After formation through considerable training and professional development it does turn out that scientists know something about science. And typically more than folk who have not undergone this formation. They also understand something about peer-review, impact, and citations. It is a special group, albeit no more unique than other professional group -priests, doctors, lawyers, etc. if this sounds like prideful worship to you, you’ve got some explaining to do.
Without examining each paper in detail, it is impossible for me to know that those papers are relevant. And even if I did examine them in detail, I probably could not judge their accuracy based on my own expertise. So that leaves me with trust. I have more reason to trust the IPCC for both objectivity and accuracy as compared to the NIPCC. So the most reasonable position for me to take is that the papers cited by the NIPCC and which the IPCC completely ignored were either irrelevant or biased and inaccurate.
As I said before, Science as it is practiced is the best source of scientific truth. If you know of a better source, what is it?
Very well. I will. I read this about Climategate:
No, your rephrasing was sufficient.
So explain your comment then.
Not at all and the claim has been thoroughly discredited. You appear to have a problem discerning subjectivity.
Hand waving away valid scientific research because it does not conform to your partisan ideology is not an argument. The NIPCC reports include over 4000 scholarly peer-reviewed references that are as relevant, unbiased and accurate as what is cited in the IPCC reports. This ignored scientific research comes from the same journals referenced in the IPCC reports.
The true story of Climategate can be found here:
Does volume of citations determine scientific merit?
Why should anyone trust your references to Climategate more than mine? Do you deny that
As I said, I am not qualified to check the scientific accuracy of those reports. I dismiss them for that reason - not because I choose to ignore them. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to say that I could read them and verify them personally.
That claim you have stated but not proven.
The fact that the NIPCC is seen as a counterbalance to reporting that is deemed inaccurate a-priori is evidence that the NIPCC is itself a biased agenda-driven organization. You could prove me wrong by citing a group of papers that the NIPCC cites positively and which affirm the findings of the IPCC. Can’t find them? Then it is reasonable to assume they were left out on purpose.
I think competent scientists should read both reports and come to their own conclusions. But people like me are unable to do that. We need to trust someone.
Who is “we?”
Because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection at any time.
I do not deny the white washed findings of these committees. The truth however is much more interesting.
Both reports have summaries written for anyone with at least a high school diploma to be able to understand them:
Very curious posting on science discussion and debate.
…which is exactly why I trust it more than your list of hand-picked agenda-driven articles that no one can correct.
You have not yet shown why anyone should believe what you say is the truth over what someone else say is the truth. Listing several smear campaigns and calling it the truth does not make it so.
Summaries would be insufficient for the purpose your argument needs. Recall that the question what whether the average person could determine which articles were accurate so they could “decide between them.” Obviously we can’t pass judgment on the accuracy of a scientific article by reading only the summary, which tells** what** they concluded, not how exactly they concluded what they did. Judging between two conflicting summaries means judging who is the more persuasive writer. It still comes down to who do you trust. If you want to convince me of something that I cannot directly verify myself, then cite someone who I already know and trust who is saying that.
The heat content of the oceans is 1000 times greater than the heat content of the atmosphere, both of which “take up” heat. In El Nino years heat heat certainly appears to be given up by the Pacific. In La Nina years, what? - heat is absorbed? OK, these are natural cycles. What is the impact of CO2 on these processes? I think that question has generated some weak answers.
This is the point I was making. There is simply insufficient data to support the assertion that the missing heat is in the oceans. That “it is presumed to be” may be legitimate, but “it is” is not, and ocean temperature charts going back to the early 60’s cannot be taken too seriously due to obvious “sampling limitations.” I’m not insisting the heat was not taken up in the oceans, all I’m saying is that we cannot claim to know that it was.
This phrasing is fine and indicates the true state of knowledge of the matter, but here’s the question: if CO2 increases the heat in the climate system by causing the atmospheric temp to increase, how do the oceans get heated while the atmosphere does not? Atmospheric temperatures did not increase so all the excess heat went elsewhere, yet if CO2 is the culprit the excess heat must have originally been atmospheric. What’s the explanation for that?
Asked and answered.
Why so? I am just recognizing my limitations as a non-expert.