The Forum > Article Comments > The UN climate change numbers hoax > Comments
The UN climate change numbers hoax : Comments
By Tom Harris and John McLean, published 30/6/2008The IPCC needs to come clean on the real numbers of scientist supporters.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Page 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- ...
- 14
- 15
- 16
-
- All
"said to be low" ... by who and on what basis.
DA: "The use of percentages here seems to me disingenuous"
I don't think so. If they quoted 92.12% then I would be worried.
DA: "If you Google up Michael Mann and global warming you'll encounter the McKitrick demolition." ... "There is not yet good argument and evidence to support the view that human activity is responsible for all or most of it."
I'm not a climate scientist (particle physics was my area before I got into IT) and nor is he and nor are you I presume. While I'd like to study the technical research, I have other projects n the boil that I hope will help with policy making. Thus like everybody else, I rely on scientific consensus in this area. Maybe Mann had faults in his original research that have been highlighted .. maybe he didn't .. mabye they have been corrected or taken into account. Mann is just one of thousands: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy] .. Wikipedia is by no means definitive, but there are plenty of references there:
"The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[18][19][20] The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[21] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[22] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[23] explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion."
Short of becoming climate scientists ourselves, I suggest, for humanities sake, we accept that.