Posted on 04/19/2008 11:56:23 AM PDT by RogerFGay
ping
The reporter uses very sloppy language here. What he means to say is that the IPCC's position should not be considered proven by the evidence.
There is of course a great deal of evidence that can be interpreted to support the IPCC's position. The dispute is specifically with regard to how this this large body of evidence should be interpreted, not whether it exists.
There is a great deal of difference between saying there is no evidence, and saying that a position has not been proven.
Lets just say the muslims making oil and the communist chinese make products are the only producers.
Sloppy evidence is much worse than sloppy language.
Like the hockey stick graph.
With the UN’s recents comments concerning the starving masses and misuse of corn this may just be what kills this load of crap.
Boy if this were to happen I wouild love to see someone ask spineless Newt about his newest position on Global warming.
And where is this evidence? It was much warmer during the period of 900 to 1300 CE than today and the temperature has gone lower since 1998 in the present era. The southern ice cap has increased in size and the northern water ice is at normal (who knows what normal is since we have no idea how much ice was there in 1000) but we do know (or that is what the scientist say) that there was NO ice there for millions of years.
The normal cycles of the earth, sun and the universe are NOT being influenced by humans. If humans influence climate change then there has never been a climate change in the history of the earth.
I think the FReeper poster is the reporter.
This would be perfect timing - as all the good ole boys with a strong history in pork barrel politics have signed up with Al’s propaganda campaign.
And all for 9 months a 1 day left, pinhead Bush continues to snore.
Being U.S. president must be the greatest non job in the world. And a huge retirement after that like those U.S CEOs.
I took the wrong career path.
But...but...but...I thought the science was settled.
Right .... the debate is over because Al Gore said so. He’s overcompensating for losing the presidential election ... when he kept saying he’d won but only Dan Rather at CBS believed him.
I think Global Warming legislation is doing it’s job:
Global Warmers say it’s man that is destroying the earth. So getting rid of man will put an end to the problem, right? People can’t live without food, so burn it. Earth saved, everyone happy. :-(
And at the very end, just before we all die, Al Gore will be in charge of the world; just what he’s always dreamed of.
I expect a crazy denial and name calling by the Global Warming Alarmists.
Of course. Everyone who disagrees works for Big Oil and isn’t counted as a real scientist or any kind of objective person. So, they don’t count when the “consensus” on global warming if calculated.
While I agree the warming is over-hyped, the graph that you posted is a little misleading. It is not quite fair to choose to start in 1998, which was the warmest year in at least 50 years...
Fair or not, that’s the graph presented by the scientists in the letter to the ICPP.
I mean — IPCC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.