God" - no, they say God is more and more improbable.
"that is says that every religious person is ethically and intellectually inferior to themselves." - you must work for Fox news
some people just don't deserve to breathe. is it always the same twat always posting this shit or is there more than one single brain cell moron out there?
why should you respect "beliefs"? you can tolerate them as long as they are benign and not a risk to health
So they use figurative language when it suits - genesis and the origin of the universe and man are all now figurative? dangerous stuff messing with a book that is supposed to be God's word. It quite amazing how they decide which bits of Gods word are figurative and what is real godly stuff, they are spinning worse than politicians and artists.
to the delusional, the bible is a historical document
so when do you start stoning people for working on sundays etc?
oh dear, its so sad....