All too frequently in the Environment section we get people saying that the IPCC is corrupt or politically motivated or orchestrating a giant hoax over everybody.
Personally I think this is disgraceful. The IPCC gathers together, analyzes the massive amount of climate science research that has been done, and summarizes it in a giant report. No part of the report goes out until the IPCC has reached a consensus that it's accurate. The report even provides a summary for policymakers which allows non-experts to understand the science.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
Really when you think about it, this is an amazing accomplishment. In how many fields do the experts gather together and analyze all of the information in their field and put together a big summary report which most of them can agree is accurate?
As you can probably tell, I have a lot of respect for the IPCC, so it really bugs me when people claim it's corrupt.
What's your take on it?
2007-10-26 08:15:22 · 12 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Tomcat - no, but I wouldn't be opposed to one. My wife hates bumper stickers though.
Philip - I answered your question.
2007-10-26 09:29:06 · update #1
Bored of it more than anything. It's frequently the same people repeating the same things over and over again. If their arguments had any substance to them then they'd be able to focus on the science instead.
Additionally, many people who are skeptical of the IPCC quite clearly aren't aware what they actually do. If they're going to criticise then the least they could do is to understand what they're criticising.
Just another tactic to avoid addressing the real issues that supprt the theory of manmade global warming.
2007-10-26 13:42:00 · answer #1 · answered by Trevor 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I can see your point, but we are in the political realm here, and as presidential elections show, anything goes. I'm sure members of the IPCC don't lose too much sleep over what goes on on Y!A, We must be either committed to the welfare of the planet, in which case there is a good reason for us to be here, or, well, I'm not really sure.
I lose no sleep over people disrespecting me if I can't place any value on thier opinion. It's like being barked at by a dog.
For me the biger issue in Y!A is those who seek information and encouragement. If it were entirely barking dogs I wouldn't be here.
2007-10-26 08:33:11 · answer #2 · answered by John Sol 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I quite agree with you, the IPCC is one of the most respected and scientifically sound organisations invoved in environmental monitoring in the world. The people who claim it is corrupt cannot explain how it is corrupt. The people who dismiss its work are often neo-cons who hate the United Nations anyway and all it stands for. Of course the work of the IPCC is an embarassment to the Bush Administration which even has even censored and ignored the work of its own scientific advisers on environmental issues.. The new IPCC report, Geo 4, is clearly aimed at Government policymakers - it will be interesting to see the reaction of the Bush Administration to it.
2007-10-26 09:39:13 · answer #3 · answered by janniel 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity."
What person in their right mind would doubt the United Nations might not be the slightest bit political (sarcasm). The United Nations is a purely political institution that almost never has the interest of the US at heart. In reality Dana, the IPCC ignores reports and skeptics that don't fit its political agenda. Your respect for the IPCC is more like a blind allegiance IMO. What is disgraceful is taking the consensus of a political organization run by the UN as science IMO.
2007-10-26 08:52:55 · answer #4 · answered by JimZ 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
The naysayers attempt to discredit a lot of credible organizations. Generally speaking, they don't do a very good job on that account. Anyway, you're far more aware of the organizations' credentials than this group, so don't worry about it.
Respect is earned. There are quite a few on this site I respect, you being one of them. And then there are, well, a number of people who just don't want to get what you're talking about anytime soon.
2007-10-26 12:42:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Nope. Why should I? People disrespect all sorts of organizations, so much so, that it would be weird if the IPCC didn't have scorn and contempt heaped upon.
2007-10-26 08:49:00 · answer #6 · answered by Marc G 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. It is disgraceful that people disrepect the IPCC when they should properly be disrespecting the IPCC's politically correct pseudoscience instead.
2007-10-26 11:40:56 · answer #7 · answered by Rationality Personified 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No.
I get tired of questions in the global warming category that just say "global warming?" I mean can't they do any better than repeating the category title as their question?
2007-10-26 08:32:58 · answer #8 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Dana. I recently came accross this link. I'd value your opion on it. It's my q first then the data on Churchill.
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmCAursplduLK1egwpu_BjQaSxh.;_ylv=3?qid=20071026110341AAvRnwU
http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?Province=MAN%20&StationName=&SearchType=&LocateBy=Province&Proximity=25&ProximityFrom=City&StationNumber=&IDType=MSC&CityName=&ParkName=&LatitudeDegrees=&LatitudeMinutes=&LongitudeDegrees=&LongitudeMinutes=&NormalsClass=A&SelNormals=&StnId=3675&
2007-10-26 08:58:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I really don't care. I have no use for insults or opinions, I just redline them rather than creating "phishing questions" like this one. You should know better *tsk tsk*.
2007-10-26 11:27:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋