the ipcc brought together thousands of scientists and the group discussed climate change. they base their report off consensus opinion: they consensus was man made global warming.
so how is there no scientific consensus? or is the IPCC biased, whereas rush limbaugh, ann coulter, and other conservative politicans and pundits who "debunk" global warming are not?
2007-10-12 16:17:59 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
First off... there are not quite "thousands" of scientists involved in all of the working groups combined.
Second... there really isn't a ratification process of scientific reports.
Finally, there are just as many well qualified scientists who disagree with the IPCC AR4 report.
To answer the second part of your question, of course the IPCC is biased. Scientific groups formed specifically to prove a particular point are always biased and choose members based on their stated belief or disbelief in the question at hand, not on unbiased scientific beliefs.
2007-10-12 16:30:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
The simple fact is that there is a scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. There are a few outlying scientists who remain skeptical, but "consensus" does not mean that every single individual agrees.
Not only does the IPCC prove the consensus, but so have independent studies:
http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html
And no, the scientific consensus is not always right, but it is almost always right. If the scientific evidence were not overwhelming, there would be no consensus.
2007-10-15 05:31:22 · answer #2 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Darn, you are right! You know getting a bunch of scientists together to agree to something certainly makes it correct. I'm glad that the earth is the center of the universe. I'm thrilled that the earth is flat, and I am ecstatic that I only need to know four elements (earth, air, fire and water).
Consensus in science (real science, not pop science) isn't reached until there is proof! The current scientific "consensus" (which isn't even a consensus but let's leave that for another discussion) is based on opinion (you even say that in your question). When there is proof that specific actions taken by humans are causing the warming that is happening we can identify corrections.
Let's face it, if this is truly man made, the effort has to be to get China, Russia and Eastern Europe to clean up quickly.
2007-10-12 16:31:53 · answer #3 · answered by Matt W 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Are these the self-same "scientists" who for 5 Decades declared the Big Bang was a fact and that when a good sampling of all the mass in the universe was in hand it would be proved. Only to find out in the last few years they are way off base (dark matter/energy)?
Have a nice day.
2007-10-12 16:54:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because there are several viewpoints in the scientific community. A few hundreds years ago the "scientiific consensus" was that the world was flat and the center of the universe. I recall that in the 70s the scientific consensus was that we were entering a new ice age. Facts change as new information comes in.
2007-10-12 16:28:25 · answer #5 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
well... as far as I can tell... most scientists believe in it...
not all, but most...
and they believe in it because MOST of the facts point in that general direction...
is it fully proven yet... no...
is scientific consensus always right... no...
but, compared to all the other opposing ideas, is it the best one out there? most rational people I know say yes...
and no one should really compare today's scientists against those from thousands of years ago... science isn't anywhere near the same as it was back then...
2007-10-12 16:44:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
sure it has grow to be a faith and Al Gore is the pope of the cult.think of of ways lots money particular communities will make off of the hype.think of of all that government money going to "examine".besides there is in basic terms lots you're able to do ,regardless of each thing whoever controls the climate controls the international.concern is the terrific political motivator. climate exchange is a factor of the character of the planet.undemanding sense is to have clean potential yet till there's a greenback in all of it that happens is talk,talk and extra talk.government rules,fines and effects(gotta get that bailout money someplace) We definitely want clean air and water .i'm the unique recycler and that i don't waste potential basically like many different human beings.i take advantage of potential and don't decide for the "guilt" holiday of doing so. I also have a project with Gore the guru who flies around a gasoline guzzling jet.So does Queen Pelosi who opted for a much bigger one to fly returned and forth to California.keep in mind her asserting she desires to maintain the planet,yeah she flies we walk.we are in a position to all commence by potential of utilising the hot potential saving easy bulbs. Oh I forgot they're those with mercury in them.Oh,nicely feels like a sturdy theory on the time. i assume you all heard that some genius flesh presser wanted to tax cow farmers for any that very own extra advantageous than one hundred for emitting "methane gasoline" yeah that's real.can we bottle it truly?Or on 2nd theory deliver some from the bull to that flesh presser as he's conscious the B.S. while he sees or smells it.
2016-10-22 05:29:56 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because some holly wood phonies got enough people together that they could B,S, and make believe what they preached, putting them in the lime light when as you said there is no scientific evidence to tell us any thing, as this might be a natural cycle but, we will spend our natural resources , money and effort and not a damned thing we can do about it,but, is this not how sheeple operate, follow the leader right or wrong?
2007-10-12 16:29:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
What's ipcc?
2007-10-12 16:29:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋